===

“If you want to give God a good laugh, start telling him about your plans.”

===

“The notion that we can’t do our jobs unless there are perfect conditions.

Objectives, target audience, key message, budget, timings, etc.

I mean yes, sure, we need those conditions to exist to do our thing well…

… but often they come in bits, due to the vagaries of organisational complexity.

Which means we’re always working in the context(s) of what we have right now.

And, by association, strategies can – and must – change given new information.

I know in theory we should get all the information beforehand, sure.

But in practice, flexing as we go is how 90% of the job actually tends to flow.”

Rob Estreitinho

====

“It is optionality that makes things work and grow.”

Nassim Taleb

====

Polycentric and quantum theory are different things, but today I mash them together to offer some thoughts on business.  To be clear, Polycentric theory and Quantum theory belong to distinct fields and have their own specific applications and implications.

1. Polycentric Theory: Polycentric theory is a framework in political science and economics that emphasizes the existence of multiple centers of power and decision-making within a system. It suggests that authority and governance should be dispersed among various levels and institutions rather than concentrated in a single entity. Polycentric systems often promote local autonomy and decentralized decision-making.
2. Quantum Theory: Quantum theory, also known as quantum mechanics, is a branch of physics that deals with the behavior of matter and energy at the microscopic scale. It provides a mathematical framework to understand the fundamental nature of particles and their interactions, incorporating concepts such as superposition, uncertainty, and wave-particle duality.

So let me share some similarities:

1. Non-linearity: Both theories challenge traditional linear approaches. Polycentric theory acknowledges the complex and nonlinear nature of decision-making, highlighting the interactions between multiple centers of power. Similarly, quantum theory describes the probabilistic behavior of particles emphasizing nonlinearity.
2. Emergence and Interconnectedness: Both theories recognize the importance of emergent activity and interconnected systems. Polycentric theory suggests that complex systems generate emergent properties like self-organization and adaptive behavior. Quantum theory highlights entanglement where entangled system is one where the individual particles behave as an inseparable whole.
3. Contextual and Relational Perspectives: Both theories consider the significance of context and relationships. Polycentric theory emphasizes the importance of local knowledge, cultural norms, and social relationships in decision-making. Quantum theory acknowledges that observations and measurements are context-dependent, and the behavior of particles is influenced by their interactions with the surrounding environment.

To summarize, duality, uncertainty, and entanglement are characteristics of polycentric theory, quantum theory, and business.

Which leads me to say that there is always a moment when you look around and all you see is, well, uncertainty or it feels like chaos or it feels impossible to discern any order in what is happening around you. Most of us then sit back and try and take a moment to try and think clearly because, generally speaking, the brain is programmed to find patterns and we get a bit desperate when mired in a world in which everything appears random. It is an unending struggle to bring some order to chaos – real and perceived. More often than not while preferring a pattern we find a point on which to focus. This is kind of our innate understanding of ‘polycentricity.’ Polycentric means in any given moment there is a center. Organizationally this will naturally occur, even within a hierarchy, as long as the ‘walls’ are permeable. I would argue it happens whether you want it or not (in suboptimal ways as people circumvent the system in the attempt to get shit done) and will happen in an optimal way if it is actually encouraged.

The idea of polycentric is important because centers can easily look after ‘order’ AND disorder pretty well and if the center is contextual (flows to the need/opportunity) that means freedom, agility & creativity follow it. Yeah. I just said Business is fluid (even organizationally). I believe people rarely think about business as a flow system even though we all agree that it is a permanently evolving entity, but a business is a flow of realities, many operating in dualities, with evolving centers of gravity to leverage. Regardless, the allure of quantum is the idea there are multiple histories and multiple ‘realities’ all existing simultaneously.  Ponder that for a bit with regard to business. This means history is being written situation by situation and decision by decision. That your existence resides on multiple planes, and dimensions, and you are simply vectoring, not guiding. And maybe that’s the larger point – vector versus guide. You accept your business has multiple histories, not just one, and its legacy is shaped not created.

Which leads me to confusing chaos with catastrophe.

I don’t believe business actually endures chaos (as defined by complexity theory). There can be disorder, but within the confines, construct, of a business the gyre can widen but not fall apart. Unless there is a catastrophe or catastrophic event.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

Yeats

Quantum, or complexity, speaking, what does chaos look like? The trajectory wanders around forever in state space. It can never close or cross itself on one plane, yet, across planes (spiraling) its trajectory can. It remains within a confined space (constrained by its own entropy/energy) and is constantly pivoting on new points (never replicated). Kind of polycentric at all times AND continuously moving through different realities, i.e., possibilities. Its trapped yet disorderly. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this idea is quite similar to Donella Meadows leverage points. In this case they are pivot points for polycentric behavior. Some people may associate these with people (influencers in an organization). I will not. I believe they are simply pivot points made up of people interacting with systems within a specific context. This means disorganized behavior in a given situation, is not chaotic. It is simply interacting elements not in alignment toward some stated purpose, but buried within it is order (usually tied to some unstated objective, i.e., a polycentric state). Technically speaking this means the specific motion and trajectory of the activity is unpredictable in detail, yet, it always stays coherent to the attractor (some objective/vision) and always moves through the same subset of states. That narrowness of activity accounts for the order hidden in chaos and explains why its essence never changes. We may not be able to explain where the order comes from, at least in an analytical sense, but the order exists nonetheless. If you are good in business, you can feel the pulse within chaos; you just cannot see it. To the everyday schmuck it is a state of disorder. To the scientist it resides in the space between order and disorder. Technically it only appears random, looks erratic and unstable yet it contains patterns. The good news for a business is order typically resides within a confined space and is governed by a fairly rigid set of ‘rules’ <it can only act in certain ways> so it can be manageable, or at least stuff can get done, in some sense. This is most likely true because unlike scientific theory, business tends to have, and create, some boundaries and constraints. So, while there may be the appearance of disorder, and oscillation- waves – occurring in endless loops inevitably there is some sense of equilibrium and, hence, some coherence.

Which leads me to make a note of the role technology plays in a quantum business.

Technology offers the velocity to advantages (even tiny ones). It also offers velocity to disadvantages and stupid shit (even tiny ones). I say that because technology increases fluidity and decreases fluidity, in other words, it can be the friend AND the enemy to coherence. So when we speak of fluidity and liquid we need to pay attention to the content. This gets tricky because far, far, too often we speak about the ‘next natural step for this system/business’, but fluidity is rarely about steps and more about evolution in motion. Therefore, words like “framework” or ‘navigation’ or ‘redirect’ become even more important. Even things like collective intelligence and collective wisdom and collective principled behavior become even more important. But, to circle back to quantum principles, order will exist but the sense of chaos only increases with technology. Yeah. It will both highlight leverage points, polycentric moments, and encourage multiple realities or expand asymmetrical perceptions and focus. The truth is polycentricity works better with some focus driven by technology and, yes, at exactly the same time that polycentricity is more difficult because of the increased ‘noise’ created by technology.

made.

Which leads me to end by suggesting I imagine part of what I am suggesting with polycentricity and quantum business is we have to go from this crazy, fragmented, multitasking life that we live to one where we pay more attention to connectedness and the whole. In doing so it will make any perceived chaos fleeting and navigating complexity is possible.

Well, this was fun, but let’s get serious. Most businesses have no interest in multiple centers of gravity or in multiple realities. Business wants to get shit done and they want a center of efficiency and effectiveness in one reality and that one reality which delivers against specific objectives. So what most businesses do is impose centers an attempt to impose a reality. They create steering committees, task forces, assign the specific group, and ask everyone to implement a process – typically a best practice. Simplistically they take a reductionist attitude toward everything that I wrote about polycentric and quantum business. And maybe that is my point. One of the largest issues the business faces today is its inclination toward reducing things rather than expanding things. Running businesses as if pragmatism outweighs any possibilities. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out polycentricity and quantum thinking are both grounded in multiple possibilities, as in, multiple realities are possible. Ponder.

==============================

Fun fact about quantum particles to think about with regard to people:

“All quantum particles can be classified as either fermions or bosons. Fermions are territorial hermits. Which means you can ever occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. This accounts for the orderly way that electrons fill the orbital shells around atoms waiting their turn one at a time like polite people taking their seats in the same row of a theater. Fermion’s tendency to avoid one another ultimately yields the basic laws of chemistry, the structure of the periodic table, the rules for chemical bonding between atoms and the behavior of magnets. Bosons have the opposite kind of personality. They’re gregarious. No limit to how many can I occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In fact they prefer crowds. The more populated a state, the more attractive it becomes to others.” (Steven Strogatz)

“Institutions form the incentive structure of a society and the political and economic institutions, in consequence, are the underlying determinant of economic performance.”

Douglas C North

===

Incentives, institutions and thinking are intertwined. What I mean by that is what the world incentivizes affects what we perceive as important, therefore, it effects what we think and about, how we think about things, and, inevitably, why we end up doing some of the things we do. That said. Incentives are everywhere – visible and invisible, overt and subtle. Its almost like, well, everyone wants to game us and how we think and what we do. Okay. They do. And, for the most part, we go along with it.

Now. There are gobs of great books on how business uses gamification to manipulate workers. Yes. I said “manipulate.” Business is infamous for suggesting everything they do is to motivate workers. Its bullshit. Motivation is intrinsic and incentives are extrinsic. Yeah. There can be some blurring on what I just said, but generally speaking, business, and we as a society, would be a shitload better off if we just looked around at all the incentives and thought about whether we really believe those incentives, and prizes/rewards, are actually good. To be clear. If we did businesses would shit, politicians would panic and society would be seriously discombobulated.

Anyway. Today I am focused on society. Everyday people and everyday life.

Incentives actually create parameters of behavior. Aiming for good grades or passing a grade or, well, our system offers us a shitload of ‘incentives’ to do things. There is even an entire industry to optimize our time (society has a weird incentive that if you optimize you are a better person). All of these incentives to ‘do things’ and ‘do things a certain way’ and ‘look certain ways’ are all ways to divide society into ‘those who do’ and ‘those who don’t.’ In addition many of those things are actually used to judge people and are used to assess ‘moving up the ladder’ in life.

And, well, yeah, we go along with it.

But I am gonna make this a bit worse.

If we are honest, one of the characteristics of incentives is actually the phenomenon of power as in ‘power applied’. The exercise of power, the submission of some to the will of others, is inevitable in modern society. Some argue that nothing would be accomplished without it (I do not agree). In fact John Kenneth Galbraith said that (but he said a lot of other things I agree with). But there is a core of truth to the idea. It is true of gamification, is true of incentives, it is true of the standard operating procedure of most businesses and, while often never discussed, it is true as a feature of society. Power and incentives are inextricably linked. So while we speak of free will and freedom of choice, we ignore the fact that incentives often appear in conflict with all of those things, if not our even our best interests. Yeah. Incentives manipulate; even against some of our best interests. This is a semi-important thought because in a natural state, a society will typically morph in the direction of not only the individual interests, but the collective interests because we intrinsically understand that good progress touches everybody. As a note what I just described is actually a characteristic of a living system and not a machine. But then incentives enter the picture. Incentives intervene in the cultural characteristics of communities of practice. Incentives push, pull, sometimes even bully, to guide social systems in different directions. Power uses incentives like society is a machine. And, just to be clear, social media does exactly the same thing. More often than not this all creates false narratives which everyone knows is not true or healthy, yet, the incentives to follow along are enormous. Possibly the worst consequence is it translates into a lost vision for common good and the capacity to see all humankind as larger than the sum of its parts.

Then we get to the present.

All these incentives floating around out there, the ones the systems offer up as ‘good for us’, are actually becoming more and more visible. And more and more people are becoming a bit more stridently vocal about them. Why? Well. even thought it is 2023 let me introduce you to Alvin Toffler and 1970:

For the foreseeable future, we must anticipate still more rapid value change. Within this context, however, a second powerful trend is unfolding. For the fragmentation of societies brings with it a diversification of values. We are witnessing the crack-up of consensus. Most previous societies have operated with a broad central core of commonly shared values. This core is now contracting, and there is little reason to anticipate the formation of a new broad consensus within the decades ahead. The pressures are outward toward diversity, not inward toward unity.

This accounts for the fantastically discordant propaganda that assails the mind in the technosocieties. Home, school, corporation, church, peer group, mass media—and myriad subcults—all advertise varying sets of values. The result for many is an “anything goes” attitude—which is, itself, still another value position. We are, declares Newsweek magazine, “a society that has lost its consensus … a society that cannot agree on standards of conduct, language and manners, on what can be seen and heard.”

Toffler, Future Shock, 1970

I offer up Toffler to suggest that as things break down a lot of people, and the system (and those in power), want it to stop breaking down. Well. They want it only to ever break the way they want it to break. So, construct, i.e., incentives, get ratcheted up. And it’s not like the prizes get any better its just that the penalties seem to be harsher if you don’t go along with the system incentives – you think wrong, you do wrong, you act wrong and the system, and society, relentlessly suggests that is bad – for you. Look. The system creators needed to stuff to get done so they crafted a system to ‘motivate’ people to do what they needed to do so that the institutions could get the stuff done they wanted to get done. And today is no different. They are worried their stuff will not get done so they scurry about telling people what is important and why the system incentives shouldn’t be abandoned. Sometimes they point out the visible obvious ones and sometimes the slyly nudge the subtle incentives around. Doesn’t matter. All incentives are used by people in power.

Keep your eyes open and your minds working.

===

“Even the sorts of things that haven’t changed are different. All sorts of tonalities – emotional, moral, personal – have somehow altered.”

Clifford Geertz

===

“Think about it this way: We’re all sensitive to social hierarchies and to a desire for approval and esteem. So, we often fold to the social pressures of our environment. That’s not necessarily evil. I come into my job as a professor and I want to do well, I want the respect of my peers. There’s nothing wrong about that. But our desire to do well socially can have an ugly side. If you can earn respect by helping people, that’s great. If you can earn respect by physically dominating people with aggression and violence, that’s destructive. So, a lot depends on our social environment and whether it incentivizes good or bad behavior.”

Paul Bloom

===

This is about the future of business (not the future of work). Significance. Significance may seem like an odd word to choose with regard to business. Significance is akin to meaning in its wider sense. The word mingles meaning and importance referring to the underlying ideas or implications that give to words, deeds, symbols, actions, or events of a special relevance. Significance may also be used in the specific sense suggesting a need to determine which of several possibilities is most relevant. (Hayakawa: Choose the Right Word).

I would also note that ‘significant’ also has multiple dimensions: consequential, grave, important, momentous, serious, and vital (Hayakawa).  So, I purposefully chose significance to stress that this is something meaningful, something that shouldn’t be overlooked, and actually has considerable impact on succeeding events and actions. The truth is that business is not simply about the business of capitalism or markets or even free trade, in other words, business is not an exclusively economic and its impact is not exclusively economic. Business’s relationship with the world, and society, is a bit deeper and more complex wherein its behaviors and attitudes impact culture and the way we think about things. The reality is that businesses have as much, if not more, power than most governments to not only to create value, but also to channel value signals, principled behavior signals and ‘what is fairness’ signals into society. And therein lies the discussion about significance.

Which leads me to say in the present many, far too many, business people will suggest the purpose of business is to generate a profit and they are beholden to stakeholders. Their significance is framed in that fashion. Don’t be fooled that there is a lot of talk about “purpose,” ESG and a responsibility beyond simple profit, because push comes to shove, they will shove back on the greater responsibilities and argue that the small responsibility (profit) is actually the biggest. Okay. To be fair. They have a number of numbers they will argue is representative of their significance: share price, size of company, monthly reports, #’s of customers and, well, choose your biggest number. Sadly, the public, and society, goes along with this and celebrates the big numbers as things of significance. To those people I say “Otto Neurath.” Yeah. He’s the first person who rejected the belief that any single metric could guide all decisions. And while it’s easy to focus on profit, we should be equally appalled by the pursuit of any other single universal metric applied in today’s business world.

The business world seems to be caught in a tug of war between Drummond and Keynes. Henry Drummond suggested “the pursuit of wealth is to the mass of mankind the great source of moral improvement” and John Maynard Keynes suggested “we should not overestimate the importance of economics, or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance.” Whether business wants to explore this tug of war or not is irrelevant because the tides of time are demanding business reflect upon its significance – to society, to its employees, to the future.

Which leads me to dismantling the present.

I purposefully use dismantle which will chafe on the business people who have had productive and profitable businesses. But in order to build a new future of business, the present needs to explore some first principle thinking, i.e., what are some of the fundamental aspects of the mindset that has created the business world as it exists today and why it thinks its significance is driven by significant numbers.

Look.

• Better business needs a structural change. Period.
• Better business needs a vision, not transactional changes. Period.
• Better business needs an attitudinal adjustment (toward organizational structure, toward how people skills can be maximized, toward how productivity is viewed, toward what businesses role in community/society is, toward what is significance). Period.

Now. Yeah. But. How could we begin to dismantle greed and zero-sum competitiveness? Well. Not to oversimplify, but this seems attainable by simply being much less greedy and less competitive. What I mean is that in pursuit of true significance business resists the temptation of letting profits today become the needs of tomorrow. Maybe perhaps by scrutinizing what are significant needs, versus just wants, and scrutinizing what progress really looks like; not just by some simplified ‘growth mentality.’ Maybe, just, perhaps If business does not find any of that appealing, or have the strength to do any of this, perhaps business could just stop applauding the type of economic progress we seem to idolize today. To that point it was EF Schumacher who said “it is the sin of greed that has delivered us over into the power of the machine.” If greed, or an unhealthy pursuit of ‘more,’ were not the master of business, it seems like the ruthless pursuit of profits and unhealthy ‘more’ would possibly subside. Or maybe business reflects a bit and sees significance is buried somewhere in the idea that economic success is not solely economic advantage and growth & progress does not demand ruthlessness. This attitude shift, maybe a mindset shift, is important because as long as there is a clear belief in the significance (desired impact) of an organization, leadership always finds a sensible way to pursue it; that’s what leadership does. But if the belief is only in efficiency and profit then I would argue the business loses its ability to function any other way – kind of ‘anti-agile’ as well as antifragile. If business identifies some “number” as to what should be significant, process replaces vision and moral value is demoted to technical tools of efficiency and speed. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this results in a hollowness in society and an increasing functionality of process. This last point can actually get worse. This ‘hollowness’ replaces true significance-seeking and meaning and, in William Stringfellow’s terms, builds a business where process and the pursuit of what it has deemed significant is actually “moral vindication” for behavior (and attitudes I imagine). That is bad, but it gets a bit worse. The worker, and by extension the family dependent upon that worker’s compensation, actually surrenders their lives to the company and its pursuit of their objectives. To be clear. This doesn’t mean that workers are engaged or even dedicated to the particular company, just that their morals, attitudes and behaviors become subservient to the business targets. And, yes, I am suggesting people can be manipulated that way. If a business frames what it deems as significant well, and it is tied to a specific number (which feeds into how the larger company is viewed as significant in the market place) it becomes a warped version of purpose, meaning and impact. well. it becomes a hollow version; all beget by the business. I know that all sounds horrible but claims of business for morally unique status are for the most just words and some posturing. I feel relatively confident saying that because those words and postures are fairly consistently contradicted by empirically observed injustices and behavior. So, I circle back to the beginning of this section – business dismantle the present. The business world promises a warped version of ‘salvation’ (kind of a bastardized version of the Gospel) through a bastardized version of ‘significance’ in that they presume to announce a form of salvation to people, and consequently the world, even though they don’t always word it that way.

Which leads me to business’s trickery with significance.

Today’s philanthropic efforts from the extremely wealthy simply seem to be a consequence of a hope that the business pursuit of goodness and virtue, and meaningful significance, can be postponed until we have attained massive prosperity. This gets supported by the fact the business world constantly suggesting that the single-minded pursuit of wealth/growth, without bothering over moral questions and ethics, is the only realistic path to rewarding society with the most prosperity. As if morality, ethics and what is environmentally good actually encumbers that pursuit. They may not overtly say so, but there is a suggestion that incorporating the good stuff and still being able to optimize “their significant numbers” is irrational and unrealistic. But don’t worry, business softens this up a bit.  They suggest its temporary and the exclusion of morality and ethics from economic growth is something society and the world can get away with “for a little while” as long as economic growth is successful enough to reward enough people. This is a Faustian bargain. But worse? Few have truly reaped the benefits, the many have been exploited, the world has been extracted, and, well, the hollowness has shown a bit of a spotlight on the moral and ethical problems.

Which leads me to business’s second trickery.

“Gradually, of course, this mechanistic ethic of extreme individualism has been transmuted so that initiative now covers and allegedly justifies not only authentic ingenuity, audacity and hard work, but inheritance, luck and, on occasion, a little bit of larceny.”

When business refuses to participate in societal issues, societal health, and public values, it is actually being consistent with the existing standard business operating attitude. And this stance is consistent maybe not for the reason you think. While a portion is, of course, as noted earlier a belief it could hinder profit maximization, I believe a larger reason is that business prospers when it sets the rules within which it plays. I say that because there are no rules in being involved with society because the relations are both too complicated and too complex. In addition, there is an underlying fear that their value creation is susceptible to being challenged by a small percentage of the population. So, what business does is to triple down on analytics and “reason” as a force for good. In other words, they treat reason as an administrative tool for ‘good’ and, as a consequence, business become a reason-based, but morally-directionless machine, run by process-minded, scientific management (measure-based) mindset management; bereft of greater good. Yes. I am suggesting business hides behind a “mechanistic ethic” where, at its core, it is just a structured methodology of mathematical measurement. It’s a warped vision of even the warped Taylorism that got us to where we are today. It is almost like much of business is being led by a societally-illiterate group of people. I purposefully use illiterate to suggest they are just incapable of understanding the relationship between their power and societal values/morality AND societal progress. If I were particularly harsh, I would suggest they are willing to sacrifice the unmeasurable for hollowed out, but profitable, progress in business. All of this leads me to say we should stop being surprised by the ineptness of existing leadership with regard to true ‘business significance’ in that they don’t really know where they are going, other than measured short term goals, and they cannot even really envision how process/practice-driven knowledge is actually hampering the actions necessary to create and sustain a substantive healthy society. That last sentence is my warning that the search for significance actually begins by recognizing what significance is. And I worry about that.

Speaking of worries. As business encourages everyone to think that “ethical AI” (or any version of conducting business ethically through technology) is the path to progress, well, technology provides no moral guidance, nor values, by which to resolve human conflicts and the tragedies of that conflict. I say that because business will not find significance through any technology or AI, but, they could let technology and AI diminish their significance; the choice is theirs.

Technology has come to signify progress and, yet, it is clear technology can be harmful to, and for, social configurations. Langdon Winner said ‘we do not use technologies as much as we live them.’ If business is to search for true significance it will have to navigate this conflict. Business needs to not only understand, but accept, that technological progress is independent of social constraints, ethics, morality and what is good for humans – unless it is purposefully designed to be beneficial to humans. Theey need to accept business significance will not be found in technology, but humans. I will expound on this point a bit later but let me say this is important because business authority only remains in power of the existing system if, collectively, the people bestow it decision making and direction. It is a relational connection. If, collectively, people decide that relationship is unhealthy, or that the objective of significance is not desirable, or the decisions of authority are unhealthy, they can negotiate or design a new relationship/relational connection. In other words, business’s search for significance is inextricably tied to the collective needs, wants and good of people, i.e., society.

Which leads me to the search for significance.

Business should always be conscious in the effort to balance the interests of all stakeholders including investors, employees, customers and partners/suppliers. Losing the interest of any of these segments will diminish the overall value creation or, at minimum, limit its potential. To support this point, it was German businessman Heinrich Henzler who suggested that business should be seen as serving all the people not just shareholders or even employees. Henzler called it a social balancing act arguing that business should always accept that homelessness, illiteracy, and other social ills are not just only morally unacceptable, but also economically harmful. Drucker said something similar when he spoke of in and of society and it is not possible to have a healthy business in a sick society. Stewart Brand offered the idea “in the long run saving yourself requires saving the world.”  The truth is business can bear a considerable social involvemnet AND achieve its business financial objectives because of its long-term benefits to the business and economy itself, i.e., save the world and you are saved.

• Yes. There is certainly a price for embedding social cohesion into your business acumen and being a part of the social configuration, but paying this price on a continuous basis means continuity is built into the system and the business itself. That continuity, let’s call it the replication aspect of a business, permits it to not only absorb emergent issues but also the agility to explore possibilities.
• Yes. I am suggesting that a business can exist for the good of society and the world (or at least the parts it actively engages with) without sacrificing good for itself. I suggest this knowing that in doing so it also propagates the idea that business will simultaneously do good for a long period of time AND this enables thrivability to the business itself.
• Yes. I am suggesting business is not simply a self-propagating institution, but rather part of a social construct – the fabric of givers & takers as well as makers & users.
• Yes. This suggests a business can control its own fate not by focusing solely on its own self-interest, but rather by becoming invested in the collective interest.
• Yes. I am suggesting that a company will be ‘allowed’ to survive as long as it is doing something useful at a cost that people can afford and that generates enough money/profits for its continued growth and development.
• Yes. I am suggesting (I believe Charles Handy in Age of Paradox gave me this thought) that ‘employees, customers, suppliers, investors, even the community, would prefer that a business continue — as long as it is good.’

All of this to suggest business success does not always mean growth and being bigger. Sometimes the purpose should be to grow better and not bigger. If a business gets better at its value creation which is seamlessly interwoven into the creation of a society that its participants value, and if people contribute, feel like they are contributing and the business, itself, contributes to the greater world, the highest level of value (contribution) has been achieved.  I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that value creation, as offered and as received, is the key to all the ‘significant’ numbers business adores.

Lastly, I would argue in doing so the business itself will also attain its highest level of effective productivity, solid efficient productivity, and consistent profitability. I am not sure what else a business could desire. I am also not sure how that isn’t better business for a better world. I am also sure that is achieving significance.

In the end this feels like just a beginning. I read BlackRock’s shareholder letters and feel like I am reading a man discussing and searching for the significance of business. I watch the ‘anti-woke business’ shitshow and feel like I am watching hastily built dams against a rising tide of businesses exploring what their significance should be. That said. I will end with a thought I tucked in early in this piece where I suggested that business, more than any government, most likely has more power to affect values, principled behavior, and fairness in society. What business decides to do with that power is not only significant, but will ultimately define its significance. Ponder.

==

“They told me to pour my heart into everything I do. So that’s what I did, I poured and poured and poured. Now they ask me why I’m so empty.”

==

“Don’t get down
Good things come when you stop waiting around
Good things come when you stop looking
Don’t get down
You’ve just got to stop looking “

Kathleen Edwards <from song Good Things>

=====

Individualism, and the overriding belief that everyone is solely responsible for their own success or failure, is very much a uniquely American characteristic. And individualism’s hero, if there is such a one, would be Ralph Waldo Emerson. When you hear a self-help expert adamantly stating if you change your way of thinking, you will change reality, that’s Emerson. It is all captured in his essay “Self-Reliance” (1841). Generally speaking, good stuff, but there is a bit of a “do what you believe is right instead of blindly following society” which tinges individualism and in how ‘self’ gets framed and THAT has had ripple consequences for decades, i.e., “me” always knows what is best for ‘me’. To be clear. I firmly believe in hard work, accountability for self and self-reliance.

That said. Self reliance runs into two basic problems.

The first problem is a sneaky one. Self-reliance gets tied to self-determination which implies no matter the circumstances, no matter the context, no matter the power structure within which the self struggles, well, ‘where this is a will there is a way.’ As with most superficial wisdom like that, there is certainly a fragment of truth. A fragment. But from a whole perspective this attitude leads to disappointment over 90% of the time (I made up that statistic). This leads to one of two things:

• With failure the unraveling of this self-reliance equation occurs and maybe you weren’t determined enough, or reliant enough, or just not enough, and, well, you fucked up your fate. You just didn’t have enough ‘will’ to take advantage of some nebulous way, or,
• You excessively celebrate the less than 10% where your will did find a way, even if the outcome is inconsequential, inevitably using the exception to suggest it is the rule, i.e., convincing yourself self-reliant, determined, ‘will’ will find the way if only I am good enough.

The second problem is far too many people make it the ‘end all, be all’ for judging personal success/failure and it becomes a binary ‘me versus we.’ Yeah. The self reliance thing gets a bit tricky when all success is due to individual grit because then all failure is, uhm, due to lack of individual grit. Maybe worse is that attitude gets applied to all the I’s in the larger We issues, as well as when the collective society attempts to alleviate some of the issues. Look. This is a problem because sometimes ‘me’ can work hard, make mostly good choices, and the ‘we’ (the system, institutions, society) doesn’t reward the ‘me’ – & often penalizing for often random, inconsistent, reasons. The truth is self reliance is only one factor affecting the probabilities of success. Success more often aligns with a variety of external factors; yeah, circumstances and context play a large role. In fact, time teaches most people (if they are paying attention) the value of cooperation is key to success; even if you distrust the game itself. Or maybe think about something Stewart Brand wrote: “in the long run saving yourself requires saving the world.”

I begin there to talk about emptiness.

Well. I believe we all know good things don’t really come to those who wait.

** note: albeit I tend to believe the quote is meant to suggest sometimes patience rewards you

I used to believe if you gave it all, focused on doing good work, being good <generally speaking> you would be rewarded – even if you made some poor/poorish decisions on occasion. Maybe not rewarded in kind, but not completely fucked over.

I don’t really believe that anymore.

The business world, in particular, is a taker – not a giver. It will take whatever you give and not offer much in terms of guarantees with regard to what it gives back to you. Sure. You get a salary, not always commensurate to what you ‘give’ in terms of value created, and there are some perks offered <healthcare, 401ks, etc.>, but you can give a lot and still lose it all and there is nothing but, well, nothing.

To be clear. I never really understood the concept of emptiness while in the midst of doing the business of doing business. I never ran empty. Tired? Sure. Empty? Never. Maybe I didn’t always pour exactly the right things into the business of doing business, but I poured.

So, when I looked at what I had after I had given and saw, well, emptiness, I began to understand simply because you had poured everything into what you did, didn’t mean that there would be something for you FOR all that pouring.

This isn’t to say that business, or your work, is responsible for your non-work personal decisions. For god’s sake, we make a shitload of crappy personal decisions and business can only hope you are better at making decisions in the workplace. That said. HOW you pour yourself into business work – ethically, with accountability, responsibly, empathetic – should matter. I do know, personally, pouring in left a lot of big fat empty in its outcomes for me, uhm, but not who I gave it to. By the way, this is why I think pensions are good things. It is kind of like acknowledging that the work you did then is contributing to the ongoing success happening now.

But this isn’t about me.

This is about emptiness and business.

Business is about numbers. Oh. They may tell you “it’s all about our people”, but, well, that’s not true. They may not be lying (because they believe in the present, they fairly compensate people), but, well, they are lying. The problem is no employee ever gets compensated for long term value; you get paid for present value. So, if you make errors, you don’t get paid as much. But if you make grand successes, you usually get paid the same amount and you certainly don’t get paid equivalent to what you provided. In other words, for many, many, people you get some money, and end up empty. You poured everything in, and were left empty as a consequence (remember, most people invest over 1/3^rd of their life to work). I am not suggesting business , or Life, is always fair and should always be fair, just that maybe if it were a bit ‘fairer’ there would be a lot less emptiness in those who work and have worked a shitload.

Look.

Self reliance is a wonderful concept. And if the future existed of one scenario for each ‘self,’ to aim, and work hard, toward self reliance would have a higher probability to generating less emptiness. Unfortunately, life, and time, is made up of a shitload of unforeseen scenarios AND it’s a bit unrealistic to believe a ‘self’ can be self-reliant, and successful, in all. And maybe that is my point. The unforeseen scenarios, maybe some scenarios you weren’t the best skilled to handle, are the ones that empty you. And they are very (very) often scenarios business puts you in. in addition, business justifies not paying people on an ongoing basis, post working at business, BECAUSE they believe business future is unforeseen and they worry people will want to see a linear cause & effect. Business won’t and workers won’t and numbers won’t. But if you have injected a good dose of self-reliance into your daily acumen, and worked hard, the business is less empty today because of what you did yesterday. Maybe that’s why when someone is asked why they are empty now, they get annoyed. Ponder.

================

“I don’t think any madman ever said ‘Why, what an ass am I!’ “

BBC discussion on Hamlet

================

Well, fortune favors the brave, sir.”

“I think that last night, fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent.”

Richard Woodman

===============

Ok.

Success can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Winning can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Oh. As a result. Madmen who have had some success or wins can be, well, real sonuvabitches <asses>.

Regardless. Success and winning can be deceitful because it makes madmen not recognize what asses they are or how incompetent the incompetent are. Suffice it to say I have worked in businesses for over 25 years and I have never heard one of the random madmen I have come across admit they were an ass and I have rarely ever heard an incompetent ‘winner’ suggest they were simply the least incompetent that day <or any day that matter>.

Success has that effect on people.

But maybe the most dangerous effect is, for many people, once you have had some any loss seems like a threat to, well, survival. Or, as Clausewitz said:

…victory leads easily to overextension, which leads to defeat.

Uh oh. Defeat is not an option <to madmen & incompetents>. Business people in survival mode tend to shed themselves of any ability to rationally adapt as well as any ability to navigate the ‘unknowns’ inherent to any business world. Instead, most shift into a more desperate effort to fling themselves into any possible path to the next victory.

Ok. Survival may sound extreme, but I cannot think of a better word. Suffice it to say that winners think it is a life or death scenario and losing is all about a part of them dying. The ‘part of them’ may partially be confidence but, what the hell, that is a pretty significant part.

Anyway. Success or failure I do know one thing. Madmen will never say what an ass they are and incompetent people will always believe fortune favors the brave. Unfortunately, that suggests they are unchangeable.

Look. That alone isn’t so weird <or damning>. In general none of us are particularly good at changing <particularly in their business style & character & skills within business>. And THAT is important because far too many try to change themselves in order to ‘be a winner.’ I am fairly sure it was Peter Drucker who suggested it is significantly more effective to improve upon the way you perform – how you already do what you do <rather than try to fix the bad things you do>.

Uh oh. This means <gulp> madmen become more asshole-ish and the incompetent double down on their incompetence. If the mad and the incompetent seek some solace, I would note that most people do not really know shit about how they actually get things done.

Shit.

Most of us have no clue how other people do their voodoo <get things done>.

Shit. Most of us don’t really know what we are good at.

Shit. Even worse, most of us misjudge our strengths.

Shit. Even worser <I made that word up>, most of us who have had some success are even worse at misjudging their strengths.

Shit. The truth is more people actually know what they suck at <not good at>. Oh shit. But even then most people don’t get that exactly right. Holy shit. Suffice it to say we suck at judging ourselves. With all that self-assessment suckedness what do we do? Well, particularly in today’s world, you go the easy path — you simplistically judge off of outcomes/results <the successes & wins> avoiding any interest in scrutinizing any of the details of how you achieved the outcome.

In fact the details of our success becomes so unimportant in the scheme of things we create a mosh pit of all positive things which COULD have contributed to how good we were in that success. It is a crazy mix of ethics, values & integrity <inextricably tied to the results rather than the process embraced to gain the results> blended with a good amount of curiosity & perseverance & resilience <against the negative tides pushing against our inevitable deserved success> all sprinkled with the necessary “team player” <‘I thrive when I work closely with others’>.

Unfortunately, most of that self-reasoning is bullshit. The truth is this mosh pit simply cloaks incompetence, mistakes, errors in judgement and whatever ‘not-so-good shit’ <being a madman> by painting a positive coat of ‘something’ over them <”we weren’t as efficient because I wanted the team involved” or “we pursued this idea out of planned curiosity only to judge it was not the best path” … crap like that>.

Oh shit. This gets worse. Winning tends to concentrate one on doing more of what they perceived they had done to succeed rather than invest any energy on cultivating any additional skills, needs or improvements.

======================== 

“it takes far more energy to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than  to improve from first-rate performance to excellence.”

Peter Drucker

================

What makes that even worse is that translates into madmen concentrating more on ass–like things and incompetents focusing more whatever bumbling they had done.

Anyway. I have found <without any research> people fall into two buckets on this topic – those who focus on the win and those who focus on improvement. I would suggest the madmen and oblivious incompetent fall in the former bucket and the truly sane business people, with a chance of actually being good, fall into the latter bucket.

I say that because any pivot points in progress tend to become more obvious in reflection than in the actual ‘living’ within the moment.

Therefore, if all I do is focus on the win I will reflect with little true critiquing and most likely remain a madman and incompetent <this is actually called ‘objective blindness’>.

Therefore, if all I do is be slightly perpetually dissatisfied with my performance and critique, in a healthy way, I will most likely increase my competency and have progress.

The former says “fortune favors the brave.” Always.

The latter says “fortune was merely inclined to favor the least incompetent.” At least on occasion.

Lastly. I would suggest that madmen and the incompetent have one thing in common — lack of meaningful convictions <beyond success at any cost>.

==============

“Convictions are not like gloves; one cannot easily change them.” …

General Petr Grigorevich

==============

Well. “Convictions are not like gloves.” There is a keeper of a thought. Madmen and incompetents are incredibly good at treating convictions like gloves.

Shit. Their convictions are more like chameleons.

I end there because I wish more of us in the business world would keep all of this in mind. Especially the madmen, who are asses, and the incompetent <who win more often than they would like to admit … despite their incompetence>.

Sometimes you can be an ass and it is <generally> okay if you are aware enough to sit back and say “what an ass am I!”

Sometimes you can be an incompetent and its <generally> okay if you are aware enough to sit back and say “fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent this time.”

Who am I kidding? No madman has ever said “what an ass am I!” and no incompetent has ever said “fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent this time.”

That’s only the kind of things we, the normal business people, do. Ponder.

——

“I had hoped to be disliked by most, not by way of rebellion, but by way of excellence, disdain for the habitual, and the common man’s inability to grasp this.

The act of being scorned?

I saw it as a victory, my irreverent boast against this world which could never fully quench me.”

Coco J. Ginger

——–

Well. I don’t know who Coco is, but this description on her blog is fabulous. And ‘my irreverent boast against this world which could never fully quench me’ may be one of the best thoughts I have read in years.

Regardless. While this is certainly a Life thought, her thought inevitably should resonate with thinkers, writers & bloggers everywhere.

Writers have to live with the words they write.

Once shared they can never be erased.

Thinkers have to live with the ideas they share.

Once shared they can never be replaced.

Why is that so important?

Well.

Couple of thoughts.

First. Most of us play it safe.

It isn’t really political correctness, or fear, it is simply because most of us are … well … common. That’s not any kind of criticism against anyone, it just simply ‘is.’ Most of us are pretty common in our beliefs and shared thoughts. What this means is that if any of us common people have a slightly uncommon thought, idea, or something to write it feels a bit unsafe. And it is (to us). That is not an indictment on any of us nor am I going to suggest the trite ‘step out of your comfort zone’ or any fortune cookie life wisdom. Living with something that can never be replaced should demand some thoughtfulness and if you elect to play it safe, it is your choice and not someone else’s.

Second. The passionate people, and people under stress I imagine, say things now that they regret later.

This happens a lot because we live in the moment and it is a reflection of how you feel in the moment.

And, you know what? … that is okay. Because we change moment to moment, circumstance to circumstance, and having the ability to articulate that moment is a gift. I would note that most of these people don’t say what they say to be rebellious they simply say it because they feel it at that moment. I would also note the great ones say it in a way that spans generations of moments.

Now. All that said.

Words, once inscribed, never change.

Sharing words that showing disdain for the habitual?

Sharing words that show irreverent boast against a world that can never fully quench me?

Personally, I often use “I have a lover’s quarrel with the world.” Compared to “a world that can never fully quench me” it sounds less than. It sounds combative rather than hopeful. I imagine it is a reflection of the fact I see the world as full but imperfect and I seek to change it. A world that cannot fully quench me is one that has no boundaries. She sees a horizon I cannot imagine but could only dream of.

I wish I had written this thought.

It is spectacular.

But I imagine I couldn’t.

For she also wrote this about herself:

—–

“I am torn open, unabridged, hot and a bit crazy inside.

This is the feeling which belongs to me, she has always been mine.”

Coco J. Ginger

—–

I chuckled. She is as Kerouac said “… the ones mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time.”

We need people like this to stretch us all. We may dislike people like this because they make us feel a bit uncomfortable in their desire to remake a world in their vision, but these people have purposefully chosen a path that many of us not only didn’t choose to walk, but we also could not walk it. Yeah. I just said that. Some people have this dna and some do not. And that is okay. Just as I pointed out in ‘play it safe’, you make choices with regard to your own life, someone else does not.

If you would like to visit her blog, it is called Courting Madness.

Her poetry is interesting. Her writing has flashes of brilliance. And, for the most part, she is sparing with words but never sparing on thought. But, most importantly, she is one of those people who know words and ideas shared can never be replaced within a world which can never quench them.

===

“We are witnessing the crack-up of consensus. Most previous societies have operated with a broad central core of commonly shared values. This core is now contracting, and there is little reason to anticipate the formation of a new broad consensus within the decades ahead. The pressures are outward toward diversity, not inward toward unity.

This accounts for the fantastically discordant propaganda that assails the mind in the

techno-societies. Home, school, corporation, church, peer group, mass media—and myriad

subcults—all advertise varying sets of values. The result for many is an “anything goes”

attitude—which is, itself, still another value position. We are, declares Newsweek magazine,

“a society that has lost its consensus … a society that cannot agree on standards of conduct,

language and manners, on what can be seen and heard.”

Toffler, Future Shock, 1970

===

“Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe and which mean very little.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

===

The world has become a confusing swirl of realities. A mixture of fantastical thinking, alternative universes, and an absurd mix of selectively used facts/data points.  The urge for clarity—for a logical articulation of what we’re experiencing, of a mosh pit of realities world suddenly beyond our understanding, is never stronger than in moments of fantasy realities. Of course, by definition, fantasy realities refuse logic, living in a space beyond comprehension, beyond reason.

Which leads me to the battle between fantasy and reason.

One of the most underdiscussed reasons for our deepening sense of crisis and confusion is grounded in the fact while we talk endlessly of individual freedom there is an incredible pressure for conformity or, let’s say, some common thinking. This conformity is often grounded in ‘reason’ or ‘common sense.’ But let me focus on reason (because common sense is possibly the penultimate fantasy).

All the weird ideas that could have been considered counter to reason basically went mainstream. Common sense got flipped on its head. Anything is possible meant it was possible. We became unshackled, free to indulge in our own opinions with fewer and fewer fetters in the forms of facts, rationality, and reason. We began creating reality out of fantasy grounded in, uhm, ‘reason.’ But this reason was grounded in our own truths which made reality something you were free to construct on your own. At some point it seems like the majority of people just rejected the claims of reason and rationality, and reality, and began to embrace fantasies.  As a consequence, experts got thrown under the bus. Fantasy realities demand rejection of expertise, okay, well, the expert advice that didn’t agree with our own opinions that is. This became significantly easier to do the moment we started attaching so called experts with whatever bias we wanted to insert. We began attacking credentials and everyone was on the payroll of someone. At least in our reality so we could craft the reality we want (unfettered by facts).

Here is where we are.

We have turned reason into either (a) a process, i.e., a fantasy tangible thing to build a house of truth on stilts or (b) a method to manipulate, i.e., dubious logic crafting dubious reason. The former creates a cult of some beneficial machine bereft of sense and morality. The latter is a tool of corrupted experts and charlatans. Both, and all, of which means people increasingly dwell in a world of illusion, i.e., fantasy.

Which leads me to nostalgia as a major fantastical illusion.

Nostalgia has been turned into a pathological ideological tool. Nostalgia’s vague outlines gain mythical concreteness as we apply it to our fantasy realities. The problem with nostalgia is that its defining quirk is a weakness for illusion and delusion. As a consequence of this nostalgic whimsical thinking, we begin to believe that we have an accepted standard of reason and truth, but unfortunately a significant portion of the population actually becomes less reality based and more myth-addled. Yeah. it gets worse. Fantasy realities demand a ‘bad guy,’ an enemy, a “reason” why nostalgia isn’t exactly perfect and why the present isn’t using all the perfect nostalgia. That enemy is always tied to some mysterious manipulator. That’s bad, but even that gets worse. If manipulators lurk everywhere, well, we start believing that evil lurks everywhere. We all begin to feel like we are all holding onto an overhead hand hold on a careening driverless bus.

But nostalgia explains everything – the good or bad – which means the present is, well, made up of whatever you want (because all that past stuff is mostly an illusion anyway – note: does creating an illusion present from an illusion past mean we are a reason-based delusional population?). Anyway. The present doesn’t exactly help. The constant 24/7 exposure of actual conspiracies have led many people to assume that anything bad is the intentional result of some conspiracy. I mean, well, if there are that many, certainly they have to be intentional? That asked, this makes it harder to expose and dismantle the truly rare real ones. We’ve moved beyond isolated events to exposure to an onslaught of relentless sudden events. The societal discourse is now clogged more than ever with conspiracy theories and fantasy realities. Reality, the real one, is being bludgeoned by fantasy. One of the most worrying consequences of this is that all the conspiratorial noise obscures the occasional signals of the important things we should pay attention to, but we don’t. To be clear. This fantasy reality issue is highly asymmetrical. Or let’s just say the asymmetrical has gone too far out of whack. Fantasy reality thinking has taken on outsized gravitas versus reality not because the fantasy is any more believable, but rather because the believers have become more strident, more vocal and, well, more. Not to bring politics into this we should just admit that there are more absurd, and just, well, more, fantasy realities on the American Right then on the left. To be clear. I am not suggesting if you are on what is deemed ‘the far right’ you believe in fantasy realities, but of the people who believe in fantasy realities they are most likely somewhere on the Right spectrum. That said. Politicians, in general, thrive on fostering fantasy realities (see opening Eleanor Roosevelt quote as reference) so on this point I am not sure if it is a chicken or egg discussion.

The truth is America’s unhinged right has become much larger and more influential than the unhinged left. In addition, the unhinged right now has significantly more power and effective control than it is ever had. The truth is only the American right has a large and organized faction based on paranoid conspiracism that has spanned over decades.

Kurt Anderson

So. Maybe my point is that fantasy thinking has seemed to gain momentum. There have always been people with fantasy realities and those random beliefs have been incredibly resilient and enduring. They have had the ability to morph into other forms to fit into different groups as time and context have changed. This can partially be explained in that in the past (and worryingly too often in the present) most of the reality-based people typically ignored the fantastical thinking, if not were amused by it, as the quacks, charlatans and paranoid conspiracists pushed and pulled and encouraged people to believe their fantasy realities. Uh oh. Over time the quacks, charlatans and paranoid conspiracists carved out ‘believable-enough’ slivers of fantasy factions and we saw more people gravitate towards them. ‘Believable-enough’ is key here because as with most things, for every force, there is typically an equal and opposing force. In this case the slivers of fantasy realities grew as a force as the world became more complex, more un-understandable and, consequently, more difficult to explain, i.e., less believable. What were once vague unbelievable dangers now seemed very very real and believable. From those seeds grew fantasy realities. Yeah. I just rationalized fantasy realities with reason.

Which leads me to sensemaking.

Sensemaking is the weapon against fantasy realities. The sensemaking process is a cognitive and social process of creating meaning and understanding out of complex or ambiguous information. It involves interpreting and making sense of data, information, and experiences in order to develop a coherent understanding of a situation. The sensemaking process typically involves the following steps (source lost or maybe this is a good ChatGPT response):

1. Perception: This is the initial stage where we perceive or become aware of information or data that is relevant to the situation.
2. Attention: We focus our attention on the information or data that we perceive as being most relevant or salient.
3. Comprehension: We attempt to understand the information or data by organizing it into a coherent framework or mental model.
4. Interpretation: We make sense of the information or data by interpreting it in light of our existing knowledge, experiences, and expectations.
5. Integration: We integrate the new information or data with our existing mental model or framework, making adjustments as needed.
6. Evaluation: We evaluate our understanding of the situation, checking for inconsistencies or gaps in our understanding.
7. Action: We take action based on our understanding of the situation, either by making decisions or taking other appropriate actions.

Sensemaking, in my words, is transactional and structural. What I mean by that is while everything above is iterative and an ongoing process, sensemaking performs on two axis: the current situation (finite in its time and resources) and the situation as it evolves (a seeming infinite onslaught of information, data and inputs that make the situation dynamic). Effective sensemaking accommodates the challenges of the “now” (the law of the situation) as well as offers a foundation to navigate ‘the long now’ by offering a coherent set of lily pads in an uncertain, dynamic, in-flux, world barraged by fantasy reality spewing charlatans.

I would also point out that from a societal perspective sensemaking is largely a social process or, as James Carse suggests, “the smallest unit of change is a conversation.” The more conversations that take place with regard to reality, the less likely some fantasy can impersonate reality. The social process, the conversations, make everyone an individual and, yet, part and parcel of all reality (Hanzi Freinacht calls this being a transvidual). Try this thought on for size. If we encourage sensemaking, conceptually we all become accountants. Not in the traditional sense, as in dollars and cents, but instead you keep account of political trends, ideological thinking, military actions, religious leadership, technological developments, communities, local news/activity and even the price of wool, oil, cheese, milk and tea, i.e., reality. In some way you keep account of the ten thousand threads that make up the tapestry of reality. Yes. That can sound a bit daunting. A bit overwhelming. A bit like, well, it makes fantasy realities sound a bit more appealing. I will end there because, as well know, our favorite indulgence always looks appealing – the Haagen Daz ice cream, the double chocolate cake, even the favorite brand of shoes – but we know we can’t afford it all the time because it isn’t healthy; for the body, mind or wallet. Fantasy realities are exactly the same. Appealing but unhealthy. Ponder.

==

But how do people NOT see the huge

Bias against one over another?

===

Hypocritical!

==

If you would like to answer the question above, more often than not you find yourself doing a deep dive down the “lazy bias” rabbit hole of stupidity.

Here’s what I mean. Pick your culture/political/society version of this question (the big one in the present is obviously, again, Trump) and the obvious answer to this question is that most objective thinking people would not see this one thing as a huge bias against one over another. I don’t care about the question, just as a generalization as soon as you see this question, and attached to ‘hypocrisy’, I can almost guarantee it will be the beginning of a superficial dance in which objectivity will offer the same answer over and over again (“it’s not the same”) and the lazy instigator will offer the same answer over and over again (“bias” and “hypocrisy”). That is objective reality. Unfortunately, that answer would quickly gets you to the rabbit hole opening. The rabbit hole opening is “ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you say that that’s because you’re biased.” And down we go the hole.

• It’s because you hate X. Because you love X person.

• You are a Democrat. You are a Republican.

• You went to this school. You didn’t go to school.

• You worked for X Company, foundation, nonprofit.

• You believe X.

• You grew up in an X neighborhood.

• Bla, bla, bla, bla, ……

The list is endless. The rabbit hole has no bottom. Provide an objective point of view that doesn’t agree with what the other person is thinking and, well, you are biased. Their reasoning isn’t really reason, just some random causation/correlation linkage.

By attempting to answer objectively and entering into a full deliberative discourse and constructive conversation, we instead shift into some less-than-intellectual combat where a bunch of stupid Goliaths lumber after Davids wielding only sanity as a weapon. It is a slugfest of lazy false equivalence versus nuance and depth of reason, battling their way down the rabbit hole of stupidity. In the darkness all nuance gets lost and the lazy thinking cuts like honed steel.

It’s insane, it’s absurd and it’s lazy. It’s intellectual nihilism.

Look. Everyone has some bias. But bias towards truth or facts is not really a bad bias. In fact, one would hope more people had this type of bias.

Which Leads me to depth and breadth.

So the suggestion is that because of ‘this one thing’ a person loses all ability to objectively approach something. Absurd. It reminds me of something that General Mark Milley said “yes, I have read the Communist Manifesto, but, no, this does not make me a communist.” Absolutely. Some things are indicative of a bias that can warp a perspective. But simplistically suggesting that everybody loses their entire ability to objectively view something because of something they have done, something they have read or somewhere that they work is ludicrous. No. Lazy. It’s lazy because depth and breadth of experience is actually the hard work necessary to push thru some bias. In other words, I can instinctually hate something, but, depth and breadth of experience suggests the probability of a conclusion is of higher value than my hatred, e.g., I hate communism but I read Communist Manifesto so that I can be less biased in how I consider options with regard to the system I live in (democracy and capitalism). It is actually the fact someone has done these things, got that education, read these things and made these types of decisions in the past that actually make them more objective. Ah. But in the fantasy lazy bias argument world, all that objective increasing activity is simply a means to parse out some bias. It’s stupid.

Which leads me to false equivalence and conflation which distorts context.

Context gets distorted through whataboutism. In this lazy thinking context world, the differences between the ‘whataboutisms’ don’t really matter to the lazy faithful. In a victim-driven mindset the institutions are always the enemy and my faith is always under attack. Even more absurdly, the ‘reason’ is an alternative universe projection of an existing belief (an extreme biased view of something). It is a common-sense world view unhampered by any real reason and objective rationality. There appear to be no limitations to an objective reality therefore the most superficial aspects become ‘equivalent’ and some fairly disparate differences becomes easily conflated. Its, well, stupidity at its best. But where this becomes annoying beyond the stupidity is when the false equivalence is used to suggest hypocrisy. Now. Let’s be clear. The world, particularly in politics, is rampant with hypocrisy. In fact, so much so, well, you don’t need to create any false equivalence to point it out. But hypocrisy is a lazy technique for lazy arguments.

To end this rant.

I will not argue that defending against misinformation and misleading headlines is easy. It isn’t.

I will not even argue that some of our existing biases can skew our views. They will.

But I will argue that substantive reasoning can offer a pathway to objectivity, if you put in the work. Its not something for the lazy. But let me really clear on something. Trump has always been amoral, always narcissistic, i.e., operated as if he is above the system, always a pathological liar and always danced on the dangerous edge of legality. Yeah. Someone is now shouting at their computer “he is biased” and “what a hypocrite!!”

Oh well.

Those are objective truths and offer context for anything he is faced. Judge the system’s actions based on that and not some lazy bias argument. Ponder.

==

“Resplendent intellect gone mad.”

Mark Twain

==

The unthinkable becomes inevitable, and once inevitable, acceptable.

==

It was Salih Reisoglu who suggested the idea of social intellect:

“Social intellect which is a balanced blend of intelligence social education social experience and social awareness. Being intellectually adult is defined as being educated and experience in social sciences that improve our awareness of the social environment around us both as a political participant and as an economic participant in this society. This intellect means that we have to be aware of a wide range of opinions point of views ideologies and even concepts so that we can actually critically assess the choices that we are being asked to make.”

===

I begin there to discuss the bargain society seems to be making with its intellectual intelligence versus technology. And, yes, I just made them opponents. Why? The relationship between humans and technology is asymmetrical. Technology has become not only greater than the people who created it, but the humans who use it. Yeah. While pundits dance on the head of the “what is intelligence” pin, the everyday world simply believes the computer/smartphone/technology is smarter than they are, can make decisions faster and better than any one person can. I say that because anyone who imagines we can defend and protect ourselves through our own awareness and willpower is simply failing to grasp the depth and dimensions of which technology brings to bear its power. The technology revolution is wreaking havoc on the human mind and, consequently, the world we live in.

Havoc can be created several ways:

• the platform itself makes it that an unconstrained actor will always win.
• As a corollary, technology’s power to reshape human minds resides not in control, but in subtle manipulations where the changes occur in single digit %’s at a time rather than one sweeping 100% shift. Once again, these actors, with these actions, will always win.

The consequence of this havoc is society is polarized and fragmented and overall social intellect is being suffocated. And its only getting worse. Even curiosity stagnates when caged within a tribe <digital echo chambers or filter bubbles>. This is a global societal problem. Intellectually we are shrinking to fit into the narrower dimensions of our worldview. It is no coincidence we are polarized as we coalesce into likeminded groups even while connected to a larger world. Simply by being connected we convince ourselves we are ‘openminded’ and ‘seeing worldview to influence the broadening of our minds” when in reality the technology itself is steering us into smaller and smaller, more distant from broader reality, groups and tribes. We are not getting stupider, its just that our social intellect isn’t optimized, in fact, our intellect is being reduced.

Which leads me to say that simply stating that this barrage of information over stimulates us cognitively is certainly imprecise if not a little lazy.

The most important aspect of our intellectual cognitive condition reflects a fundamental feature of human existence – human beings are in the finite predicament of having fixed limits on their cognitive capacities in the time available to them. Actual human beings in everyday situations do not have potentially infinite memory and computing time that most computers have. This is the cognitive friction within which the social intellect conflict occurs. It is within this combinatorial explosion of multiple proofs, forcing probabilistic thinking rather than black & white binary choicemaking, where we get cognitively stretched. Unable to construct complete theories – to be fair, often many things are just too complex to understand – we lean in on our existing biases which causes us to accept far too many falsehoods (partial truths) and reject far too many truths. Basically, we are attempting to build our social intellect on the fly.

“We are like sailors who must rebuild their ship on the open sea, never able to dismantle it in drydock and reconstruct it there out of the best materials.”

Otto Neurath

To do this we find what is called “the minimal inference condition.” We make decisions, well, not precisely, but often based on what we think is apparently appropriate to what would satisfy our own beliefs (and desires I imagine). Yeah. We adopt convenient, but often unsound, inferences to make ‘logical’ (or what we deem rational) choices. Technology giveth and taketh. I believe it was Marshall McLuhan who explained how it gives and takes away simultaneously. It gives us the simplistic (easy and quick to grasp) yet takes away the depth and nuance and the invisible, unless sought out, that gives the intellectual depth to not only sensemake, but make good choices. It makes the advantages easy to see and the disadvantages more difficult to see. This creates a cognitive asymmetry where an illusion that technology is positively enhancing human progress is shaped. In other words, we don’t see, or ignore, the price we pay for technology. This is a dangerous intellectual bargain.

Which leads me back to Salih Reisoglu and his thinking that social intellect is made up of the intellectually immature versus intellectually mature.

And this is where the bargain gets tricky. Depending on where you stand, individually on the social intellect scale, will be how you make your bargain with technology. So let me spend a minute on that social intellect spectrum. Independent of your age, people who did not have enough of the chance to get a basic education or much of an experience due to a lack of exposure to different environments/cultures/thinking-behind-a-belief skew toward being more intellectually immature. It can get a bit more complicated beyond that. A lot of people get a good education concentrating on a specific skill or topic and become valuable experts in their areas of interest, yet, will have blinders on for what exists outside that specific expertise (and do not have the ability to ‘lateral think’, i.e., use that expertise as foundation for solid thinking outside that expertise). Yeah. I am saying that deep expertise does not necessarily translate into social awareness learning and experience. This means simply being an expert doesn’t mean you have a good relationship with social reality and effective social contribution.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out something Reisoglu emphasizes that that the ratio of the intellectually mature in a society is the primary determinant of how good the political and economic systems of the society develop and function. This is true because the socially intellectual immature remain in some form or fashion ‘innocent’ (I like this word better than ignorant in that it just shows a bit of unexperienced naiveté rather than choiceful stupidity) as a consumer and a voter. While intending to make the best choices they can the reality is due to poor social intellect they just make too many mistakes in their economic and political judgments or are easily misguided by others to make choices that do not really serve their best interest. They simply lack the ability to properly see the correct causality relation between their actions and that consequences of those actions end up opposite what they wanted. This can get a little worse. The reality is not all intellectual mature, socially or intelligence-wise, are good people. Many choose to serve their own interests at the expense of others in society – even playing without rules, being unethical or ignoring the rule of law. To serve their own purpose they will not hesitate to misguide the intellectual immature. If a society is dominated by intellectual immature, the economic and political system is left to the mercy of the few intellectual adults and we have clearly seen globally, the ‘non-good people’, but intellectually mature, can easily discredit the good people and dominate a system. They overpower complex situations by making the intellectually immature crowds believe in the fast, simple, but false promises, which are much easier than explaining complex issues with the less comfortable long-term solutions. Reisoglu points out something which I have said for decades: the primary contributors to the marketer system failures are not primarily the evil characters, but those (of social intellect) innocence who did not have the chance or the motivation to develop themselves and remained intellectual immature throughout their lives.

Which leads me to education.

Our next bargain is now with education. Education, generally speaking, is of no use to society unless it is purposefully designed to better society. And this is where things begin to go awry. The intellectually immature tend to reduce the design while the intellectually mature tend to expand the design. This becomes even more true when that education falls under the construct of social education. Reductionism is actually harmful to society mostly because it doesn’t foster critical and conceptual thinking (which I tend to believe most people believe is important in a complex dynamic world).

This would lead me to suggest that a social education needs to include alternative opinions and point of views, including ideologies, to benefit the overall welfare of the society. This isn’t to ‘indoctrinate’ anyone, but rather what it does is make people more intellectually mature which, as a consequence, means that their decisions are more well-rounded and more rationalized in reality. Therein lies the first, and possibly the biggest, bargain. Exposure to alternative thinking strengthens your belief in what you already believe, not diminishes it. yeah. I purposefully worded it that way to make a point. You are bargaining that the idea, or ideology, or belief, is strong enough to withstand the intellectual rigor found in exploring opposing ideas, ideologies, and beliefs. This bargain is an important one because to build an intellectual framework educational infrastructure society must demand a system of basic education that teaches young people not what to believe in without questioning, but how to think through curiosity with access to complete information. I imagine I believe if an education system fails to create a solid social intellect mental construct far too many people will remain intellectually immature and as a consequence not question answers being offered by who they ‘feel’ are serving their interests. The social intellectually immature will remain comfortable in the little mental playgrounds that they feel comfortable playing in and no others.

As the opening of this piece suggests, social education must go way beyond civic education and must span the basics of the primary social sciences, of politics economics finance, law, and sociology in order to enable every person to understand and to evaluate the dynamics of the system within the society. This social education creates a general social awareness to provide context for comparisons and enhance critical thinking. To be clear. The aim of social education is not, and cannot be, to create an economics or politics or even a sociology expert out of each individual. The objective is to make each person of the society intellectually mature enough to be able to understand and evaluate not only the system, and the choices demanded of the system, but also the experts, so they can make rational choices as consumers and voters. I would suggest not accepting this bargain just makes you easy prey for the charlatans who may seem to serve your interests, but do not.

To be clear because I am talking here about education. Professional expertise is not social education. I could even argue that social intellect is not directly associated with professional expertise. Professional expertise can exist and the individual can still be intellectual immature socially. This is not to suggest that this is healthy for society because if professional experts are social intellectually immature they slow the pace of societal progress, i.e., society and progress is not optimized and, I imagine, you could posit that if the world becomes increasingly complex, that progress drag has a multiplicative negative effect on society over time. Conversely, if we increase the number of professional experts WITH a good social education, THEY will not be able to optimize their potential if the societal system is driven by the socially intellectual immature. It is a looped education challenge to ensure the environment is conducive to fostering social intellectually mature potential. At some point we need to take a good long hard look at the bargain society is willing to make with education (which includes how technology educates).

Which leads me to why we should embrace a larger bargaining discussion.

I am a business person who talks about societal issues through a business acumen filter. In almost every business model, interaction and connectivity is seen as a bargaining process between efficiency & effectiveness, pragmatism an& possibilities and intellectual & productivity. This gets exacerbated in a more interdependent world in which the task of calculating a utility function is almost virtually impossible. The truth is that a business is both rational and habitual, both intellectual and emotional, and it only progressing through bargaining on those issues. A business is organized around a central premise in which the form and direction of microactions are conceived to spring from a combination of habits and experiences that allow for thoughtful probabilistic thinking and are open to change. A society is the same. At any given point we will never have enough information, therefore, any decision a society makes will be some bargain. That bargain improves the higher the social intellect of the grander society.

Or as Ernst B. Haas said “a distinction is made between adaptation and learning. The former is defined as the ability to change one’s behavior so as to meet challenges in the form of new demands without having to reevaluate one’s entire program and the reasoning on which that program depends for its legitimacy, while learning is reserved for situations in which an organization is induced to question the basic beliefs underlying the selection of ends.”

A society is simultaneously marked by coherence and breakdown. It is a puzzle in which the demands of the subsystems and the needs of the macro systems need to bargain. Within that bargain resides the paradox of how can society be moving in two different directions at the same time, i.e., toward coherence and towards breakdown?

Both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson emphasized that prosperity meant little without societal, or social, betterment, and that a proper balance between them had to be maintained. Progress, to them, meant the pursuit of technology and science (and education) in the interest of human betterment as in intellectual and ethical as well as material prosperity. Both men worried about corruption and how their idea of a healthy society could be corrupted. As much as they embraced progress, they considered all innovations as a means to achieving the larger social end. They understood that a healthy society was an unending bargaining process. In their day it was machinery, in today’s world it is now technology attempting to bend the arc of society.

Which leads me to end with this discomforting tidbit from Azeem Azhar’s 6/4/23 newsletter:

• Bye-bye science: India has recently excised evolution, the periodic table, and energy sources, from its school curriculum — setting aside learning that lays the groundwork for scientific comprehension and foster critical thinking. Other topics that have been removed include analysis of democracy, pluralism and political dissent. If this is rolled out across the country, it’s terrible news for India. Investments in human capital – education – are key drivers of shared prosperity in times of technological change. Freedom to think, whether through the scientific method or simply being critical of the system, is an essential enabler of research, entrepreneurship and wealth.

Society’s intellectual bargaining is happening right before our eyes – everywhere. At stake in this bargaining process is, pragmatically, our social intellect – i.e., our choice to be intellectually immature or mature societies – and, possibilities, what kind of future do we want or even need? What kind of bargain are we willing to strike? And, relevant to today, what role do we want technology to play? Ponder.

===

“Much like we cannot let the work of building better futures be contingent on feeling hopeful, we can’t let corporations or those in power control the flow and definition of hope either. No company or politician can hand you hope. We have to build it in and among ourselves as a beginning, not as an end. How does one change the future? How do we get to the tomorrows we want and not the ones we don’t? And a core piece of that question has to do with the way in which insects melt themselves into goo. Must we fully dissolve ourselves and our world in order to get to the futures we want? Do we have to burn it all down, destroy it all, and rebuild from that melted space? Or can we change more gradually, more incrementally, more like the hermit crabs, upgrading slowly as we go?

As Octavia Butler once said, “There’s no single answer that will solve all our future problems. There’s no magic bullet. Instead, there are thousands of answers—at least. You can be one of them if you choose to be.”

Rose Eveleth

===

“The unicorn is a lonely, solitary creature that symbolizes hope.”

Ally McBeal

===

The world sends out billions of messages, small to large, which puncture our hope. Some of the messages are intended to do so and some are not. Intentions aside, they all do. Because of that grind of stories we seem to face every day, I do believe a lot of people just seem to be more empty these days.

Well.  Certainly less full of hope if they aren’t completely empty.

I say this even to the people who are working hard to find a way to improve the world. I say that because even listening to smartish podcasts where brilliant articulators of issues thrive, more often than not you walk away a bit deflated. A bit discouraged. With a bit of a feeling that the meta issues are so overwhelming, well, what can I do?

In other words.

Hope punctured.

The truth is in today’s world we seem to get caught up in the everyday grind of the story of the day. And, yes, most stories don’t reflect the best version of people or the positive side of emergent issues.  What this means is that it can get fairly easy to step on to the slippery slope leading down to a belief we are in some shithole with no leader or steps to get out of it. And what THAT means <at least to me> is that far too many people are abandoning hope and we desperately need some people to offer us some good ole pragmatic hope.

Why do I feel so strongly about this?

I imagine lack of hope is kind of like entering a personal hell and even deflated, or deflating, hope is kind of like feeling like you are stepping onto the slippery slope into hell. Needless to say. This isn’t good for anyone.

I would be remiss if I didn’t say that the corollary to that is those of us with hope to give should share it whenever we can to get others out of that hell or at least off the slippery slope.

Which leads me to … uhm … unicorns.

Yeah. Unicorns. I thought about this because a friend of mine, one of the most delightful thinkers I know, and one of the best purveyors of whimsical thinking on serious topics, admitted to a bit of deflated hope.

So, unicorns is the topic today.

Crazy? Sure.  Sounds it.

Hear me out. Hopefully it also makes you think about the people who seem to keep a vision of hope and use it, however they elect to keep that hope at hand, to help them through the days and weeks.

So. This thought is actually grounded in an Ally McBeal episode. The show, in its oft absurd way, showed how sometimes people go to some extreme, if not bizarre, ways to hold on to some light in seemingly dark days. And while the episode was about the holidays, I thought it was pretty relevant to talk about hope.

What do I mean?

Well. I was going to try and write some whizbang words, but instead I found something that someone wrote on their blog <sorry … forgot who> that seemed to create the perfect reason for discussing why seeing unicorns is perfectly acceptable:

==

What has made it challenging for me to write this is the darkness that I experience through the world’s anguish at this time. I am not living in days of light—I am living in days in need of light. I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for our planet. I witness the kindest of people being too busy to adequately separate their own food waste and recycling from their trash to reduce the build-up of what is becoming our planetary garbage dump. I witness fires and weather destroying lives and property and then reflect on the consequence of our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately. In this season of cold, I see the homeless in our own community seeking shelter from the wet and the winter.

And even, perhaps, more sharply, I returned from Israel more aware than ever of the incredibly wide divide between the humanity we perceive and the inhumanity shown by the actions of the leaders in that troubled region.

Right here at home, I am troubled by the inaction of so many of us who speak words of reconciliation, words of peace, words of promise, yet continue to find enemies who need to be stopped rather than people who need to be invited into the dialogue.

Yes, all that is true, yet I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

==

Anyway. In the Ally McBeal episode I am referencing someone was fired for saying he saw a unicorn. Silly, yet the judge in the episode suggests “there are a lot of lonely people out there, looking for hope in strange places.”

Yeah. In the end the judge decides that those people can keep their unicorns.

You know?

It sounds a little crazy, but you know what? I agree.

Some people need to believe in unicorns. It doesn’t mean they are nuts. People need to find hope however they can and some people just see the unicorn as hope. And, frankly, why should anyone have any say in where a person may look for that hope?

For god’s sake, all people deserve hope and different people just get there in different ways.

And if someone elects to use a unicorn?

Well, geez, it could be worse, couldn’t it?

“who’s to say the ones who dream of unicorns aren’t the lucky ones these days.”

I know … I know … this sounds nuts … but think about it.

Supposedly people who see unicorns share some of the unicorn’s traits as in they may be lonely, but with virtuous hearts. Mythology also suggests that only pure spirits can approach the unicorn.

In the episode the character who saw it said he didn’t get close to the unicorn, but (here is the part that maybe makes you think a little) “but he won’t have another chance if he stops believing in the unicorn.”

Ok.

That is a bigger thought than just a wacky tv show. If we ask all people to stop “believing in unicorns” do people lose any chance of reaching what they hope for? If we ask people to stop ‘believing in unicorns’ are we asking people to abandon Hope?

Whew.

C’mon.

I know all of this sounds crazy <and it even looks crazy as I type it>, but don’t we really want more of these people in today’s world? Don’t we need just a bit more crazy-like hope in today’s crazy world?

In fact, maybe the people who see unicorns are actually the hope for the rest of us. Maybe they are the ones “where goodness reigns.”

Regardless. Maybe someone who sees a unicorn somehow just feels safer. And I have no right to not allow someone that right in today’s world. As I noted in my opening, the world appears to be doing its best to puncture our hope so maybe we need to create some thoughts that are ‘unpuncturable.’ Maybe we need the whimsical brilliance just to bring a tad of Teflon to our hopes and thinking and quests.

Here is an odd note to add from me, a pragmatic realist, I don’t know if I can explain it, but knowing that maybe someone out there can actually see a unicorn, well, maybe in a weird way they give me hope.

——————-

And, I’m afraid say it out loud because maybe if life finds out it’ll try to beat it out of them and that will be a shame. Because, we all can use a little hope sometimes, you know. That feeling that everything’s going to be okay and that there’s going to be someone there to help make sure of that.

There are people who can make you believe in things you can’t see.

And I think we miss that these days.

———————-

Look. It’s a hard time for everyone these days, but it is a particularly hard time for Hope & dreams right now. Unfortunately, far too many people are being encouraged to think of hope & dreams as some big, fluffy cloud that is surrounded by rainbows and unicorns. Because of that we tend to dismiss the ‘unicorns’ and tend to focus on the fact real horses, zebras and gazelles are dying.

Yes. We have some really serious issues we need to address and many of those serious larger, meta, issues can look overwhelming and unsolvable. But. To me … no hope = hell. And who wants to live in hell?  What I think I know is, well, hell doesn’t have unicorns. It doesn’t have the whimsical. It doesn’t have brilliant wizards. And maybe, just maybe, we should seek out the hope just a bit more often there. Ponder.

===

One day in 2017, Alexandra Rowland wrote “The opposite of grimdark is hopepunk. Pass it on.” A style of brutal nihilism had become a trend. It was a sort of dystopian darkness where nothing mattered and everything was void of hope. Enough was enough, so she put words to the something she longed for and learned she was far from alone.

“We’ve all been mean and petty and cruel, but we’ve also been soft and forgiving and kind. Hopepunk says that kindness and softness doesn’t equal weakness, and that in this world of brutal cynicism and nihilism, being kind is a political act. An act of rebellion.”