Enlightened Conflict

instinct

April 6th, 2013

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

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

Ok.

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

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

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

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

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

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

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

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

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

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

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

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

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

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

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

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

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

That said.

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

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

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

That is instinct.

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

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

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

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

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

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

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

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

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

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

let the clocks stop

April 6th, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe better said … bring moments in Life alive.

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

“The poet begins where the man ends.

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

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

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

Poetry brings out the moment within the Life moments.

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

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

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

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

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

—–

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

Well.

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

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

I write <bad amateurish> poetry.

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

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.

nothing beats flying

February 1st, 2013

“Come to the edge,” he said.

“We are afraid,” they said.

“Come to the edge,” he said.

They came and he pushed.

And they flew.

- Appollainare

Ah.

The edge.

There is a lightning rod word.

Edge is … risky … dangerous … uncertain … for the fearless … <insert your own word here>

Because of all those words … some people fear nearing the edge.

Oh.

Of anything.

They like to remain solidly in the middle. Some call it ‘the safe ground.’ On the other hand … other people don’t consider it safe but rather they simply want to keep their feet on the ground. It is nice and solid. It is a place where even if a stiff wind catches you unaware you do not even come close to teetering near the edge.

Now.

Some people like living near the edge. Of everything.

They dance on the balance beam of life. They are really only safe when not moving and steadying themselves but never stopping any longer than to contemplate the next move on the balance beam … the edge … of life. They find comfort in the instability offered by the edge.

Regardless of how you may feel about the edge … to fly you must not only near the edge … you must step off the edge.

Now.

Some people fear flying.

Some people want to fly.

Ok.

Let me take that last one back. I guess I know that all people want to fly <in some way even if it is just in their dreams or ‘what ifs’>.

It’s just that some people are better than others at getting near the edge.

And an even fewer ‘some people’ are better at actually taking that step over the edge.

Now.

To give people a break … stepping off the edge is a big step.

That big scary step … the one where you not only go to the edge … but you step off.

It is truly one small step for a person and one giant leap for who you will be as a person (sorry Neil … I paraphrased ya …).

Some truths about this whole edge and flying thing.

Truth <part 1>?

Sometimes you do not fly … you fall. And you … well … crash. And it sucks <and hurts really really bad>. Yup. Not everyone flies when they go to the edge and take that step.

That is Life.

Just don’t beat yourself up if you fall instead of flying. The fall hurts enough . But … just because you crashed that time doesn’t mean you can’t eventually learn to fly.

Which leads me to Truth part 2.

Truth <part 2>?

In order to learn to fly you need to overcome fear.

Let’s face it. That first step with just about everything in life contains, at minimum, a sliver of fear and, at maximum, crushing fear.

That’s not bad … in fact it has a natural characteristic of caution … but fear can also be debilitating.

And fear can also create stagnancy.

And fear can exponentially increase in size if you actually crash.

Truth <part 3>?

Please note that I believe flying, or learning to fly, is not about living Life without regrets. While I am a big ‘no regret’ guy this is not about regrets. Because Life is tricky in that it is rarely a straight line. It zigs & zags and whether you have chosen to stand as far away from an edge as you can in Life or you choose to dangle your mind off the edge … Life will place an edge in front of you whether you chose it or not.

I believe the edge is not about regrets but rather the battle between Fear and Curiosity. Because we have both in all of us. And I suggest this is not about regrets because … well … regrets can reside in both Fear & Curiosity therefore simply a derivative of your choice between Fear & Curiosity.

So. All that said.

Here is what Life forces you to balance out.

The dichotomy.

Fear versus Curiosity.

Curiosity stimulates the energy to move. Curiosity, when outweighing Fear, can not only wrestle Fear out of the way to get you to the edge … but actually get you to step off even if you cannot see a landing place. Curiosity is a pretty powerful energy.

And it is powerful because Curiosity offers a prize <where Fear doesn’t really offer any added value … at best Fear offers ‘maintained value’>.

Knowledge <or ‘what is not known’> … that is the tantalizing prize.

So what do I say?

Keep your eye on the prize.

And step off the edge <or at least an edge … or 2 … in your lifetime>.

You may fly.

You may not <this time>.

Scary?

Sure.

But, let me tell you, once you have done it … nothing beats flying.

“Que scais je?” (What do I know?)

January 30th, 2013

Montaigne ended his life by saying “Que scais je?” <what do I know?> on his deathbed.

Montaigne. A man who probably spent more time thinking and searching for answers than anyone else in history. And he ends his life asking “what do I know?”

And thinking was his life.

“ … a man of thought must feel the thought that is parent to the universe.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson on Montaigne <from Representative Men>

As I sifted through some boxes of books the other day I came across my beautiful 1946 edition of The Essays of Montaigne. A wonderful book which explores thought on an astounding array of topics <cannibalism to idleness to imagination to friendship to the custom of wearing clothes>. When reading it one truly understands when Emerson says “he is never dull, never insincere, and has the genius to make the reader care for all that he cares for.”

I love it because Montaigne is this everyday person <the way he writes> … and the ultimate thoughtful thinker.

Reading his essays is like having a conversation with a casual acquaintance on a variety of topics … skipping from thought to thought like children exploring the old forest in the backyard with a new friend.

He makes you think of little things … in big ways.

Auguste Collignon’s grave in the Pere Lachaise cemetery reads … “lived to do right, and had formed himself to virtue on the Essays of Montaigne.”

True then <late 1800’s>.

True now.

The essays of Montaigne provide context to thinking <even today>. And frankly we could do a lot worse than living a Life formed on the virtue of Montaigne’s Essays.

And I believe that is what Ralph was trying to tell us.

Thinking, in general, is cheap.

Easily done and easily wasted.

Individual thoughts can roam aimlessly without any direction and without regard for any repercussions they may reap as they leave those, who actually think about those thoughts, behind.

But.

The real thinkers?

The real thought?

At some point to be ‘real’ it must explore the foundation …seek the roots of individual ideas and thoughts. Something to provide context and ground the thought in something meaningful beyond ‘I think.’.

Without feeling the ‘thought that is parent to the universe’ you may find your thinking, and thoughts, comfortable in the mind … you may even find you are even pretty satisfied with yourself … yet you have simply reached a place where thoughts can vanish … untraceable and undiscovered.

They are thoughts floating at the mercy of Life’s breeze.

At its worst it is lazy thinking. At its best it is simply mental masturbation.

Thoughts are truly invisible until they meet its parents … and look at each other eye to eye. That is what I believe Emerson was asking us to think about. It is a fair request.

As Emerson stated:

EVERY FACT is related on one side to sensation, and on the other to morals. The game of thought is, on the appearance of one of these two sides, to find the other: given the upper, to find the under side. Nothing so thin but has these two faces, and when the observer has seen the obverse, he turns it over to see the reverse. Life is a pitching of this penny,- heads or tails. We never tire of this game, because there is still a slight shudder of astonishment at the exhibition of the other face, at the contrast of the two faces. A man is flushed with success, and bethinks himself what this good luck signifies. He drives his bargain in the street; but it occurs that he also is bought and sold. He sees the beauty of a human face, and searches the cause of that beauty, which must be more beautiful. He builds his fortunes, maintains the laws, cherishes his children; but he asks himself, Why? and whereto? This head and this tail are called, in the language of philosophy, Infinite and Finite; Relative and Absolute; Apparent and Real; and many fine names beside.

Emerson called Montaigne a skeptic. With all due respect I am not sure I agree. Montaigne was a pragmatic thinker. He avoided the extreme <even found extreme ‘wrong’>. As Emerson did suggest … “He labors to plant his feet, to be the beam of the balance.” I do not believe that is a skeptic. I find that pragmatic. I find that using a good dose of common sense. And I even find that for a true deep thinker he had the ability to make the thinking non-complicated.

As all thinkers should … he believed in all and believed in nothing. He took scraps of truth found in everything and pieced them together as if building a puzzle.

“ … not at all of unbelief; not at all of universal denying, nor of universal doubting. He is the considerer, the prudent, taking in sail, counting stock, husbanding his means, believing that a man has too many enemies than that he can afford to be his own foe.” – Emerson on Montaigne

We cannot be all like Montaigne. He was a special man … with a special mind. But we can all be better thinkers … better considerers … better at husbanding our thoughts.

I will end with 2 thoughts <hopefully deep thoughtful thoughts>:

First.

Here is Emerson’s full quote reference.

The final solution in which skepticism is lost, is in the moral sentiment, which never forfeits its supremacy. All moods may be safely tried, and their weight allowed to all objections: the moral sentiment as easily outweighs them all, as any one. This is the drop which balances the sea. I play with the miscellany of facts, and take those superficial views which we call skepticism; but I know that they will presently appear to me in that order which makes skepticism impossible. A man of thought must feel the thought that is parent of the universe; that the masses of nature do undulate and flow.

Reason, the prized reality, the Law, is apprehended, now and then, for a serene and profound moment amidst the hubbub of cares and works which have no direct bearing on it;- is then lost for months or years, and again found for an interval, to be lost again. If we compute it in time, we may, in fifty years, have half a dozen reasonable hours.- Emerson

Whew.

‘… Reason is apprehended now and then for a profound moment amidst the hubbub of cares … we may in 5o years have a half dozen reasonable hours.’

And that, my friends, is stated by one of the greatest thinkers of that generation discussing one of the greatest thinkers of another generation..

Bigger thoughts, big ideas and deep thinking, are exceptions rather than the rule.

True deep thought has its rare victories.

We may feel reasonable in how we think and when we think … and how often we think deeply about things … but the profound moments of reason are fleeting and rare.

Why do I say that?

For perspective.

I don’t say it to discourage anyone from deep thinking <because frankly all of us should do so more often> but rather simply to give perspective.

It is a good reminder to keep those of us who like to think … well … humble.

Second.

Deep thought comes at a price. Or maybe better said … deep thinking does not increase the value of self worth <or ego>.

Montaigne said: “There is no man, in his opinion, who has not deserved hanging five or six times; and he pretends no exception in his own behalf. Five or six as ridiculous stories,”too, he says, can be told of me, as of any man living.”

So not only is clarity of Reason few within a life time … but it is combined with the fact we, probably in the same quantity as the few victories, connect thought to action in a way that “we deserve hanging.”

Deep thought’s price is few victories and a few, possibly mortal, mistakes.

Deep thought is not for the faint of heart or for those who need ‘wins’ to feel good about themselves or find self actualization <or self esteem>.

Deep thought is not always ‘reasonable’ nor even right all the time. So what does that mean? Deep thought is that, and only that … deep. Being thoughtful does not mean being right.

Why do I say that?

Once again not to discourage deep thinking but rather to suggest deep thinking is a journey in which you will find scattered right and wrong thoughts as way stations along the way. And you will most likely stop at a number of both types of stations to rest your thinking.

The real moral? Keep moving. Stay on the journey <and avoid getting hanged>.

Keep thinking.

Thinking is good.

Deep thoughts and thinking is even gooder.

So.

My deep thought ends like this.

Montaigne ended his life on his deathbed saying “Que scais je?” <What do I know?>

Not everyone can live that kind of life … but if you can? Whew. What a Life.

Would not that more of us said this to ourselves every day … what do I know?

In closing.

Emerson … “Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Consent yourself to be of your highest thought.

Good advice for anyone.

more truth in it than you wish

January 14th, 2013

“Isn’t it because there’s more truth in it than you might wish? … I told him. This brought the conversation to an end and we walked along side by side in silence.” <from ‘A hero of our time’ by Lermontov>

Before I begin … Russian writer Lermontov. One of the most underrated & overlooked/unknown writers of all time. Anton Chekhov once said of him … “I know of no language better than that of Lermontov.” Even with some of the struggles in translation I believe few people have ever had his gift with words. By 18 he had written more than 300 poems, 3 plays, a book and an unknown amount of unfinished work. Pick up something he has written.

Most of us can only dream of using words like he did.

Now. About some of his words …

Truth is a tricky thing.

Not only is it difficult to discern.

It is also difficult to “find” … definitively define.

And difficult to speak to someone.

And it is also incredibly difficult to hear … and as Lermontov writes …

“… more truth in it than you may wish.”

Sharing the truth with someone is difficult. Not just because it is sometimes difficult to find the strength of character to step up to the plate and speak … but it also takes a true measure of your character in dealing with the response. I have found that in most cases … truth, when spoken, has more truth in it than someone wishes to hear.

Does that make it wrong? Not always. But truth is not a light nor sharp weapon, it is more likely a blunt edged bludgeon.

“… we walked along side by side in silence” may actually reflect a ‘good response’ situation for it means at least you are still side by side.

As for the silence part? Truth can often be a silence generator.

Now … it is almost always also a thinking generator.

In addition, most oddly, truth seems to also often generate doubt … not agreement or something good … just doubt. Doubt in the words. Doubt in the intent. Doubt in the genuineness. Doubt in the deliverer.

And in that we go to another Lermontov thought:

“I spoke the truth, but no one believed me, so I took to deceit.” – Lermontov

And he also wrote this:

I prefer to doubt everything. Such an attitude makes no difference to a man’s determination – on the contrary, as far as I‘m concerned, I always go more boldly forward when I know nothing of what lies ahead. After all, the worst you can do is die, you’ve got to die sometime. <Pechorin in Hero of our Time>

I do not subscribe to this belief … but I do believe attitudinally Truth Tellers run a gauntlet of doubt and desire to quit when it comes to actually telling the truth … and are often tempted to ‘take to deceit’ instead.

William James said:

“The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths.”

With all due respect to William James … the true greatest enemy of any one of our truths is ourselves.

It takes a shitload of fortitude to tell truths of the depth & breadth of ‘more than you may wish.’ It takes strength of character. It takes a strong sense of ‘doing what is right.’

Truth probably has more enemies with more weapons than any superpower in the world.

And there are probably fewer defenders of Truth than ever before … and they are armed with … well … no weapons but Truth itself.

Oh. And a belief in self.

Anyway.

Maybe I should have included this post in my Texas Ranger post … because the few keepers of Truth have to believe that it is ‘hard to stop someone a’comin who is in the right’ or they will fall prey to deceit & doubt.

In the end?

Truth tellers are hard to stop. Thank god for that. But it is too bad they remain as few as the Texas Rangers I wrote about before. We need more of them today than ever before.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

“… the only true advantage is knowledge.” – <someone I cannot find at the moment>

So.

This thought of temporary advantage, and knowledge, is easy for business but it is also relevant to Life.

Let me begin with business <because, frankly, it is easier>.

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make <in the end> is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable and want to ride it all the way into the sunset <or as far as the horse will carry them toward it>.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

Most often all energy is invested in developing a distinct product, or service, or some tangible advantage.

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

Definition of gobs? Lots of money & time & intellectual energy. And this typically leads to some type of patent <if you are smart> or, at minimum, something different enough you feel it is … well … different <you may actually convince yourself after eating a pound of M&Ms in focus groups and multiple cocktails staring at your navel that it is “unique”>.

Now. Let me tell you a business truth.

Product advantages are actually fairly easy to attain. In fact … they are a dime a dozen. Yup. Sorry about that.

Here is the other business truth.

The majority of product advantages are indiscernible to anyone but the one who developed it. I call it ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ differentiation.

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

Personally I prefer to aim for a competitive parity product that has enough meaningful benefits that it can compete over time <in other words … it is a sustainable product> … and use knowledge to be an advantage.

Sound crazy? Maybe.

Sound painful to say to management? Yes. Trust me … I have the scars to prove how painful.

But if you can keep your head out of your egotistical ass you actually have a chance to see this idea through to a very profitable, sustainable profitable, conclusion.

This translates into the ability to keep the product competitive but limit the amount of investment you have to invest to update/improve/trash & reinvent.

And use knowledge to sustain advantage because knowledge is a changing environment … never stagnant.

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare <unless you define ‘sustainable’ as ‘we did it for a week’>.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it <the ever elusive ‘advantage’>. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look … but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

That’s my quick acerbic soundbite for businesses on temporary advantage.

Personally I believe many businesses mismanage ‘advantage.’ Mismanage through incorrect attitude and in incorrect behavior.

Not only do they typically think incorrectly they also implement too slowly … and ultimately they do not know when to ‘abandon ship.’.

Regardless … now that every business person wants to send me a scathing personal email I will move on to the next topic.

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

We all know Life is challenging. And that is so mainly because it is always changing.

Just when you think you have at least one thing figured out Life moves the thing <hence the term “life sucks” was created>.

To even have a chance to be competitive with Life you have to continuously gain knowledge and adapt. There is no formula for gaining knowledge … sometimes you read something, meet someone or see something that changes your knowledge.

That is self stimulated gathering of knowledge … and it takes some fortitude and self desire to do so.

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

They are a natural incentive to stimulate knowledge growth to maintain advantage. I worry about people like me, who does not have children, as well as those who ignore the knowledge, and stimulus to learn, young people offer. I guess my point is that we should use kids as a knowledge stimulant <rather than ignore them or subjugate them to our past tense type knowledge>.

I thank god I am a reader. It permits me to at least maintain a competitive place in a restless world. Notice I didn’t say competitive advantage.

Just be competitive.

I say that because I fully understand I will never find a competitive advantage against life. Well. Maybe I get a glimmer of an advantage on occasion. But it is fleeting. I keep a constant eye on the fact you gain knowledge to try and keep up. And every once in a while you get really lucky and dash ahead for a second or two.

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

Some silly people delude themselves into believing they have a competitive advantage in life. And, yes, they are delusional. People like this don’t seem to understand that Life is like a river constantly flowing. They quit paddling to rejoice in their ‘advantage’ and … oops … all the crap in life not only feverishly paddles by to get ahead <and lay some traps> but some of Life’s crap may actually slow down and do their best to smack you around a little <because a moving target is harder to hit so when you stop paddling you are easier prey>.

These people confuse ‘glimmer’ with ‘this is my new home.’ That is why they are delusional … because normal people could never get confused by those two things.

Second.

I worry about the people who never even gain one glimpse of the advantage. Because a glimpse gives hope you can win … at least on occasion in life.

No glimmer? No hope? That worries me.

How can anyone, even the strongest of the strongest, keep going on without hope for something better?

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

I now envision someone cranking up an email with a thought on “hey, hold on a second, you seem to be suggesting becoming a chameleon … and don’t you always talk about being true to yourself at all times?!?” <please notice I used a rare exclamation point just for emphasis>

Despite the fact I will give that someone cranking up an email major points because that means someone actually has read some of my drivel in the past … I will quickly go to this quote:

“Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.” – Mahatma Gandhi

And then I would answer this way … in business and in life … the core is the core.

That core is the “me inside” and that is the sustainable competitive product. And by product I mean a product being a manufactured product or simply you <or me>. Anyway. That competitive core probably doesn’t have any advantage … it is simply able to go on day after day, year after year and … well … continue to ‘be’ … to exist. It <you & I> compete in Life <or with Life> because of a good steady core.

Adaptability through knowledge leverages your core … and means possible temporary advantage.

That’s it.

That’s my point.

les murs ont des oreilles

December 19th, 2012

les murs ont des oreilles

translation: “Who can say who is listening?”

This is a french version of ‘the walls have ears.’

I know that I always told my groups in business if they talked badly about clients … the clients would ‘hear’ <even without being within miles of the conversation>

Hearing is often not a physical thing … it is simply knowing.

It is a feeling.

Here is a truth <albeit a harsh truth>. It is silly to believe you can say something out loud and not believe that it echoes through the ether in a way that someone can feel the ripples of the words.

Well,

Not really silly.

Just stupid.

Or maybe just ignorant.

I fully understand we all say mean things sometimes. And sometimes we actually mean them. And sometimes they are uttered out of spite or some senseless random emotional trigger … in other words … semi-meaningless.

But.

Here is the deal <that Life neglected to put in its handbook for you>.

Senseless or meaningful … it is heard.

Always.

And it amazes me when someone is surprised that something they said came circling back.

The words you hear?

But it was a secret.

But I just told one person.

But I didn’t really mean it.

But.

But again.

You are a butthead.

I don’t go for the bullshit of “if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say it all” because we wouldn’t be human if we actually did that.

Say what you mean.

Say what you feel.

Say it … and know it will be heard.

No one is eavesdropping but Life.

No one has betrayed you by sharing a secret.

No one has listened when they shouldn’t have.

Life is always listening.

And Life will always share what it knows.

In the end … who can say who is listening?

Life.

And, by the way, Life is a gossip. But it will not tell you shit about its own secrets … and yet it will not hesitate one second to share everyone else’s secrets.

The quicker you learn that the better off you will be.

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.

conscience & psychopaths & cynicism … or naiveté

November 5th, 2012

Dysfunctional Management at the Bar

So.

This is actually about business organizations and how the sometimes “less competent” <sometimes dysfunctional> people get promoted into leadership roles … oh … and how a group of well educated people, a large group by the way, maintained in an unequivocal stance that there were a bunch of psychopaths rising to leadership positions <and are ‘the dysfunctional>. That relatively large group of people are TED members.

On a side note … I recognize that you always have to be careful when discussing “how do such idiots <incompetents> get promoted?” to weed out the envious, the blind and the ignorant.

But in the end … it is true there are a shitload of “less competent” people, and certainly some quite dysfunctional people, who get promoted into some very important roles in business organizations.

Notice I didn’t say ‘incompetent’ but rather ‘less competent.’ I did so because when really putting organizations under a microscope the real issue is not the surprisingly less than competent people who get promoted but rather the truly competent who are dwelling somewhere in the depths of the organization who have NOT been promoted.

This all began for me within a very disturbing discussion among some TED members. I was being faced with an overriding belief that “psychopaths” <or sometimes called ‘predators’> were increasingly becoming this generation’s business leaders. Leaders driven by greed, lack of values and ego doing whatever it takes to maneuver their way to leadership.

Well. I didn’t agree … but I was in a minority.

And until I read a post/discussion comment <from a Dr. Gupta> I had begun thinking I was either naïve, working on a different planet, oblivious to the greed and lack of values surrounding me … or actually one of the psychopaths and was so good at hiding it from others I was hiding it from myself <now … there is an interesting thought to ponder as I look in the mirror>.

Let me posit two things to outline my disagreement:

- It is most often not any predator trait but rather an ability, and desire, to manipulate, or manage, the system that gets a ‘less competent’ person into a leadership role.

- Organizations play a significant role in how their employees decide how to behave to attain ambition/self-objectives even if it means a ‘bending’ of traditional ‘what is right’ conscience.

Anyway.

- Why I believe it is not a predator/psychopathic trait:

I have met and worked with dozens of leaders and I can maybe think of one as having such a poor moral compass that I would place them in the true predator/psychopathic category. Afterwards I knew that one situation couldn’t be solved but I did know one thing … that company would ultimately fail. Not that day but that type of personality inevitably creates a larger dysfunctional company that just cannot compete (in the end). Just as an organism metaphor can be used … the organism dies because it has a bacterium that can’t be cured. I imagine my real point here is that is a natural evolution of companies, i.e., the truly sick die all on their own.

Regardless.

About dysfunctional/less competent people in leadership roles. Let’s be honest … the true psychopaths are few.

Maybe I just have been lucky in the organizations and leaders I have met but while all leaders want to make a profit I haven’t seen boundless moral-less greed. In fact, when interviewed most leaders have a huge desire to increase the wealth of the “head, heart and wallet” of their employees.

All aspects of employee benefit.

But practically speaking most leaders would admit “managing the balance sheet is much easier than the people management.” The typical quote you hear …

“I am more rewarded by the people but I don’t believe I am as good at it (or it is just too difficult).”

So, what happens? As good managers do … they delegate.

They delegate to someone (or someones) who they perceive, or believe, is better at maximizing the heads and hearts portion.

<by the way … if you want to work on corporate dynamics for this aspect that is the gatekeeper to find>.

Is there a way to weed out the dysfunctional? Or, at minimum, identify the harmful incompetent?

Sure. I know I have suggested to HR departments, or the keepers of the culture and staff, that no organism/organization is flawless (unless it is made up of robots, maybe has less than 5 employees or is somewhere in corporate utopia, i.e., a different planet). Therefore their job isn’t to eliminate all the bacteria just be sure you have systems set up to identify the bacteria that could kill the organism.

There are varieties of methods.

I would suggest pattern tracking over time (because even good employees are infamous for doing something bad, or questionable, to get to where they want to go and exhibiting different /better/behavior once there). In other words … one time behavior is completely different than ongoing patterned behavior.

Pattern tracking actually is effective because no matter how sneaky or talented at hiding predator/psychopathic-like behavior that employee does give clues which when tracked uncover the underlying flaw.

Obviously this falls apart once someone shifts companies but you gotta start somewhere.

But. The truth is that most less competent leaders didn’t elevate because of any ‘lack of conscience/predator’ trait but more likely because they knew how to manipulate, or manage, the system. Sure. There can be some less-than-desirable characteristics exhibited when managing the system but the majority of the time it is all about taking advantage of other’s mistakes and taking advantage of the opportunities.

- Why I believe it can be driven by an organization:

Ok. How can an organization contribute to encouraging a thread of predator behavior?

Before I get specifically to that point let me share the premise behind the thought.

Research has shown us several things.

- All people are born with a conscience <or a sense of right or wrong>

- And even true psychopaths have a conscience <they just do not act upon it>

“In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.” – Professor Bloom

So.

In my mind the research and information is clear. Children are born knowing inherently what is moral and ethical … and that over time as they experience the real world their natural born tendencies are shifted into whatever spot their experiences put them in.

I purposefully wrote it that way.

This isn’t “children are born good and the world is evil.”

We now have intriguing scientific evidence pointing to that inherent human faculty.

- At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk. But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences. Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones. In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. “With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.”

This is simply the fact children have a relatively blank experience slate on which the first words are not necessarily ‘self interest’ but rather ‘interest in feeling good’ … which can be a social or individual thing.

now. I know that is all about children but let me use it moving into the discussion on ‘psychopaths in the workplace’ (surrounding the discussion on why so many crappy people end up in management positions) and adults entering into the workplace.

So.

Most people understand social contracts intuitively. They don’t have to reason them out. Ordinary people are also similarly attuned to questions of risk.

Interestingly psychopaths typically exhibit similar levels of intelligence to the norm. Nor does their lack of guilt and shame seem to spring from a deficient grasp of right or wrong.

Ask a psychopath what he is supposed to do in a particular situation and he/she can usually give you what non psychopaths would regard as the correct answer. <by the way … this is all pulled from research>

So what goes wrong?

It is just that he/she does not seem bound to act upon that knowledge. They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.

<please remember that last thought because I will use it again … but this time within a business organization framework>

This is the life of a true psychopath:

- “Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.” – Martha Stout Ph.D.

In other words, a psychopath is completely free of internal restraints with an unhampered liberty to do just as you please with no pangs of conscience. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “anti-social personality disorder,” a non-correctable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people. This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term psychopathy. Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans délire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

All that said … do I personally believe a true psychopath can rise to any significant leadership role in any viable company? Nope.

Do I believe an organization can unburden some of the typical ‘conscience’ restraints a normal person has? Yes.

You bet.

Absolutely.

Remember what I said before about psychopaths … ‘They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.’

Similar to a child, an employee entering an organization has the ability to discern right from wrong which tells me that we not only believe there is a difference but that our natural inclination would be to do right <versus wrong>.

Are there people born who do not have consciences? Whew. I doubt it. Or they are few and far between. As a corollary … do I believe there are people who enter a business organization who do no have a conscience? once again … I doubt it.

So what happens? Most likely the organization, through its rewards & promoting behavior, create a new conscience framework in which it so dulls their conscience senses that they no longer believe in the traditional ‘right versus wrong’ behavior <or guides their senses in a different direction> and thus, those who elect to follow the new framework, appear to have no consciences <or have a more expanded view of what is conscientiously acceptable>.

Let me be clear. The employee understands the traditional rules of social contracts but the organization has defined a different set of rules they believe they can play by.

So.

If you believe that then, in general, the really competent people who don’t get promoted have decided, in some form or fashion, to maintain their sense of ‘right versus wrong’ framework. They just decide to not play by the different set of rules.

And, let’s be clear, I am not suggesting they are better people because of this decision but rather each person makes their own decision. And each should feel comfortable with their decision because both are playing by the rules.

I have never begrudged the ‘less competent’ rising to a leadership role as long as they didn’t exhibit the nasty predator-like characteristics. Because if they didn’t, than they just managed the system better than others did.

Last thought.

Maybe we should think of businesses as microcosms of Life itself.

There is something called the concept of Natural Law .

The concept of Natural Law implies that human beings inherently know what is ‘good from evil’ and what is ‘right from wrong’ <our conscience compass>. It refers to our belief that inherent in nature itself is a moral law that has validity everywhere for everybody, regardless of race and culture. Human beings can use our reason to discern that natural moral law so as to derive binding rules of moral behavior which we make into our everyday positive law.

I believe that when a new employee enters an organization they begin with Natural Law embedded.

Any changes to the natural law are created by experience within the organization itself.

Think about it.

Because you almost have to believe that … or you have to believe that a disproportionate percentage of the true Pyschopath population <like all of the 4% they represent> end up in business instead of hanging out in strip clubs & low income housing.

Maybe I am naive.

But I think I would rather believe even the ‘less competent’ leaders have a conscience and a sense of ‘right versus wrong’ than believe a bunch of psychopaths have run amok in leadership within organizations.