Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: more honest online

instinct

April 6th, 2013

 

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

 

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 <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>.

 

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

 

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

instinct good or badNow.

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.

pew, religion & the muslim world

February 28th, 2013

 

“And the dawn came to the trusted ones and He who had cast them out returned and it was then that the light was shown.” – Muhammad in the Koran.Controversy Continues To Swirl Around Erection Of Mosque Near Ground Zero

 

As part of the newer PewResearch studies they took a look at the Muslim world and Islam religion <note: most of this post is a direct pull from the Pew report>. The survey, which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in over 80 languages, covered 39 Muslim countries and territories.

 

Let me begin with something that I believe will make you want to read on <because I imagine it does not align with many of the perceptions most people have>.

 

“Most Muslims Want Democracy, Personal Freedoms, and Islam in Political Life” – July 2012 Pew

 

I often believe we in the western world have a skewed perception of Muslims and the religion of Islam therefore there are some things I would like to share from a Pew Research study.

Before I do … consider this.

Fundamentalists are … well … fundamentalists <and often extremists>. Sounds obvious but needs to be stated upfront. I will not call them wackjobs but I will suggest that (1) they are in the minority <in all religious beliefs> and (2) their voices and actions are significantly louder than their sheer numbers and (3) regardless of the religion we may decide to discuss their actions will always be at the fringe of what is acceptable to the mainstream.

I think it is crazy for a Christian based group to base their perceptions on a small fundamentalist <albeit sometimes radical> Muslim group … just as I believe it would be crazy for a Muslim moderate majority to base their perceptions on a small fundamentalist <albeit sometimes radical> Christian group.

Regardless.

Just think and try and keep an open mind … and read some of what a non-biased research study states.

 

The study.

We are many months past what we called the Arab Spring. And the news continues to review the struggles of new government and new social construct. Yet, there continues to be a strong desire for democracy in Arab and other predominantly Muslim nations.

Solid majorities in Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan believe democracy is the best form of government, as do a plurality of Pakistanis.

Yes.

Even Pakistan.

A quick side note … we in the united states should never confuse a desire for democracy to be a desire to be friends with the United States. America does not own democracy nor does America have the “how to” guide that other countries can follow <unless you want to skip to chapters called ‘revolution’ and government unrest>.

Anyway.

These countries not only support the general notion of democracy but they also embrace specific features of a democratic system, such as competitive elections and free speech.

However.

They do not want a separation of ‘church & state.’ They would like religion to play a significant role in their country and government.

A substantial number in key Muslim countries want a large role for Islam in political life. But we should note that there are significant differences over the degree to which the legal system should be based on Islam.

This all means that while democratic rights and institutions are popular, they are clearly not the only priorities in the Muslim majority nations surveyed. In particular, the economy is a top concern. And if they had to choose, most Jordanians, Tunisians and Pakistanis would rather have a strong economy than a good democracy. Turks and Lebanese, on the other hand, would prefer democracy. Egyptians are divided.

-          the challenge religious beliefs createpew religion survey all

There is a strong desire for Islam to play a major role in the public life of these nations and most want Islam to have at least some influence on their country’s laws.

Majorities in Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt believe laws should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran, while most Tunisians and a 44%-plurality of Turks want laws to be influenced by the values and principles of Islam, but not strictly follow the Quran.

The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are united in their belief in God and the Prophet Muhammad and are bound together by such religious practices as fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and almsgiving to assist people in need. But they have widely differing views about many other aspects of their faith, including how important religion is to their lives, who counts as a Muslim and what practices are acceptable in Islam, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The survey finds that in addition to the widespread conviction that there is only one God and that Muhammad is His Prophet, large percentages of Muslims around the world share other articles of faith, including belief in angels, heaven, hell and fate (or predestination). While there is broad agreement on the core tenets of Islam, however, the Muslims surveyed differ significantly in their levels of religious commitment, openness to multiple interpretations of their faith and acceptance of various sects and movements.

Generational differences are also apparent. Across the Middle East and North Africa, for example, Muslims 35 and older tend to place greater emphasis on religion and to exhibit higher levels of religious commitment than do Muslims between the ages of 18 and 34. In all seven countries surveyed in the region, older Muslims are more likely to report that they attend mosque, read the Quran (also spelled Koran) on a daily basis and pray multiple times each day. Outside of the Middle East and North Africa, the generational differences are not as sharp. And the survey finds that in one country – Russia – the general pattern is reversed and younger Muslims are significantly more observant than their elders.

 

-          a bruce thought.

This is being posted at the same time as my observations on the Religion in America Pew study … and I found it interesting that when you put on some harsh ‘truth goggles’ you begin to see some key generational similarities when discussing religion.

I believe all religions have a challenge with the younger generations.

By the way … this is not a ‘new issue’ in that the world has faced it before. Without going into excruciating detail from the 4th Turning and how religious belief ebbs & flows from generation to generation suffice it to say that the religious challenges today are not solely driven by technology or the ‘flattening of world’ but also by how generations interact with each other.

A couple of thoughts.

First.

We should never be surprised by what we perceive is happening in our little corner of the world is actually happening in many little corners of the world. Call it the 100 Monkey Theory or just call it being human … but it happens.

Second.

Religious leaders, of all religions, shouldn’t be freaking out. And they shouldn’t be wringing their hands worried over the demise of religion. It is simply a demise of the religion as they know it. the construct and core can remain steadfast but out f the general chaos and ‘destruction’ can be built a newer stronger belief system. Out of that being broken something new and stronger can be built.

<call me religious leaders … I would be happy to help>

 

-          both Democracy and Economy Are Priorities

Majorities in five of the six nations polled (and a plurality of Pakistanis) believe democracy is the best form of government. Moreover, there is a strong desire in these nations for specific democratic rights and institutions, such as competitive multi-party elections and freedom of speech.

pew muslim 1

 

Other goals are also clearly important. Many say political stability is a crucial priority, and even more prioritize economic prosperity. When respondents are asked which is more important, a good democracy or a strong economy, Turkey and Lebanon are the only countries where more than half choose democracy. Egyptians are divided, while most Tunisians, Pakistanis and Jordanians prioritize the economy.

Overall, views about the economic situation in these countries are grim, although Turkey is a notable exception.

 

-          a Bruce note

Well. this certainly sounds relevant doesn’t it? money, or prosperity, is important to the happiness of people. Actually balance is important to people. The happiest people tend to be economically sound <not necessarily wealthy> and ‘valuely’ sound <some religious foundation>. They are happiest because they are well grounded in head, heart & wallet. That my friends … is called balance. It always seems crazy to me when all the talking heads expound on one aspect over the other … well … because it is crazy. One aspect can certainly be more important and can dominate within an individual but the happiest has aspects of all. Balance. What a crazy thought. 

 

-          limited support for extremist Groups

Ok. This is an important one.

Across the survey and the key six Muslim nations, less than 20% have a positive opinion about al Qaeda or the Taliban. In Turkey and Lebanon, support for these groups is in the single digits. However, fully 19% of Egyptians rate these extremist organizations favorably.pew muslim 2

 

 Extremist groups are largely rejected in predominantly Muslim nations, although significant numbers do express support for radical groups in several countries. For instance, while there is no country in which a majority holds a favorable opinion of the Palestinian organization Hamas, it receives considerable support in Tunisia, Jordan and Egypt.

The militant Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah receives its highest overall ratings in Tunisia, where nearly half express a positive opinion. Sizable minorities in both Jordan and Egypt also have a favorable view, but Hezbollah’s image has been declining in both countries in recent years.

It is extremely rare that extremists have complete support … and they tend to do have more support within economically challenged groups <because in some odd way they represent ‘hope’ … a powerful attribute>.

 

-          a bruce note

Extremists are … well … extreme. And most people reject the extreme … in anything. However, religious extremists, within any and all religions, are difficult to completely reject because at their foundation, their soul as it were, they have an undying belief in something true. Allah, or God, is not a bad thing to believe in. they struggle to understand that most people believe that the path to salvation is not paved with stones of the extreme. Rather they are paved with some basic beliefs and most of us do not believe we have to, or should have to, walk a gauntlet of pain & suffering in order to be accepted by whatever Higher Being we believe in. We get this. Extremists do not get this. And before ‘we’ start casting stones at the Muslim world we should take a good look around us and at our own brand of extremists hovering around our own world.

It may also be helpful for us to take a look at extremists and terrorism and note that Muslim extremists kill more Muslims <and Christian extremists kill more Christians> as we think about this.

Ok. My point? Religion per se is not the issue. Extremism is the issue.

We should not confuse the issue.

 

That’s it.

It was good information and I wanted to share all under the enlightened thinking heading.

Studies like this are at the foundation of Enlightened Conflict.

Pew, religion and us common folk

February 28th, 2013

pew survey america“There are two bibles … well … only one originally but now split in two. Half is in the book written on paper and the other half is inside of people. You are born with it but it’s up to you to find out. You gotta learn to see it for yourself … that’s the only way.” – from the book ‘City of the Dead’

 

Well.

PewResearch just completed another study measuring religion in America and the number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace.

In fact … one-fifth of the U.S. <a third of adults under 30> are religiously unaffiliated today. This is the highest percentages ever seen in Pew Research.

 

-          Before I begin let me share a thought will consistent bring to bear in this post … religion, to me, is not what is written, or said, but what someone believes. It is the ‘half the book’ inside you … whatever that book <Koran, Bible, Torah, etc.> is. That said … the books and teachings provide a construct, or framework, for what someone believes. As I have noted in a past post, I do not believe you can create something from nothing … and religious belief is exactly the same.

 

Anyway.

Pew states that in the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. This number includes more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).

religion subtleThis large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives.

You can view, and download, the entire report here if you would like: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

 

Let me begin with why I believe this is happening … and conclude with what it doesn’t mean.

 

-          Why these study results are happening.

Intolerance and “the devil is in the details.”

<note: I believe these are significantly more impactful than trust or any – human – flaws organized religion may have exhibited in the past>

It is the extremes in religions that produce intolerance and extreme opinions and threaten a tolerant well balanced society and not the rejection of religion that is creating the results.

I will avoid same sex marriage and abortion and pick a more benign example to showcase absurd intolerance … and how it ripples out in its effect.

For example <and I include the link to this article below> … Mix It Up at Lunch Day in the United States is one of those programs that seems like the right thing to do.

The idea is that on one day of the school year, kids are invited to have lunch with the kind of kids they don’t usually hang out with: the jocks mix with the nerds, lunch tables are racially integrated, et cetera. Sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as part of their Teaching Tolerance division, it arose out of a broad effort to tackle the problems of bullying in the schools and bigotry in society – and it appears to have been effective in breaking down stereotypes and reducing prejudice. Over 2,000 schools nationwide now participate in the program.

 

And, yet, a religious group has challenged the Day in court and threatens this initiative … and initiative that, frankly, you really have to dig deep to find something wrong.

Here is the article:

“I don’t believe for a moment that this hysterical voice that screeches in America’s political sphere is the authentic voice of religion in America. Most religious Americans want to mix it up at lunch! They want to make friends across party lines, and they want to help people who are less fortunate. A survey by the Public Religious Research Institute, released on 24 October, reveals that 60% of Catholics believe the Church should place a greater emphasis on social justice issues and their obligation to the poor, even if that means focusing less on culture war issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.” – author of linked article, Katherine Stewart

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/26/religious-fundamentalism-toxic-partisanship-us-politics

 

While I am still slightly dumbfounded that someone would be against an initiative like this I use it to make a point that rigidity creates the conflict & tension where organized religion doesn’t win.

The net impression is that organized religion is about … well … organized religion … and not for the overall good of the people.

The struggle that organized religion has is that I would imagine, given an opportunity, it would not want to be affiliated with this smaller group’s actions <or any of the smaller extremist groups out there>.

Organized religion is being damned by a minority <pun intended>.

Regardless … it all feeds into a cynicism for organized religion and increases the belief that all that really matters is ‘individual belief.’

<I will get back to that point at the conclusion>

 

Ok.

The pun I used … “the devil is in the details.”

I apologize to my religious friends if they believe I am suggesting the devil is involved anywhere in this discussion. He is not. The details are the laundry list of “rules of the road” organized religion demands to be a true believer in God.

This is a tricky issue.

I have published articles that state my belief that religions need these details, eliminate some ‘on-the-ground’ ambiguity so that people don’t get stuck in the gray.

However … it is within some of these details that organized religion finds themselves trapped in some relatively absurd boxes.

Look.religion god literally

The percentage of Americans who say the Bible should be taken literally has fallen in Gallup polls from an average of about 38% of the public in the late 1970s and early 1980s to an average of 31% since.

But.

I would like to note that I believe there is a corresponding whiplash affect <going back to my initial “extremes” creating the discomfort with organized religion from an overall perspective>.

What I mean is that as the percentage of ‘literal interpretation of the bible’ people has declined I believe the percentage remaining, who believe ‘literal interpretation’, has become increasingly threatened and therefore have even stronger inclination to literalness.

In other words … that percentage is a minority <and shrinking> but more rigid and uncompromising.

By the way … that is a natural human response.

Regardless.

 

-          What this study does not mean.

God is loved no less than before.

And moral underpinnings are not diminished.

 

You cannot equate the fact that one in five Americans having no religious affiliation with a diminished importance of the moral underpinnings. Suggesting such a thing is extremely unfair, and untrue, to those who may display a distaste for organized religion but who do not doubt the existence of a God.

In addition, even if you take into consideration a rejection of aspects of the “literal interpretation of the written word” <recorded thousands of years ago> doesn’t diminish the moral standards that exist in our minds.

One can still have the same ethics and morals as proclaimed by any of the religions without belonging to a church/mosque/temple.

 

Me?

religions togetherIn general I believe Americans have lost faith in religion … not in God.

<note: I do not believe Americans are alone in this … I just do not have the research on hand to pony up and show it beyond my opinion>

 

My issue/thoughts?

I do believe religion, or organized faith, not only has a role in society but I also believe it has an opportunity.

I said at one point earlier … “feeds into a cynicism for organized religion and increases the belief that all that really matters is ‘individual belief’ …”

I do believe construct matters. Guardrails matter. And sometimes individuals are not good at building guardrails … and I know for sure if I were to gather 100 people and have each build guardrails they would not all be the same.

In addition, humankind, in general, seems to be showing more and more flaws.

In addition, it seems we humans, in general, are becoming less and less centrist <in everything> and more extreme in our overall opinions.

This means more divisive.

In addition, leader/heroes are becoming more difficult to find.

 

What this means to me?

We need God.

We need a belief in a God.

And whether we like, or dislike, organized religion the role it plays is to organize people around God. They facilitate (and shouldn’t act like the end all).

I imagine I am suggesting that people are disillusioned with institutions in general.

But I don’t believe we are actually disillusioned with God.

And <God forbid> if we are?

I tend to believe it shows a lack of understanding.

And religious organizations can help people understand.

 

Couple of thoughts to end this research overview.

First.

The organized opportunity.

We are better drivers when there are lines on the road. We know what lanes to stay in and even use blinkers <most of the time> when we want to shift lanes.

Rules of the road are good.

It permits us to not only judge our own actions but the actions of others.

Is this a bad analogy? Maybe. But you get the point.

I do not agree with people who say “we know the right thing to do without anyone telling us.” We all can always use someone telling us the right thing to do. I call it stimulus-response. Maybe that is organized religion’s sole responsibility to society and culture … to provide a “right” stimulus and we can ‘respond’ as we see fit <accept, adapt, reject>.

I don’t actually believe that but if that is true I can think of worse things.

I actually believe that if organized religion <of all religions> get their shit together they will be in the stimulus-response business. In other words … stimulate ‘good’ responses.

That is called ‘encouraging desired behavior’ in the business world.

Crazy talk on my part? Maybe. But it can be done … and it works.

 

Second.

Faith & hope.

I do not have proof of this but I have studied human behavior for years.

I get concerned that as organized religion decreases individualism <or “it is all about me” attitude> increases. In other words we lose sight of the bigger picture ‘hope’ and larger view of ‘faith in groups, culture, civilization, etc.”

I am not suggesting organized religion is necessary to keep us out of some self-satisfying individual driven society but I do believe it plays a significant role.

It helps balance.

It helps provide those societal guard rails.

Does this show that I don’t have faith in people to do the right thing all by their lonesome?

Whew.

Maybe.

Individuals respond to the culture they exist in. If they perceive that those at the top are ‘in it for themselves’ and driven by self/individual wants/needs/desires than they will start to emulate that behavior <at least some aspects>.

It becomes a “Me” driven society.religion world 940

Organized religion, for all its warts, is a constant reminder that salvation is not just through God but also society. You may not follow all their rules and regulations but you do keep a North Star view on the betterment of all versus I.

Religion is in the faith & hope business.

And, frankly, we all could use a good dose of that on occasion.

 

Sorry.

I wrote less about the Pew Research than I did my own thoughts. But I did include a link to the research and it is interesting stuff.

In the end I believe people tend to look at this research and wring their hands in dismay and start thinking about the “crumbling of civilization as we know it” rather than recognize it is simply reflecting change.

And change represents opportunity.

And I think we could all take an opportunity to do some soul searching <pun intended>.

urging Catholics to come home

January 16th, 2013

Catholic C hurchInteriorCapeMayNJ

“… get back in the game.” – Lou Holtz for Catholic Come Home campaign

 

Oh my.

I was getting my fill of football action on TV and … ‘holy mackerel!’ … a mush mouthed Lou Holtz starts telling me I should go back to church <or better said … in his words … ‘get back in the game’>.

 

Catholic Come Home Lou Holtz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcMGJmB5D84

 

The campaign is called “Catholic come Home” and in my world <consumer attitudes & behavior> this is a ‘lapsed customer’ strategy as in ‘I used to attend church but now I am a lazy ass and play tennis instead.’

Oh.

And they have tried it before:

Catholic Come Home 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvA29P1U7OU

Anyway.

I am not going to take the Catholics to task for doing this because … in fact … in 2009 I actually wrote something that suggested they needed to do something like this <in combination with some internal organizational actions>.

<http://brucemctague.com/why-islam-appears-to-be-kicking-christianitys-ass>

 

However.

I am going to suggest they can do a shitload better than this.

And I will even define ‘better’ because the execution is horrendously trite and how the message is communicated <the words themselves> will only appeal to those who are already parking their happy asses on the pew.

 

But where I begin is with my main gripe.

Why is it that something as important as this doesn’t get some good expert advice and work?

 

With that gripe I will begin by skewering the attempt.

This Lou Holtz fake locker room pep talk is the newest “evangomercial” <I did not make up that term> from Catholics Come Home.

It intended to “inspire, educate and evangelize inactive Catholics and others, and invite them to live a deeper faith in Jesus Christ.”

Now.

I love that message. I love the direction. I love they actually incorporated a strong call to action <stronger than simply ‘inviting’>.

I love that someone actually decided to try this.

But. How the message is communicated? This fake locker room pep talk?

One word.

Yikes.

Lou  says:

catholics tv ad“for victory in life we’ve got to keep focused on the goal, and the goal is heaven.”

And.

“And when we fumble due to sin — and it’s gonna happen — confession puts us back on the field.”

And.

“So if you haven’t been going to mass weekly, get back in the game … we’re saving your seat on the starting bench this Sunday.”

 

Holy cow.

You cannot make this stuff up. This is the kind of garbage I would see an unskilled aspiring advertising young person put in their journal as a first draft. And then scratch out as a first draft garbage attempt. Or this is some person who is sitting at home saying “hey, I can do that advertising stuff as well as any of those guys getting paid the big bucks!” <as they scratch their millionth lottery scratch card thinking ‘why shouldn’t I be a millionaire too?’>.

C’mon.

That script. Who the hell talks like that? <very few … maybe an evangelist … maybe a church attending believer … uh oh … but none of the ‘lapsed customers’>

Next.

The execution.

Who the hell would actually think this was a good use of Lou Holtz?

I would never use Lou as a spokesperson anyway <because he slurs instead of states> but say I actually did have the opportunity to use such a famous <and semi respected> spokesperson. Well. I certainly would seek to maximize his speaking skills <which would minimize long dialogue> and I would certainly seek to maximize respect & trust quotient <translation … I wouldn’t put him in a fake scenario and ask him to do a fake speech>.

For god’s sake <pun intended> … let the man speak from his heart. He used to be a coach but is no longer one. And everyone <who matters> knows that. But … he is, and has always been, a catholic & Christian. I don’t need any borrowed interest here. In fact borrowed interest makes it trite & almost silly.

<note: this topic is not silly>

Ok.

What happened? <and I don’t even have to guess this time>

 

Note: Here is where I go directly to hell <without passing Go>.

 

Catholics Come Home President Tom Peterson  said … “The Holy Spirit inspired me to write this script more than a year ago … by God’s grace I ran into coach Holtz last July in the Los Angeles Airport, inviting him to star in this evangomercial. So you can understand why I’m confident that God is watching over us and has a wonderful plan in store!”

Well.

God is omnipotent and omniscient … therefore … he is aware of all the good and bad advertising out there <I believe He can watch all 285 channels on TV at exactly the same time> … and I do not believe this advertising was the plan He had in store for the Catholics.

Please.

Tell me that God isn’t an advertising hack.

Look.

I absolutely believe this is something the Catholic Church <or Christianity in general> should be doing. It’s important for the church to think like a consumer business in order to evangelize <gain/regain customers> and defend itself <retain customers>.

I agree with what the organization says on their own website … “So many ask: Where are the Catholics? With so many fallen-away Catholics, why don’t we use the mass media to help our fellow Catholics return to Jesus and his church?” <and I could quote numerous numbers from recent PewResearch to support the depth of the challenge but this post is long enough>

Here is what I said in a ‘wayback post’.

Currently Christianity is mush and its extremists are uncoordinated and verbally inept in the PR department. Islamic moderates are silent and Islam extremists are vocal (coordinated as a group, clear in its communications and beliefs – regardless of how wacky they may be — and they have the PR game down).

Success will be dictated by coordination & focus … and tell it to us straight.

If I could sit Tom down … or any Christian leader for that matter … I would suggest that they remember the strategic decision they made.

First and foremost they said “return.”

This is a lapsed customer. Most likely this customer is not extremely dissatisfied <as in they hate the product> … they still love the product <God in this case> … they just have doubts <about the manufacturer>.

My guess is that despite the fact many church going Catholics are embarrassed by this commercial … most of those same people hang on every word and say “amen” <that is ‘right on’ in non-Catholic street language>  to the words themselves.

And you know what? If they were the target maybe this would be an okay commercial.

But they ain’t the target … and I bet I get 100 emails from some grumpy Catholics and I promise you I will send a short message saying exactly that.

Good words for a current church going customer.

Bad words for a lapsed <one we would like to ‘come home’> customer.

What would be good words?

Remind people how they feel when they ‘come home.’

Don’t tell them they will go to hell if they don’t go home <because … I hate to tell Tom and everyone else who worked on this ad … but by telling everyone that the path to heaven is the Catholic home then the obvious conclusion is that I am going to hell if I don’t go home>.

Tell them about Hope.

Tell them about comfort.

Tell them about grace <in life>.

 

I have said this before, will say it again … and will say it all to any Christian willing to listen:

 

Three thoughts in taking steps to getting Christianity <and Catholicism as a subset> back on track:

 

1. Get Organized. Remember. It is called organized religion not organization religion. Get organized but don’t let organizations get in the way.

  • Organized idea 1: Get the different Christian perspectives together and gain alignment. Be organized and focused on the core aspects. This includes picking the objectives, the people target tied to each objective and the message and stay focused and go do it.
  • Organized idea 2: Ralph Nader just published an interesting book “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”highlighting a thought that the way to create change was to have the most successful business leaders gather together and lead the change America needs. Why can’t Christian/Catholic non-church tied business leaders do the same?

 

2. Create construct. Cut contradictions. Focus on the core aspects and create a construct for people to simplify, focus and understand. I understand religion has “dimensions” but on core aspects there should be no contradictions within Christian belief. If there are “rules of the road” then set them up. Be clear. For example, “You can do this but you cannot do this.” You know what I mean. If the “organized group” cannot agree on this construct then how the heck do you think the general public will be able to agree with anything?

Now.hope holding hands2

This doesn’t mean this should all be communicated in advertising & commercials. Because this type of information is what is called ‘features.’ People don’t buy features … people buy benefits. Yes. Going to heaven is a benefit … but even better … so is Hope. So is Grace.

Regardless. Home is our personal cocoon from Life. It is where we re energize to go out and battle day after day outside those four walls. I am not a Christian but I gotta tell ya … I could think of worse homes than a church for people to re energize within.

And I cannot think of a better aspect to simplify & focus on than that.

 

3. Organizational Discipline. Christian leaders (upper, middle and lower management) all need to follow the rules. Those they lead maybe make “human” mistakes and earn forgiveness but leaders are role models and cannot be permitted to make ‘core aspect’ mistakes and be forgiven. The leadership team is judged on how disciplined it is in following the master design/construct.

And while I initially wrote this for actual human behavior … this is also relevant to the ‘business side’ of Christianity <or let’s assume you think like a business without treating it like a business>.

All that said … if Catholics decide to actually do advertising they have clearly made a business decision. Marketing & advertising is a business.

Suffice it to say … in Life & in Business … there will always be things you want to do but then there are the things you SHOULD do. Tom <and Catholics come Home> wanted to say the words they used in the commercial … and they were right/true words … but they SHOULD have done something different and said different words to get the group  they were targeting to listen.

 

That’s it.

That is what was on my mind. You can certainly debate individual points. But don’t let that stop you from thinking about the overall perspective because something needs to be done. “Staying the course” is not an option. And maybe what I wrote can be a spark for someone else defining “what is right” if this isn’t.

I am not Cathloic nor am I a Christian <although a good friend has suggested to me that “there is a good Christian lurking within you Bruce” one day after a good philosophical/theological discussion>. Regardless of what I am personally … there is good advertising & communicating and there is bad advertising & communicating.

This catholic come home effort is bad.

And that is too bad … because I cannot think of many things more important than communicating this message effectively.

 

Ok.

Lastly. A quick explanation about me <because I do not really want to go to Hell>.

Maybe this may help me out by having everyone understand Bruce McTague is probably considered a non-believer by Christians and Muslims. But he does believe in God. He would lean toward the Christian version of God but mostly believes that people should have the right to choose and make an educated choice with regard to religion and their path to God. He is in general a supporter of organized religion and its directed thinking of God. Despite not having a specific religion nor attends church he finds that in times of desperation and depression it is comforting to think that God maybe looking over his particular little corner of the world. And maybe he feels passionate about this topic because in the end he believes that God represents Hope. And everyone everywhere deserves to have hope.

 

—

Last note: this effort is something I would assist on in a second … for free. Call me and I will make it happen.

 

who gets fired?

September 24th, 2012

…”we helped leave this race a statistical dead heat.”- stated after spending $250 million dollars

The Wall Street Journal outlines that an unprecedented amount of money is being spent in the American election. The total is somewhere near $500 million to date in advertising (here is tracking to date: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/).

Oh my. Think what that money could be used for … okay … that is a different article.

The spending, and number of ads, has become a little wacky this year because it isn’t just the candidates money nor is the majority of spending being done by the actual candidates <now there are random political ‘super pacs’ … people who say what they want to say and spend what they want to spend>.

Regardless.

Apparently all the spending hasn’t done jackshit to influence voter opinion.

Here is a humdinger of a Republican quote “we believe we have kept a number of races competitive and put important issues on the table.”

That is code for “our money didn’t do jackshit.”

Another quote <republican> …”we helped leave this race a statistical dead heat.” Please note that this was said despite the fact Romney’s poll numbers continue to lag the incumbent.

Wall Street Journal also did a spectacular job highlighting the spectacular ineptness of the advertising in specific areas where republicans overinvested in order to create the desired behavior <vote Republican> and reported spectacular failure to do so <in some of these states/areas Romney’s scores have actually declined>.

So.

Here is my question.

Who is getting fired?

Why do I ask that? Well, let’s try this whole situation out in the business world.

P&G spends over $4billion (in the US I believe). Pepsi spends an estimated $2.1 billion a year on marketing, McDonald’s $1.2 billion, and Coca-Cola is not far behind at $895 million. Let’s get closer to apples to apples comparisons … State Farm spends $860million, Apple around $650million and Volkswagen $730million.

I am either the CMO or the advertising agency standing up at the end of the year giving my report (just to be clear … any sane CMO would be putting their advertising person up at the front of the room to tell this story).

-          “Gee. The <plug in any of the billion or million dollar number from above here> kept us competitive. We didn’t gain any sales but, gosh darn it, statistically it was a dead heat! In addition … I would note we were absolutely disappointed with the lack of results in the places where we made investment spending <translation: we overspent and under delivered>.”

Needless to say … I am fired.

Heck.

I would fire me.

Why? Because some smartass <like me> is sitting off to the side saying something like “how the fuck do you spend $250 million dollars and get no return or increase?”

But you don’t even need a smartass like me sitting around in the business world because in the general business world $250 million is a lot of money and people expect to see some <positive> results if you spend that amount.

However, let’s assume that didn’t get me fired.

I actually make it to Q&A. I guarantee you someone <most likely the CFO because that is the person who seems to ask this question the most> will ask “what did we actually do and do we have any thoughts on whether it was the right thing to do?”

Here is where I figure out how to shift from my 110 page powerpoint presentation, where I had manipulated numbers to mask the disappointing results, to video so I can show the television executions. Yup. Of which almost 80% are negative messaging.

Needless to say … I am now fired.

And, once again, I would fire me.

Let me begin here by saying that with this large a budget I could live with running some <maybe 15-20%?> negative ads because they speak directly, and only, to my core audience who wants to think bad things about the other choices. Inevitably the negativity solidifies my base because I am simply saying what they want to hear <even if it may not be completely true>.

All that said … if the majority, the significant majority. Of my messaging is negative … well … ‘Houston, we have a problem.’

In general business negative advertising is specious at best in a short term effort and never an option long term.

In politics negative advertising is (1) unbelievable to the general audience, (2) polarizing in an unhealthy way and (3) well … as the British would say … ‘it’s just not cricket’ … <the equivalent of “not according to Hoyle”> ,in other words, it is diminishing through negativity rather than expanding through positive. Negativity increases your value by diminishing the other (so you could simply become the tallest midget). Negativity has never been an effective communications tactic and it has never been proven to build long term brand value.

I would tell politics the same thing any business industry knows … in a negative war of words no one wins. The entire category loses.

I would stand up in front of any politician right now and unequivocally state that the advertising war currently going on is not only a losing strategy for the candidates but a losing tactic for the country’s psyche.

Regardless, this isn’t a business lesson; this is me wondering who is going to get fired for wasting $500 million dollars.

I find the entire topic if not insane certainly inane.

Well.

The only people who I can envision taking solace in this entire insane topic are the Belarusians.

Huh? Belarus? Yup.

Belarus just had a round of elections in which the opposition candidates were ignored by television and newspapers declined to publish information.

Someone should send the opposition party the Wall Street journal article and suggest they just saved a shitload of money because any advertising they did was not going to make any difference anyway.

best of times

August 11th, 2012

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,

it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us ….”

-          Charles Dickens (Tale of Two Cities)

This may be the most famous literary opening to a book of all time. Well. At least the first line.

I tend to believe everyone knows … it was the best of times … it was the worst of times.

But I also tend to believe most people don’t know the rest … and they should because the entire opening is incredible.

Especially … “we had everything before us … we had nothing before us …”

My belief?

The thought you can have everything and nothing at the same time is a Life truth.

Your experience of the moment depends on what you choose to focus on.

Dickens has done an amazingly simple job outlining the contradiction, and tension, life gives us.

And I think about how it sums up the contradictory nature of every year, and indeed every day, of our lives.

And how it suggests that good and evil, wisdom and ignorance, and light and darkness stand equally matched in their struggle.

And that while we truly have everything ahead of us at any point in life … life is simply an empty vessel to be filled with whatever that ‘everything’ may be.

It reminds you of the ‘perfect’ day (it was the best of times).

It reminds you of the imperfect day (it was the worst of times).

It reminds you of having dreams and the faith and trust that it will work out and how you envision the outcome with all your heart and soul (it was the epoch of belief).

It reminds you of how fragile dreams as how often they can crumble before your eyes <and how you wonder why it happens to you> (it was the epoch of incredulity).

It reminds you of hope … hope for something good … or better than what is (it was the spring of hope).

It reminds you that sometimes hope is simply that … hope … and not a guarantee of reality or what will be (it was the winter of despair).

It is a reminder that while we may want to always live life ‘in the moment’ and in the ‘now’ in an attempt to maximize what is …  lives and experiences and moments are built on duality.

If we don’t experience the moments of sorrow or despair we can’t fully appreciate the moments of hope attained and joy.

I believe people don’t have to revel in the duality but possibly find solace, if not hope, within the duality.

And possibly find joy in the contradiction rather than despair at the unevenness.

Failed dreams can beget new dreams.

New realities can lead to needed life changes.

Even in times of feeling like you have everything you desire <or at least a lot> you can still experience lack of something.

Regardless.

I really love this Charles Dickens quote.

Many people have a view that a happy and fulfilling life should consist only of highs <or maybe better said … a significantly higher % of highs than lows>. , Or that a positive life should consist only of certainty <shelving fear and doubt in order to be successful>. Or should focus on success without failure.

This is flawed thinking in my mind.

Frankly it sets us up for disappointment.

Worse?

It probably sucks the life out of … well … life. It attempts to take the duality, or the importance thereof, out of Life.

No matter how you plan your day, year, or life, it will have times of … the best, the worst, wisdom, foolishness, belief, incredulity, light, darkness, hope, despair, everything and nothing.

If you accept that fact, well,  it is awful hard to plan a life if that is the case.

So maybe instead of planning we should just live it … and enjoy the duality and the contradictions.

That said.

“In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.” ― Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

So.

Maybe being a hero is not living a cowardly life and accepting what is right, and wrong, about Life … oh … and doing the right thing <when you know it is right> and not doing the wrong thing <when you know it is wrong>.

Simple thought … but a difficult thought.

Well. Maybe just a thought.

playing for change

August 9th, 2012

So.

A good friend sent me a link to something from a group (foundation) called Playing for Change.

Their mission is excellent (I will get to it later in the post) but technologically they create music videos (and songs) piecing them together from around the world.

I love this kind of stuff.

The music. The instruments. The mission/vision.  Here is the song & video that got me onboard with this whole thing:

Gimme Shelter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJtq6OmD-_Y

Ok.

About Playing for Change … “we are dedicated to creating positive change through music & arts education.”

The Playing For Change Foundation is dedicated to connecting the world through music by providing resources to musicians and their communities around the world.

It started a decade ago.

A small group of documentary filmmakers set out with a dream to create a film rooted in the music of the streets. It has since blossomed into a global initiative touching the lives of millions of people around the world.

While traveling the world filming and recording musicians, the crew became intimately involved with the music and people of each community they visited. Although many of these communities had limited resources and a modest standard of living, the people in them were full of generosity, warmth, and above all they were connected to each other by a common thread: music.

Out of these discoveries, the Playing For Change Foundation was born and made its mission to ensure that anyone with the desire to receive a music education would have the opportunity to do so. The Playing For Change Foundation is dedicated to the fundamental idea that peace and change are possible through the universal language of music.

Here are 2 more great examples:

Chanda (which features an amazing Israeli singer): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIzddbBW8n0&feature=related

Imagine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKoDGucPOWM&feature=related

There is also an incredible version of Bob Marley’s “War/No More Trouble.” It includes musicians from The Congo, Israel, India, Ireland, South Africa, the U.S., Zimbabwe and Ghana, along with Bono and Bob Marley.

They also do Marley’s “One Love” featuring Keb’ Mo’ singing with performers from India, Israel, Nepal, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Also. Beyond the initial venture, seeing great need in many of the locations where the crew filmed and recorded, inspired the Playing for Change folk to establish the Playing for Change Foundation, a distinct non-profit entity which provides resources – including facilities, technology, musical instruments and education – to musicians and their communities.  The Foundation’s first project, the Ntonga Music School in South Africa, was completed in January 2009.

So.

Even if you don’t like music I tend to believe you don’t have a pulse, or a soul, if you aren’t touched in some way after you read this quote:

“Thanks to the amazing people we have met on our journey– people in the poorest towns and villages who still manage to find hope in the midst of their daily struggles– we believe now more than ever in the resiliency of the human spirit, and in music’s ability to transform a dire situation into a hopeful one.”

Look.

I love music but I don’t give a shit if it is music, reading, teaching, helping, whatever … if you have an idea or action that can “transform a dire situation into a hopeful one’ I believe it is  worthwhile idea.

the eccentric

July 27th, 2012

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

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

Anyway.

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

Regardless.

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

Here are some of the wackjob highlights:

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

-          John Mytton an English squire who would ride a bear

-          Lord Rokeby who wanted to be amphibious

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

Ah.

But I won’t let America off the hook.

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

Yup.

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

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

Ok.

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

For example.

Despite the seeming mental issues Norton often demonstrated remarkable foresight.

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

I found a list of 4 brilliant examples who <I loved what someone else wrote so I used it> … seemingly over-revved the neurological engine, who watched as the gearbox and chassis of their brains flew off onto the roadside…and kept on accelerating.

Example 1 – Pythagoras The Genius:

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

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

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

Oh. But Pythagoras the nutjob:

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

Example 2 – Lord Byron The Genius:

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

Oh. Byron the nutjob:

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

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

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

(later)

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

Nuff said.

Example 3 – Tesla The Genius:

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

-Radio

-A/C Electricity

-Computers

-Robotics

-Radar

-Ballistics

-Nuclear Physics

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

Oh. But. Tesla the nutjob:

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

Oh. In addition.

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

<whew>

Example 4 – Empedocles The Genius:

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

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

-That light travels at a speed

-That Earth is a sphere

-Centrifugal force

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

-An (admittedly very crude) theory of evolution

-The Italian school of medicine

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

Oh. Empedocles the nutjob:

Empedocles believed he was a god.

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

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

Anyway.

Some genius. Some crazy. All eccentric.

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

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

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

In fact.

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

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

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

Fewer than 30 had ever been drug or alcohol abusers.

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

The study conclusion?

People benefited from non-conformity.

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

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

Well.

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh.

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

Ok.

That was fun to write about.

But. All that fun stuff said.

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

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

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

Think about that.

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

The point.

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

intellectual advance

July 24th, 2012

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

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

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

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

Paradigm is one of those words that implies bigness. All you have to do is to even suggest a paradigm shift and people … well … start shifting in their seats <I almost wrote ‘shitting in their seats’>.

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

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

All at exactly the same time.

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

So.

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

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

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

Not flippant but a well thought out abstract thought.

Simplistically? Serious.

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

We love the idea.

We kill it in detail.

Its unfortunate.

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

Nuff said.

That last sentence alone says it all.

Enlightened Conflict