Well.

Contrarians need to stick together … or … well … stick up for each other.

My newest contrarian hero is a guy named Jonah Berger … for several reasons. First. Because not only has he mastered the statement of the obvious:

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.” – Jonah Berger

… secondly, he also supports it with research <albeit some of us have been stating it, or something similar to it, for years> … and third, and most importantly, he is using all those trite ‘here is the secret to success’ business books as his foil.

Jonah has a new business book called “Contagious” which I will admit I will never buy but I will also admit probably does as nice a job of outlining some basics of effective communication.

<Contagious: Why Things Catch On by Jonah Berger. At 32, the assistant professor of marketing at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business is carving out a corner of academia for himself in the study of social epidemics, or how products, ideas, and behaviors become popular>

He even has a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

- Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

- Triggers: Easily memorable information means it’s top of mind and tip of the tongue.

- Emotion: When we care, we share.

- Public: Built to show, built to grow.

- Practical Value: News people can use.

- Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

Catchy isn’t it?

Basically he has used aspects from what every one of the top advertising agencies currently teach, utilize and suggest on their own websites <albeit they do it in mini sound bites> and compiled them into a list.

But.

Here is the real genius.

This is nothing new.

Story, Emotion, and Practical Value have been the mainstay of the communications business for years … nope … decades. Let’s even say for a century.

It was the cornerstone of everything I was taught in the advertising business beginning in the 1980’s.

Don’t believe that?

You can visit the advertising archives at Duke University and find this same information in archival information from the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s <in some nifty in house advertising>.

Anyway.

All that said … what makes him a bigger genius? <the part that makes him my newest hero>.

He is deflating all the tripe ‘The Tipping Point’ and ‘Made to Stick’ and all those other bestselling business books have been peddling to us and the stuff I know I have been kicked out of boardrooms for suggesting is sound bite tripe.

His book actually seems to also in a contrarian way attack what businesses have been battling for several years now … how to handle what Napoleon first suggested …

“un croquis vaut mieux qu’un long discours.” <a sketch is better than a long discourse>

Now.

Sketch <or brevity>. The business world has gone wacko over this thought … going to absurd lengths to create the ultimate soundbite under the belief “a person will only remember one thing” or “all people have the attention span of a gnat so tell them what you need to tell them in 3 seconds or less.”

Well.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less. Effective communication <or ‘contagious communication’> would be one of those topics.

No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately it is a combination of those things.

Regardless.

I have been tempted to write several business books … one even on simplicity and effective communications. And I just saw some of the high falutin’ folk with high falutin’ titles at SiegalGale <one of the top branding companies in the universe … yes … almost solar system-esque in their expertise> are publishing something about Simplicity … Simple: Conquering the Crisis of Complexity .

They could have used something from any of these …

http://brucemctague.com/simple-complicated-complicated-simple

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity

http://brucemctague.com/simplicity-the-project-brief

by the way … it is probably a ‘simple truth’ with regard to simplicity but the main issue is not trying to find the simple within a crisis of complexity but rather not making something that is extremely simply into something complicated <or complex>.

Anyway.

Let me explain the trouble I ran into writing my business book on ‘effective simplicity.’

It was a short book.

Two pages <on index cards in fact>.

Page 1: say something meaningful.

Page 2: say that something in an interesting way.

And then because about the only additional advice I give someone is to be ruthless editors with regard to communication and words <sketch instead of discourse Napoleon thing> … well … I simplified it into one index card:

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.” – Me <author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

Shit.

There is my book.

Save yourself a boatload of money on all those business books.

There it is.

Do that and you have as much of a chance of creating something contagious <or drive ‘message virality’ to use a Jonah term>, or made to stick or tipping cows or points or people or whatever.

There are no formulas nor are there any checklists.

It isn’t really about telling a story <although you can if it is interesting> and it really isn’t about simplified in a short sweet concise way <although you can if a long type driven story isn’t meaningful or compelling>. It is just about doing what is right at that time in that place.

You can use lots of words or few words.

You can use white space or little space.

You can use a great compelling visual or no visual at all.

You cannot use words or pictures or stories that say something meaningless.

You cannot be uninteresting.

Oh. If only it were all this simple.

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 3/11

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.”

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.

They 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.

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.

Increasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ 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.

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

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

Oh boy.

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

But.

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

Now.

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

But.

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the deal.

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

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

I wish it was actually that simple.

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

But.

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

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

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

Do you ever wonder how other people do it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So.

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

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

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

1) Present it’s premise clearly

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

3) Provide compelling evidence that it’s ideas work

4) Be credible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following quote struck a nerve.

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

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

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

In many ways that seems obvious to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Byrne’s book is problematic on many levels.

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

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

——–

So.

All that said.

Here is my point.

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

Have dreams.

Seek to be happy.

Seek success.

However you may define all the things I just listed.

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

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

But.

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

It is simply a useful tool for some people.

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

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

I have a secret for you.

Life ain’t that simple.

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

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

Good pianist.

Smart man.

Great advice <no secret>.

Love Life unconditionally … and you will be happy.

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.

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 create

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 4^th 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.

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.

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

“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%).

This 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.’

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.

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?

In 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.

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

“… 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” 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:

“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 … 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.

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.

dream big … because …

November 16th, 2012

I have said this before … it seems like today’s world is tough on dreamers.

It is hard to be a dreamer and it seems to be easier and easier to blindly move down a beaten path <getting beaten up by Life>.

We need to remind ourselves on occasion that it is okay to dream … and dream big.

And that relentlessly pursuing a dream can be inspiring … not discouraging.

Now. Being a big dreamer doesn’t mean that you walk around with your head in the clouds. It means that you have a purpose … a big purpose that makes your life bigger and fulfills some promise within you.

Of course … as usual … the key is to find a balance. Think ground and clouds. Pragmatic with no limits. A contradiction? Sure. But big dreams are a contradiction. As a practical relatively pragmatic human race we would never have them … unless some of them defied the odds and actually came true. Some really do happen.

Which reminds me <to remind everyone> that big dreams are things … not intangibles. They are not ‘becoming rich’ or ‘being a star’ … they are achieving greatness with an idea or a thought. Anyway. And while there should be a balance … there should be some big dream in all of us for a lot of reasons:

- Sense of Self.

Big dreams have a nice habit of increasing the size of your sense of self. You have to be careful it doesn’t become bigger than yourself and consume you … but big dreams remind you that you can make a big impact in some form or fashion. Maybe not today … but a hope of sometime. Big dreams can not only create some interesting self-purpose in life but it also reminds you that anyone, even you, is capable of the extraordinary. Even if it is just in thought.

Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose & imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary. - Sir Cecil Beaton

Maybe that is the biggest part of this ‘sense of self’ thought … it is likely the biggest reason why you wouldn’t want to settle on small dreams … does anyone really want to be a slave of the ordinary?

- Possibilities.

When you dream big things you will find new roads you may want to explore along the way. It is an adventure and sometimes extremely unpredictable and never ordinary. This is because big dreams can push limits of possibility <or what is possible> because it keeps the impossible in life in sight <if you can actually see something like impossible>. It all happens because big dreams are … well … not quantifiable. If they can be <in your head> I would suggest it is not really a dream but an objective or goal. A dream has to be so big it is just an idea … something difficult to put a number on it or a specific GPS coordinate. it is always somewhere on the horizon. And in reaching toward it the possibilities of new roads not taken <and never envisioned nor on any map as a matter of fact> increase significantly.

- Achieving stuff.

Yeah. You may not actually get the big one <the big dream> … but typically if you dream big, you increase the odds you actually achieve something … and it also increases the odds you actually achieve something relatively great in the scheme of things. You may even end up achieving more than you ever thought you could <even if it isn’t the big dream you began with>.

Big dreams are the reasons why the world changes … and becomes better. And I say ‘world’ as in if you define it in business … or in life.

It’s the reason why there have been so many inventions, new ‘out of the box’ ideas, creations or whatevers. As a business guy I love this following quote for the business big dreamers:

“New business concepts are always, always the product of lucky foresight. That’s right – the essential insight doesn’t come out of any dirigiste planning process; it comes form some cocktail of happenstance, desire, curiosity, ambition and need. But at the end of the day, there has to be a degree of foresight — a sense of where new riches lie. So radical innovation is always one part fortuity and one part clearheaded vision.”― Gary Hamel, Leading the Revolution

New concepts inevitably come from one part clearheaded big dreaming.

Same with new ideas. Same with anything really new … and really big. Oh. And along the way a lot of good little stuff happens too.

- Your legacy <and big dreams>

Big dreams give you the opportunity to truly leave your mark on the world in several ways.

You achieve it.

You don’t achieve it <but achieve other shit along the way>.

You don’t achieve it <and it is left for someone else to achieve>.

The first.

The achieving one is obvious. It is satisfying and certainly something at the end of the road you will probably look back on with some satisfaction. I will mention though that most big dreamers update their dreams if they actually attain the original.

You never really actually stop dreaming big <but do not tell anyone that>.

The second.

You don’t achieve it but along the road you have veered off on a variety of paths you encountered and did some good shit along the way. Your legacy is strewn with stuff you have left behind. I call this a ‘no regret’ life. You don’t really regret the missed ‘big dream’ cause you lived life doing stuff.

The third.

Oh. And not achieving the big dream … whew … what does happen to big dreams when a dreamer dies?

Here is the good news.

A big dream never really dies. Only dreamers do. Someone else grabs it as their own. I think most big dreamers recognize his and are okay with it. Big dreams aren’t really meant to be owned by anyone in particular except Life. They can be achieved by someone <if they are lucky enough to figure out how to do it> but big dreams are visionary.

Some big dreams cannot be fulfilled within a single lifetime. But they are so inspiring that future generations <or someone in that generation> will strive to achieve it.

And last.

Inspiring that future?

Well. Maybe, that in itself is why people should dream big.

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.

negative people

September 5th, 2012

A friend of mine recently reposted a thought thru twitter … “Watch out for your brain drain from negative nellys….” as a reference to a recent article in Inc. and it reminded me I had a thought on negativity in my draft folder which I had never posted.

Ah.

Negative Nellys.

Now. I had to start with ‘someone else reposted’ to insure no one had thought I had completely gone off the deep end and would have ever used that phrase <the nelly thing> on my own.

Regardless. Negativity is bad <Nelly or not>. And it is destructively bad.

And to be clear … I am not discussing cynics versus optimists <although I would imagine it may be a derivative conversation>. Because I believe the world needs a good mix of cynics and optimists. But a cynic need not be negative in attitude nor behavior.

Anyway. While my main point is about negativity I actually believe this discussion revolves around something I call ‘adders & subtracters.’

And while negativity and negative people fall into the “subtracter” header I will begin with some definitions/explanations and adders.

So.

If you think about life, people pretty much fall into two categories: Adders and Subtractors.

First.

The ‘Adders.’

You know. People who add things to your life. Things always seem to go better when they are around. Sometimes it is obvious and you just like them and being around them. And then sometimes they aren’t obvious because they aren’t big cheerleaders or self absorbed enough to point out what they are adding.

It is just that good shit happens whenever they are involved.

And, frankly, you feel better about yourself when they are around.

Ok. While I love these people (and unfortunately I tend to believe they represent a minority in the overall world population) this post ain’t gonna focus on them.

So … second.

And then there are the ‘Subtracters.’

Simplistically these are the people who subtract from your life. And they are killers in their own right. As I thought about how subtracters kill I remembered something Eckhardt Tolle said:

“Negativity is never the optimum way of dealing with any situation. In fact in most cases it keeps you stuck in it. Anything that will be done with negative energy will become contaminated by it and in time give rise to more pain and unhappiness. Furthermore. Any negative inner energy (state) is contagious. Unhappiness spreads more easily than any physical disease. Through the law of resonance it triggers and feeds latent negativity in others (unless they are immune).” – E. Tolle.

Subtracters are like quicksand killers.

They kill momentum.

They kill energy.

They kill hope <which is a version of energy>.

And maybe the worst of all … because it is so subtle … is the type who kill the joy of the moment.

Oh. They can be wily.

They can be slice and dice subtracters. Creating a death of a thousand cuts. Ah. Subtle subtraction. Its stealthy. It is rarely direct. Its like small pinpricks in the self esteem balloon. some examples … think things like … ‘that must be a home dye hair job’. Or. ‘Why would they ever wear something like that?’ Or. Start a phone conversation with “you are 4 minutes behind (said kiddingly)’. Or even … “did you notice how skinny he/she was?” These are indirect subtractions. Not only do they slice & dice from afar someone else but they subtly pick away at your own thoughts. Because if others can be nicked so easily … well … what about ourselves. It is stealthy. But it is just as damaging.

The non subtle is easy to spot. Its big self esteem attacking stuff. Aimed at immediately popping the self esteem balloon. They can be the heavy handed guillotine subtracters. Their negativity, seemingly subtle and sometimes obvious, can kill any motivation to move forward in your life (or even just the day itself to think on a smaller scale).

In the end … subtle or non-subtle … basically … subtracters suck to have around.

You can be motivated and ready to go ‘do’ when suddenly a subtractor tells you it cannot be done.

Or worse … that <you> specifically cannot get it done. They either flat out tell you (or maybe even worse just intimate so you invest energy pondering the question at hand) that you’re just going to fail and nothing is going to come of it.

Or … even worse than that last worse… they attack backwards … by taking a cut out of a past action.

Wow. Talk about depressing.

Negativity is a powerfully evil weapon.

It can destroy our belief in ourselves. It can take the joy out of life … even the simplest moments … moment by moment.

It subtracts us at our core sucking away motivation <that is so often a struggle to get in the first place>.

Bottom line.

The truth is negativity kills motivation.

Motivation to do <actions>.

Motivation to do good.

In addition.

What makes it even more challenging is compounding the subtractors (the people themselves) affect is the subtractors called ‘the media’.

News is a huge life subtractor if you are not careful. Because it is a source of negativity.

Scarily … negativity is actually a criteria for determining whether or not something is considered newsworthy. We all know that people like to watch negative things (which is why the majority of the time the front page of the newspaper is someone getting killed or some disaster occurring) but I don’t have to like it.

Negativity sells.

That’s why 75% of the news on TV is about hurricanes and tornadoes and crime and corrupt politics.

So that’s what they put on the news.

I guess I added those little factoids in to make the point that it is difficult to remove negativity from your life.

You cannot control ‘big media.’

But you can control everyday life.

And you can control daily ‘addition and subtraction.’

And you can make choices with the subtracters around you.

Identifying and eliminating subtraters is an essential step to personal happiness. It takes a harsh eye to your existing life (and maybe your attitude with regard to things) but it’s definitely worth it.

So think about this whole subtracter person thing.

We all have them … a friend, family member or work acquaintance who does nothing but complain, argue or just finds something wrong in anything and everything <in total or just n part>.

Ok. Ok. We have all been that person at some point in our lives … typically in a rough time in our lives.

But it is temporary.

It’s when someone seems bent on consistently finding the negative and constantly being negative (or finding one thing in every conversation to be negative about) that it can become a real problem.

It is extremely draining. In fact … it is … well … subtracting.

And not only is it draining but it can affect you … yourself … and relationships and friendships and, well, everything in your life.

Why?

Because if you even care one iota about life and what you are doing … you end up investing incremental energy when you are around a subtracter.

And therefore the subtraction takes on exponential proportions because subtractors have this seemingly stubborn determination to be negative … this despite how hard you try to be empathetic or positive or supportive or just in deflecting their negativity.

So. Stop. You have to do something.

You have to decide to do something to avoid having your energy further sucked out of you.

Because if you are not careful you not only have normal everyday positiveness sucked out of you they will also eat up all the positiveness you extend <in the effort to stop them being a subtractor>.

And that is trouble.

When that happens … you inevitably get exhausted and frustrated and, worst of all, pulled down there with them into the negativity black hole.

Think about how this all works. (It is pretty simple).

Before engaging with a subtracter you can be in a great mood with energy.

After engaging with a subtracter you feel deflated, unhappy and tired.

Period.

End of concept.

Oops. I guess it can be compounded even more.

I also tend to believe you invest a lot energy afterwards trying to think about how you may make the situation less deflating the next time around.

Look.

It’s mostly wasted energy.

First.

Negativity is next to impossible to unravel.

It’s like one of those brain tumors that weaves its way intertwining the fiber of your brain. It gets tied into inextricable knots among the good things in your brain. Which means that in your brain the good things never have any unfettered space to breathe and think.

Negativity starts squeezing out positiveness.

Anyway.

How do you drop it? Like a hot coal. Do not try an unravel it or analyze it or fix it.

Recognize you don’t want to suffer the pain anymore and just let go of it.

Second.

Recognize you cannot solve or fix this kind of subtractor.

The truth is they’re the only ones who can realize their negativity and decide to actually make a change.

Someone said it once really well “you cannot help people who cannot help themselves.”

Subtractors represent a bottomless pit of darkness of which no one has a bright enough light to lighten the depths of subtractedness.

Don’t try … even if you are one of those people who believe your role in life is to ‘save’ these people.

So.

Let’s go to the hard topic.

The REALLY hard topic.

Eliminating subtractors.

Yeah. You have to decide whether or not the ‘subtracter person’ (friend, family, whatever) is worth keeping. And cutting people out of your life is always difficult. Because negative or not if you care about them it sucks to cut them out of your life.

But do it.

And resolve it in your own head by knowing it was the right thing to do and think of her/him and wish her/him the best whenever they cross your mind.

When you do this? You will actually be relieved they are not part of your life.

It is addition by subtraction.

In the end … negative people … the subtractors … are dangerous.

They are simply a different type of murderer. And a sneaky type for they vary their technique by victim.

One cruel deep subtraction that can simply stop you breathing.

Or a thousand small cuts that ultimately drain life out of you.

Or something inbetween.

Regardless.

Subtractors are bad for a healthy life.

Ok.

Last thought on subtractors … how do you recognize a subtracter?

“Wicked people are always surprised to find ability in those that are good.” – Marquis de Vauvenargues

Subtracters are just a version of wickedness. They are always surprised by ability to do good.

I find this a great test of who is a subtracter around me. Anyway. Go forth and subtract the subtracters.

the futurist

July 11th, 2012

This is going to discuss a book called The Futurist <by a guy named Ottmer>. But before I discuss the book … this overall topic is one of my favorites … ahhhhhhhhhhhh … let me clarify … one of my favorite cynical topics … the fact that there are these bullshit slinging presenters and trend watchers wannabes who make an amazing living off of sound bite thoughts.

Do I begrudge them the ability to find a sound bite? Nope.

What I do have a grudge against is that I, and many other people, then have to invest an inordinate amount of energy explaining to people that the sound bite is just that … a sound bite … a simplistic meaningless irrelevant concept in the real world.

And then I found a book with someone who apparently has the same cynical attitude with regard to these ‘trend spotters.’

<note: I wish I had written this book>

So.

I have a stack of books next to my bed which invariably has some books that have been waiting a while to be read. I just finished The Futurist. In case you don’t want to read this well written quasi-fun, quasi-cynical fictional look at the “buzz creator” future trends world, here is nutshell look at these pop-culture bullshit artists using the opening speech at the Futureworld conference (a fictional conference) by JP Yates (a fictional person/futurist) in the book:

I realized this morning over breakfast that I’ve spent a good portion of my life seeking the approval of people I can’t stand. Including myself.

The truth is, I know nothing. Understand nothing.

I try. I am not lazy. But the more I try to understand something the more intertwined and complex it seems. The more I realize I am out of the proverbial loop. The literal loop. The existential loop. The more I think of things the more I question whether anyone is properly looped. In fact, I challenge the very existence of the loop, proverbial, literal or metaphorical. So this is a fundamental problem, being out of a loop that I don’t even believe in.

Most books or movies or creation myths have a hero who knows all there is to know about at least one thing. And he uses that gift to overcome an obvious and blatant evil adversary. He has insider knowledge. Special gifts. Ingenious ways of getting to the core of things. The answer. The solution. The truth. He knows what’s right and wrong. He knows what’s next. And he knows what to do about it.

I don’t.

I don’t understand the present let alone the fucking future.

Yet we claim to understand. Pretend to. Some actually believe it, that they do know. You know the people. The ones who talk about such things with such cocksure passion that you think, shit, maybe they do know, maybe they really do. They speak in absolutes. Blacks and whites. They speak with soothing partisan simplicity. They speak with their hands and use Powerpoint like a sword. They quote people you ought to know more about. They work on a privileged higher plane and posit their views with a condescending subterranean confidence, convincing you not to worry, that forces are at work on other levels, levels that simple folks like us cannot even begin to fathom, so it’s best not to worry your pretty little head about it and trust them, the experts, that this is the way it is. And the way it will be.

People get rich and powerful operating this way, perpetuating the myth of the uber level, the exclusive loop. Dispensing their wisdom and opinions and edicts to the masses. Breaking down the conflicting moral, political and economic issues of 52 billion people into a binary proposition. Yes or no. War or peace. Good or bad. With us or against us. Ginger or Mary Ann.

Presidents work on this level. And dictators. Talk show hosts. Professional wrestlers. Actresses on the steps of the capitol. Conservatives. Liberals. The members of VFW Post #442. CEOs. Madison Avenue. Wall street. Sesame Street.

They’re all in the loop. All working on another level.

I’m not.

I don’t believe in the scared loop or the secret level.

In fact, I think the more people claim to absolutely know, the more clueless and insecure thery absolutely are. Of course, I can’t be sure of this.

Which brings me to us. And to me. Who do we think we are? Who did I think I was?

How can I call myself a futurist when I missed the most cataclysmic event of our time? How can I predict tomorrow when the world is on fire today?

How did I see reality TV coming but miss this?

And let’s be honest: we all did.

We make all these pronouncements but none of us ever goes back to check on their accuracy. Shit, if the people in this room were right just 1percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in a pill form, and having literal sex with our virtual selves. But if you talk shit long enough, sooner or later you may actually be right, and if by some fluke that is the case, watch out, because any successful prediction is always followed by the cannibalistic scramble for credit – the blood grab to brand an original thought as your own.

We all want to be the first to be there to identify a “click moment”, but we live in a world that may never click again.

We’re great at telling people the future they need to buy into instead of the present they should be making the most of.

And what’s hilarious is that we all believe it. That we are geniuses. That we are all responsible for and deserving of our wealth. More deserving of the privileged life than, say, a teacher or a mason. A cleric or a hot dog vendor. Despite the fact that 99% of us did not create our good fortune. The markets did. Or luck. Or heredity.

I believed it.

But not anymore.

You see, we may be able to identify cool, but we can never invent it. Cool is never manufactured. You never try to be cool. It happens.

Same goes for goodness. And truth.

And the only truth I know …is that I know nothing. And even though you may dress the part – the missoni scarves, the yellow jumpsuits, the tiny glasses, the all-whites, the all-blacks, the Nehru’s, the sandals, the glittering gadgets – none of you know anything either. Sorry about that.

We are not innovators. We are fucking abominations.

To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.

In the meantime, I know absolutely zilch.

I am the founding father of the Coalition of Clueless.

Ok.

“We are not innovators, we are fucking abominations.” <note to everyone: awesome>

Cynical? Sure.

Have I felt this listening, or reading, to some of the popular trend spotter ‘gurus’? You betcha.

Do I wish I had written this? Absofuckinglutely.

Ok. The book.

It is the kind of book that may remind you of Joseph Heller (Good as Gold and maybe a business version of Catch-22).

By the way … a ‘futurist’ is one of those nifty bullshit words business nowadays uses for those pop psychologists who identify trends and recognizers of ‘future cool.’

And I also loved the book because it permitted me a glimpse into why I could have never been a successful ‘futurist’ … well … beyond the fact I suck at identifying meaningful trends of course … and that is futurists need to be blindingly optimistic with regard to prosperity … and I would be screwed because I am too pragmatic.

That said. If you are a cynical pragmatist like me and you care about this topic you will love this book.

Each chapter has a paragraph summary of former achievements of the protagonist/Futurist.

“He once spoke before the graduates of a Bible college in Virginia about the future of God and one week later delivered the keynote address to the Adult Video Distributors Conference in Vegas about the future of porn, and received standing ovations at both.”

Another. The Futurist as described by one analysis in the book:

“He used to believe that things were getting better. He thought that science had a heart and that progress had a conscience. Then came doubts, followed by questions and alarming insights. Soon this high-profile, big-ticket trend prognosticator was prophesying doom and gloom.

He began to criticize the present, and he warned of a more damaged tomorrow if we refused to change. He gave heads-ups and watch-outs, supported by facts and scientifically validated forecasts and cautionary tales. But this kind of outlook left his audiences feeling troubled, which was not the desired effect. It was suggested that he might want to put a bit more of a smile back on his work. So he switched gears and began telling those audiences what they wanted to hear.”

That is a truth.

I guarantee it. Seth Godin. Faith Popcorn. Tipping Point guy. First of all they are not sharing unique ideas … they are simply <mostly … just to give some ideas the benefit of the doubt> taking other people’s ideas … or thoughts … or portions/fragments of thoughts … and re-presenting them not only with gusto but also in a slightly different sound bite <sic: bullshit> way to capture the interest of whomever they are writing to and for.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: ROI versus imagination

my new contrarian hero is contagious

Enlightened Conflict