===

“And I want to believe that I’ve made the right choice and that I’m on the right path and there’s still time to fix the mistakes that I’ve made. And I guess I want hope.”

===

“If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place.”

Margaret Mead

===

Let’s talk personal accountability for our behavior. Let me begin in an odd place – government. Almost every person hates government involvement in life, society and communities because, well, while we claim infringement into our lives, the deeper discomfort is someone is forcing us to conform to certain behaviors. No one likes that. That said. In almost every situation we, the people, seem to disregard our role in that involvement. If we did, we may see that our imperfections, in terms of flawed behavior, often demand government to put themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to regulate actions and behaviors. Yeah. If people or business institutions fail to regulate their own behavior, the government will.

Which leads me to regulating our own behavior (without laws).

Moulton, in Law and Manners, examined the three great domains of human action.

• the domain of positive law where our actions are prescribed by laws which must be obeyed.
• the domain of free choice which includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy
• between those two and the largest and important domain, where neither positive law nor absolute freedom exists. In that domain there is no law which explicitly determines our course of action and yet we feel that we are not free to choose as we would.

I would suggest that last domain could be considered social norms and our behavior within this space outlines the social contract. Moulton called this the domain of obedience to the unenforceable. This is where the person, the individual, enforces laws of behavior on themselves. It’s kind of our ‘do the right thing’ compass and, therefore bounded or constrained by not only our own morals and ethics, but also by what society accepts or defines unacceptable or distasteful. While it would be impossible to construct laws for all circumstances, more importantly, we would not prefer laws to dictate in all circumstances. Consequently, this means most of our life is found in the infinite ‘no-law dictated’ situations where free choice is bounded not by law, and not by ‘I can do’ freedom, but rather ‘should I do’ principles. Yeah. We are expected to dictate our own behavior. Ah. Therein lies the danger to society and to, well, greatness.

Which leads me to greatness.

In Moulton’s mind the real greatness of the nation is measured by people’s behavior in the obedience to the unenforceable domain. It is within that behavioral space in which we can evaluate the extent to which a nation trusts people and the way people actually behave in response to that trust. To be clear. Mere obedience to law does not measure the greatness of a nation, i.e., the law will never tell you the right thing to do, it just outlines the wrong things.

Nor is the behavior under the guise of freedom within the absence of law a proof of greatness. True greatness is found in individual behavior obeying self-imposed law. Circling back to the beginning, what this means is that a society of peoples must assume some responsibility, some accountability, with regard to their actions. What I mean by that is there can be a weird belief that just because someone can do something means they may do it. The problem is between can do and may do there exists the wretched hollow in-between containing duty, fairness, sympathy, empathy, and all the other things that make life not The Hunger Games and creates a healthy social contract. It is within the space in-between can do and may do because it is within that space greatness can be attained and greatness can be lost. This means the participants within a society need to be able to recognize that the increase of their freedom of action brings with it not unfettered choice but the corresponding responsibility, and accountability, of using that freedom. We would wish that society feels the obedience to the unenforceable so strongly that in even the worst moments they all behaved as if when reflective on the behavior we behaved to our better angels. Unfortunately, in a zero-sum world one isn’t encouraged to be an angel, but rather constantly seek some angle.

“It is a world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral.”
Saul Alinsky

And if we play the angles long enough, they become the norms.

Which leads me to the shifting baseline.

Angles, and angling, ultimately shifts the baseline of behavior. The shifting baseline is grounded in the fact that once something is gone, people forget they ever had it and, from a broader perspective, whatever conditions people grow up with are the ones they generally consider normal (normal is defined as any initial environmental context experience which establishes a baseline perspective). This means we tend to take for granted things, i.e., lost things are lost and the existing should be the norm and our baseline for what is right, or even good, shifts accordingly.

This phenomenon, known as “shifting baseline syndrome.”

Fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly researching the drastic reduction in the size of catch off the eastern seaboard of North America, which had declined by 97% since written records began found the fishermen remained strangely unconcerned. He realized that each generation viewed the baseline as whatever they caught at the beginning of their career, regardless of how much smaller it was than the previous generation, leading to what he called “the gradual accommodation of the creeping disappearance” of fish populations.

• *** note: accumulation of studies around the world measuring the declines of species and ecosystems indicates that overall, we’ve lost around 90% of nature’s profusion. We live in a “10% world.”

So while that is about fish, it’s not really just about fish.

Shifting baseline syndrome has since been shown to be pervasive everywhere in the world and today I’m suggesting it has to do with norms and in particular the largest domain of behavior the obedience to the unenforceable. Our current path is dismantling an earlier world weakening the mechanisms on which the spirit of society – economic, social cohesion, freedom – permitted progress. Defying existing norms creates a new axis mundus of injustice and exploitation. It is now with the things which had never been formally identified and categorized we’re increasing economic and social difficulties are now big being constructed. It would be remiss if I didn’t point out all of these all of this diminishes the greatness or the potential for of countries and societies. This is a new type of exploitation even different than the notion that marks offered us. This exploitation is not a class construct, but a classless construct. And, yes, pun intended. Regardless. This all creates social negativity compounded by the fact the only way to curb this societal dysfunction is inevitably through laws. Well, a law will never tell anyone the right thing to do, just highlight the most wrong. And, once again, no sane person wants a law to dictate behavior in all circumstances.

Which leads me to renormalizing norms.

Normativity pervades our daily lives, influencing our decisions, behaviors, and societal structures. It encompasses a range of principles, standards, and values that guide human actions and shape our understanding of what’s considered right or wrong, good or bad. Over time, societal norms evolve, reflecting shifts in normative perspectives (cultural, social, and philosophical), i.e., shifting the baseline. Often, we see shifting social norms culminating in the changing of outdated laws to better align with the acceptable, and unacceptable normative behaviors of the day. While it’s ethically significant that norms shift over time and adapt to their context, it’s important to note that these changes often happen slowly. Eventually, changes in norms influence changes in laws if the middle domain if behavior doesn’t accommodate the new norms.  Once again, norms, and acceptable behavior, can be explicit or implicit, originating from various sources like cultural traditions, social institutions, religious beliefs, or philosophical frameworks. But. often, the most important norms are implicit because they are unspoken expectations that people absorb as they experience the world around them. but when these norms loosen up, well, significantly, as in they become untethered to any real manners, we will inevitably shift our baseline. It is happening in the present. We need to re-tether norms to acceptable behavior and make some of them a bit more specific. Make the past vague outlines of what is acceptable, and what is unacceptable, a bit more concrete. We need to be a bit more explicit in order to constrain some behavioral bad actors into a clear unacceptable category and reject a shifting baseline that is shifting downwards into hellish behavior. Ponder.

===

“Everything we care about lies somewhere in the middle, where pattern and randomness interlace.”

James Gleick

===

“Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.”

Henry Miller

—-

People tend to freak out over the whole idea of randomness, chaos and confusion. Well. Let me suggest that, on occasion, a little randomness, chaos and confusion is good.

Yup.

I just said that.

I have even said great organizations tend to linger on the edge of chaos or ‘bedlam’ as I called it. and while I stated that with multiple people dynamics in mind, I tend to believe most of us, individually, would find that life is just a bit ‘greater’ if we allowed it to linger more often on the edge of chaos or bedlam.

I say that because what appears to be chaos is not really chaos, and what appears to be confusion, is not really confusion. It has the same feel, the same smell, the same look, but it is not those things. it is simply a pattern, or an order, we just don’t recognize – yet.

Here is the tricky part. It is quite possible we will never see the actual pattern or create the order as ‘learning’ from the confusion. Instead, we may only see the outcome of the seeming chaos and confusion and that outcome is most often a new idea or a new thought or a new experience.

===

“Invention … does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos.”

Mary Shelley

===

New shit always confuses, and scares, the crap out of us – at first.

This mainly happens because our standard operating life procedure is to seek consistency & order & patterns of behavior that we can manage and guide toward the holy grail of life – efficiency <which means, in some weird way, that you are optimizing your time, i.e., Life>.

Shit. Efficiency is not the holy grail.

The holy grail is ideas, experiences, and thoughts.

Efficiency tends to grind those three things down to dust.

Chaos and confusion tend to create the friction necessary to spark those three things to fire.

Maybe that’s it.

Great lives burn like fire. Okay. Maybe not all the time, but often enough.

The problem is that we confuse the flames as chaos and confusion and only see our lives going down in flames. Instead, maybe we should see some chaos & confusion as the phoenix.

What I do know for sure is that more often than not … chaos and confusion in Life is not really chaos & confusion <despite all the people running around you waving their hands trying to get things back to the way they were – orderly>. Most times it is simply something happening in which we have yet to recognize the pattern, i.e., some NEW pattern your Life is adopting. Yeah. I just used the word “adopting” instead of change. Circling back to the opening, everything we care about is found in patterns. So, typically, when we ‘change’ we are simply adopting a new pattern which already existed, or exists, which we are now just morphing to. Ponder that a bit. Ponder it because most of us adopt new patterns all the time and its not some radical change or some radical anything, but rather simply un-radically adopting new patterns, new rhythms to our life, and embracing a new cadence to our daily lives.

Which leads me to end with Jevon’s Paradox.

Jevon’s Paradox suggests, in the long term, an increase in efficiency in resource use will generate an increase in resource consumption rather than a decrease. Patterns are NOT efficiency; they are more like flow. But I end reinforcing why efficiency is not good for optimizing Life because, well, its not. Paradoxically, an increase in time efficiency will not increase things being done within time as a whole, but rather decrease the resource itself – time. And, well, less time means less experiences, less thoughts, and less ideas. Efficiency suffocates everything we care about. In particular it squeezes out anything good where patterns and randomness interlace. Ponder.

===

“the ends justifies the means”.

motto of the Illuminati

===

“Money decides how it wants to live.”

Ryan Gravel, City Designer

===

“soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.”

John Maynard Keynes

===

perfectibilist

<The Century Dictionary>

Noun: One who believes in the perfectibility of human nature in this life; a perfectionist

===

Small groups of people, with the thought they are better, smarter, more intelligent, more whatever, have gathered together since the dawn of time. It would be silly to suggest this is always bad because sometimes the scientists, the doctors, the engineers, the geniuses, even the kindhearted, have gathered together to address some of the most critical issues of humankind. And sometimes they get it right (thank god).

But then there is the small group gathering underbelly.

The wealthy seeking to maintain their wealth and power or even just those with power seeking to get a tighter grip on power. Please note I never used the word “intelligence” anywhere in there. While they may deem themselves smarter, more intelligent, and knowing what is best for everyone else, as John Kenneth Galbraith famously noted: “the connection between intelligence and wealth is specious at best.”

Which leads me to the Illuminati.

I bring in the Illuminati, or the Order of the Perfectibilists, for two reasons (1) it is reflective of small groups of people – usually men – with power and money who seek to maintain their power and money … by any means possible & (2) their motto, ‘the ends justify the means.’ To be clear. It is highly typical to have those two things inextricably linked. Power and wealth use any means to maintain their ends, i.e., power and wealth.

• *** note: I also thought about the Illuminati as I finished the horrifying book “Moneyland.” Basically, the wealthy do not need cabals or small ‘societies’ intent on some wacky ideology, they now simply access small groups of financial brokers to do whatever ‘ends that justify the means’ jobs.

Anyway. The Illuminati. In 1776 a group called ‘Perfektibilisten’ was formed in Bavaria. It became famous as the “Ordo Illuminati Bavarensis”, or the Illuminati for short (illuminati means ‘the enlightened ones’ in Latin). Only five people were present at the first meeting of the order, but it grew rapidly and only a few years later it had chapterhouses all over Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Hungary and Switzerland. It soon established a network of agents around Europe that infiltrated courts and other places of power and reported back useful gossip and information to the group leaders. The primary mission of the Illuminati was to establish a New World Order through the use of science, technology and business, while abolishing all monarchical governments and the Vatican. Despite being banned in 1784, today there are fictitious conspiracy urban myths which build on the name ‘Illuminati’ simply because it sounds impressive. In the end, my point is the point. A small group of opportunistic wealthy people who believed they were smarter, more enlightened, than everyone else seeking to maintain their wealth and power by any means possible.

Which leads me to perfectibilist.

Far, far, too often the uber wealthy feel like they are special and ‘better than.’ A perfectibilist as it were.

A perfectibilist is someone who believes that human beings are capable of achieving perfection through education and the improvement of society. The term was first coined by the philosopher and social reformer, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, in the late 18th century. Perfectibilists believe that by perfecting the individual, society can be perfected, and that this process can be achieved through the cultivation of reason, morality, and virtue. Ultimately, they believe that human nature is perfectible and that society can be improved through education and rationalism. While perfectibilist was always intended to portray the possibility of human perfection, the order suggested they had attained perfectibilist status therefore were better and could ‘enlighten’ the rest of the world. This is some nutso stuff. That said. Many of the uberwealthy are a bit nutso and absolutely believe they are superior. They believe they are not only the guides to an ideal society, but also they embody what society should aspire to.

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

“We live under a system by which the many are exploited by the few”

Harold Laski

====

In short, you cannot escape power, regardless of your station in life.

===

Which leads me to the inevitableness of the purview of the few.

We are nuts if we don’t think that most decisions of any consequence are in the purview of the few. I don’t mean some deep state or some cabal, but CEOs make big decisions for businesses, politicians make big governing decisions for countries/regions/cities, Union leaders make big decisions for workers and even school boards make big decisions effecting our youth. Democracy doesn’t really mean everyone can make a decision. It simply means we have a voice, but the decisions are in the purview of the few. The danger to democracy always lies in whether the few also see themselves as Perfectibles.

Which leads me to the main tool of the Perfectibilist: math.

Reason is math. Or let’s say math is reasonable reasoning to the Perfectibles. They quantify everything; even people. Oh, sure, the Perfectibilist will be clever with regard to the mathification, but we have mathematized humanities, creativity has been mathematized, performance and meaning has been mathematized, well, let’s say that this mathematical obsession has deformed the intangible good (and value structure). Math reduces everything it touches while actually expanding the power and wealth of the ‘few’. And while I will later point out how this absolves the few, the Perfectibles, of any moral restraint, this mathematization only encourages society to strip moral restraints from everyday attitudes and behaviors. The ‘few’ become pseudo-intellectual social philosopher bullies who bludgeon the public with math in order to forge a ‘perfect society.’  The problem is this dull axe of math fundamentally empties society of moral or empathetic stances. When attacked for this hollowness the ‘few’ will stubbornly defend their vision from a stance of pseudo-math as the way to navigate an increasingly, seemingly, unstructured, and uncertain world. Today’s Perfectibilist has been actively indoctrinated in 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 we are being led by a morally-illiterate group of people. Illiterate in that they are unable to recognize the necessary relationship between power and morality essential for healthy, meaningful, progress. The truth is mathematical knowledge is actually hampering the actions necessary to create and sustain a substantive healthy society. Why? Well. While we talk endlessly about individual freedom and individual empowerment, there has never before been such pressure for conformity – through math. This math world is simply an illusion. What I mean by that it is a healthy, robust, expansive, intangible world reduced to a simplistic hollowed world of math becomes one in which the Perfectibilist can not only reduce what success is into some number, but reduces the power of a society in order to increase the power they have OVER that society. Yeah. Math is the prison the ‘few’ put society in so they become the wardens.

Which leads me to math’s biggest number: money.

Power and money; money and power. They are inextricably linked. And this is important because, well, it makes you think about who owns the future – the ones with the money, the ones aspiring to have the money, or the ones who do not have the money <and even whether it should matter>. And THAT is important because, well, “money decides how it wants to live.” I believe if we continue on the path we are currently on we run the risk of money determinism, not human determinism. What I mean by that is money becomes the design, and designer, of human society not a tool used by humans to implement the human-designed design of human society. That said. I would be naïve to suggest humans have the power, because they do and they don’t. They do own the future because they can be the architects of fate and the future as well as architects of what money should be, yet, money will always be power until the world, itself, decides to change. Money is power and power is money. That is the world we have today and that is the world we need to deal with.

So, I circle back to who owns the future, who owns the power, who owns the money? And whoever does, can they handle the power and the money they have? Those are important questions because power subverts the intentions of a free market. Today’s marketplace is a system of competing powers (players) each of whom are seeking an advantage, but, the few – the perfectibles – assume the most power in this power game. We should note market advantage is information <knowledge, wisdom>, money buys information (see opening note on Illuminati and information gathering across Europe). I say that because if the world, the market, isn’t sane <power distorts traditional view of sanity> and willing to define its own fate, technology – or any tool – will not solve it and money is simply power to eliminate things that are obstacles to more money and growth. To the Perfectibilist, more is never enough and there are no rules when it comes to maintaining or protecting one’s wealth and power. If you buy into that thought, or thoughts, then we need to become concerned when the institutions of money <people with money> rule the world. We should be concerned because when those people begin to talk about fairness or shared prosperity they do so with a catch. The catch is “as long as it does not infringe upon my pursuit of my money and my wealth.” Without context, that is a fine and dandy thought. But in a zero-sum mindset it suggests HOW I got my money and wealth was fair and equitable and the system of money rewards those who deserve it. The Perfectibles will tend to guide decisions toward their own worldview which is most likely not even close to reality.

===

“We’ve made it really easy for good people to do the wrong things.”

Josh Tetrick

===

Which leads me to the Few’s go-to philosophy: growth.

The few spends a lot of time telling us that growth is the pathway to increased wealth equality (or better balanced between the Few and the Many). Here’s the rub. Its bullshit. Chasing the limitless is both dangerous and freeing in general, but in a zero-sum world it is just corrosive. The truth is chasing limitless piles of money and limitless growth debases its actual value because then the only value is more and each additional dollar placed on the large stack diminishes in actual value to its owner <it is simply a prize, not prized>. Chasing anything with no limit can be a freeing feeling, but what I would suggest, in this case, is the no limit actually represents a soulless cage. I could go on and on about how zero-sum capitalism attitude begets zero-sum behavior which begets lousy extremes <because ‘winners’ increase probability of more winning not because of skill/better, but because they have, well, more money>. I don’t begrudge people money, but, zero-sum doesn’t create a fair game for all players. Oh. Yeah. “Fair game for all players.” The few, the Perfectibles, have no interest in the fairness of all players. They embrace a zero-sum attitude and only seek to increase the quality of the game players so that their money, growth and power increases (or is maintained).

Which leads me back to “the ends justify the means”

Growth, money and power are the ends. In a Perfectibilist purview let’s call it ‘winning.’ Winning is simply the outcome of any means to achieve that trifecta.  Yeah. Winning justifies the means regardless of the means. The Perfectibilist says “the path to better comes at a cost and one of the costs is if the weak can’t keep up they need to make room for the strong.”

Don’t get me wrong. I like growth and money. But not all growth is the same nor is all money the same. Some money fills your soul and some empties your soul and by soul I mean your inner value compass.

People who are defined solely by money, growth and power can argue this until they are blue in the face. In fact they do. But at what price? And does the end justify the means? And, obviously, WHICH end justifies the means? That is what I mean by emptying your soul or filling your soul. Because in the end (whether that be mid life or at ‘the big finish’) you are judging your actions not by tangible things, but the intangible balance of self-worth (I purposefully chose ‘worth’ because it is some combination of fruits of labor and self-esteem). It is interesting because I have seen a variety of ways people justify how they sell their soul but one word continues to stand up as the face of behavior over & over again:

“winning”

To the Perfectibilists it’s all about winning. Winning at any cost. Or just being able to say “I won.” But (here is the news) winning is not always good.  There IS such a thing as a bad win. Unfortunately, the people who define their soul by winning don’t see that (or they may, but justify their actions based on “we won”). Am I suggesting this aspect should be about fair play? No. Not really. This is about playing by your moral compass; an attitude as it were.

“money”

The thought that everything leads to some magical pot of money that will erase not only all of their problems, but the world’s problems. The Perfectibilists may try to balance it with some philanthropic aspect (typically toward the end of their lives – see Andrew Carnegie as prime example) or balance it with some argument that “their way is the way to a perfect society,” but if we examine their behaviors, we see they are consistently willing to ignore any moral compass within their pursuit for money, growth, and power.

“The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way.”

William James

There are a variety of ways they justify optimal Perfectibilist, but suffice it to say far and away the number one way is “end justifies the means.” All the while ignoring the carnage left behind.

Which leads me to end where I began: “money decides how it wants to live.”

Ryan Gravel said this years ago and it has stuck in my brain. It has a stark truth to it. But building on that starkness is the inevitability of the desires of the ‘few.’ The Perfectibilists as it were. We may not have the Illuminati now, but we certainly have small groups of people attempting to nudge society, people, communities into ‘living’ the way they believe the world should live. They may exist in some small local community and they may exist in a larger global view. It doesn’t matter. Far, far, too many of them simply seek money, growth and power and the communities, neighborhoods, businesses, society are simply means to attain their ends. Ponder.

===

A little bit lost and
A little bit lonely
A little bit cold here
A little bit of fear

But I hold on and I feel strong
And I know that I can
Like to know who I am

Been talking to myself forever
And how I wish I knew me better
But never seen the sun shine brighter
And it feels like me on a good day

On a Good Day/Oceanlab

===

I’ll be honest. I’m not sure I am writing with a viable idea in mind or writing simply because I has scribbled minimum viable predictability on a piece of paper and started wondering if there was a viable idea lurking within. So lets go on this journey together.

While it’s natural for people to crave predictability because it offers some stability maybe we should all crave limited predictability. Part of this may actually just be reducing environmental uncertainty. It’s possible I could suggest that this is all harnessing aspects of complexity, but, simplistically, the concept may simply be harnessing aspects of the world as it exists just trying to figure out how to get things done and how to do them well. and maybe what I am thinking is that while we are never really prepared for reality, if we can find a minimum viable predictability it’s possible we will least be prepared for the really important things.

Which leads me to the role of fear.

A sense of ongoing continual uncertainty only breeds a high level of continual fear. So, what is the price demanded by continual fear? On one end we get pseudo-intellectuals analyzing an uncertain world and suggesting things like ‘we are in a polycrisis.’ On the other end we simply get people careening between holding onto anything perceived as certain as their world tilts and letting go of anything and everything believing that living in the now is the only sane thing to do. So let me suggest that Polycrisis isn’t really a thing and it is actually just an accumulation of our fears. I say that because yes, the world is complex and we face complex things daily, but suggesting we can’t untangle enough to tackle things is a less than useful suggestion. It may be more useful to seek out some of the deep structural patterns and attempt to either navigate them or nudge them in different directions. This would demand that we avoid only what I would call point and shoot thinking, i.e., data shows this, so we do this and data says this, so we do this. But. Fear leads to measurement and numbers. We measure what we fear. Yeah. Numbers making decisions for us. Scary stuff. I call not non-viable predictability.

Which leads me to the past and numbers.

Fear and predictability often intersect with the past and numbers. What I mean by that is we tend to lean into the past on “historical learning” and the future on numbers or “what the future will be comprised of” with the intent to reduce our fear.

• The past

The past offers seductive analogies. Yeah. Exact analogies do not hold up to the scrutiny of the existing situation, but the illustrations they offer are often vivid. Through those illustrations it’s possible to discern some general improvements which might contribute to better outcomes. Ah. That “discern” thing. Part of the challenge is being able to discern whether change has happened, or is happening, or will happen, and maybe most importantly, if it is even happening at all. The past can certainly inform imaginative scenario thinking but (a) it has its limits and (b) we should constantly be testing those limits. To be clear. Scrutinizing the past CAN help in planning which provides for essentials to be in place – to expedite, limit, guide, counter, accept – as the situation suggests. This demands visualizing a desired future in realistic terms, or, envisioning the future which is undesired and the plans made to avoid it – both of which the past can help inform, but not predict. In rummaging around the past for some minimal viable predictability you must simultaneously hold these truths:

• recognize the future has no place to come from but the past, therefore, the past has some predictive value
• recognize what matters for the future – in the present – is departures from the past; the alterations, changes, which effect familiar flow and patterns thereby affecting any predictive value.
• Recognize time, and the situational context, is a reflection of the constant weaving of present to future, to past and present, making any decisions contingent upon ever-changing comparisons

My point is that none of this is exact which is what minimal viable predictability is actually all about. It has to do with dealing in the margins, maybe a little bit sharper sense of purpose, maybe a little bit better definition of a desired future, and maybe a little clearer sense of the danger and obstacles.

And while the past may not be analogous that doesn’t mean that it’s not useful to accumulate an inventory of historical learnings and the context within which those learnings occurred. This creates accumulated points of reference readily available within the thought process. Through that processing of the past you end up with a minimal viable predictability surrounded by an array of options all of which have associated probabilities defined by current conditions and capabilities within which the probabilities reside. To be clear. Looking back at past realities can suggest some limitations on some future possibilities and probabilities, but, the bottom line is it can illustrate some possibilities within the future.

That said. I cannot remember who offered this framework, but when viewing the immediate situation it’s helpful to think through things in terms of known, unclear, and presumed. This is a derivative of Follett’s law of the situation. This allows you to be able to think about the past or see the past analogies a little bit more clearly in order to be able to see that sometimes they share some characteristics to a degree and, though not analogous and specific, can surely offer reference points for the current situation.

• The numbers

It seems a common belief, in a fear driven world, to assume that any numbers about the future are better than none. Well. That’s just weird. Logically, in order to produce numbers about the unknown (the future) the current method is to make a guess about something or other, usually called an assumption, and to derive an estimate from it through some subtle calculations (numerical-based reasoning). The estimate is then presented as the results of scientific reasoning which is, supposedly, something far superior to mere guesswork. This is a pernicious practice which can only lead to the most colossal planning errors because it offers a bogus answer, absent of any real experience-based judgment, to some important questions. As a consequence, this means what is often called the foreseeable future is actually nothing more than wishful thinking. But there is another really dangerous practice. That is ignoring past erroneous ‘predictions’ (and their predictors) or simply excluding them from all analysis. It’s as if because they were erroneous it somehow establishes an eternal truth or, well, that particular prediction, in any form, will ever come true. Silly, and dangerous. And then numbers get used to define reality and, unfortunately, reality doesn’t automatically translate into some “correct” data set or some neat numbers. It always exceeds what can be measured so then, in seeking some concrete predictability, what is measured becomes a kind of argument for a particular understanding of reality. And this is where numbers really go off the rails. This may sound odd, but when it comes to numbers one must consider ‘numbers significant to whom.’ What I mean by that is leaders, statisticians and numbers people showcase an unprecedented amount of numbers to be able to prove what is significant and what is not; what is reality and what is not. These experts may have never asked whether these numbers are significant to the everyday schmuck like me and you or, more to the point, what it would take to quantify what they deemed important to the larger society to make it significant to the everyday schmuck like you and I. And maybe that is my point with numbers. Numbers struggle to bridge the past, present and future and when we attempt to force them to explain not only some ‘reality’ but also offer some certainty in the future it falls apart.

Let me end this section with something Rob Estreitinho just said: “imaginative leaps into the future are one of our greatest strengths. But i’d argue being able to borrow from the past in thoughtful ways is a strong second. The reality is businesses need rationalisation most of the time, so evidence is indispensable. And being able to log good evidence as you go, therefore, saves you a lot of time. Or, if not evidence, then enough precedent to give confidence this new thing might work. Point is, you need a system to let you quickly find what to borrow from.”

I imagine I could argue this summarizes an aspect of minimal viable predictability. I imagine I could argue this summarizes the role of the past and numbers in crafting a minimal viable predictability.

“There are two sets of futures, the future of desire and the future of fate and man’s reason has never learned to separate them. In action they may be intertwined, but distinguishing one from the other easy. The future of desire is always predictable; the future of fate seldom is.”

Desmond Bernal

Which leads me to optimism.

I wanted to end on a more positive note. If you take a more optimistic view of the future, even without a shitload of predictable stepping stones or even predictability, you tend to find your way. So maybe if you attach maximum viable optimism to minimal viable prediction you can find a happy, successful, progress path. In fact. Maybe that is the pathway of meaningful progress. But that’s a piece for another day. Ponder.

===

“Everything changes when you exchange suspicion for a more positive view of human nature.”

Rutger Bregman

====

We talk about how easy it is to lose trust. It seems like you can do 99 good things, 99 things right, but do 1 wrong thing and, whew, trust has crumbled. Frankly, that’s a bullshit thought. And if it isn’t, we have a fucked up view on things.

We talk less about when someone does 99 crappy things and then they do one great thing. One really, really, right thing. Whew. It throws us for a loop. For some reason we want to qualify the one great thing. We rush to diminish the one great act by pointing out the 99 crappy things that person has done. Once again, we have a crappy way of viewing these things. And if you don’t think that’s crappy, well, we have a fucked up view on things.

Let me state upfront, good is good, great is great. We should never diminish when someone does something good, or the right thing to do. You can be happy, surprised, uncomfortable, but we should all be comfortable with the fact a good deed has been done. Celebrate the right thing happened. Period.

I state that only to follow up with we struggle to do what I just said.

One of the hardest things in the world for anyone is to embrace the fact people are flawed.

Flaws, or words associated with flaw like blemish, defect, failing, fault, imperfection, mar or shortcoming, are all words that indicate a lack of something that prevents it ‘from being complete, wholly effective, or desirable’ (Hayakawa). Flaw is typically the most general term suggesting the existence or presence of something spoiling an otherwise sound whole. Flaws, most often, imply something missing. So. Things they are not. So, adding to that thought and drawing on my earlier point, in the case of “99 wrong, One right,” they are not being consistent. The lack of consistency, even though it is a RIGHT GREAT THING THEY DID, confuses us a bit and, well, we dwell on the inconsistency and not the ONE RIGHT GREAT THING THEY DID.

Look. Each of us ‘are not’ a lot of things. Recognizing those things is actually pretty easy. We notice them all the time. Shit. People are pointing them out to us all the time. That said. I guess the difficult part is accepting them and resigning ourselves that someone is ‘not being something’ with grace. But. Let me emphasize. Not being consistent and DOING THE RIGHT GREAT THING should not be difficult to process. Doing the right thing should be celebrated, not questioned, not caveated, not diminished.

For what it’s worth <most likely not much>.

I believe contradictions are not flaws nor are they imperfections. People do contradictory things all the time and that does not make them flawed or imperfect. Well. To be clear. People are flawed and imperfect its just that doing the right thing, occasionally, despite doing the wrong thing the majority of the time, is not a bug; it’s a feature.

I just thought about this for a variety of reasons. I will say that public figures, in particular, get crucified even when they do the right thing if they have been judged to do the wrong things the majority of the time up to that point. But you know what? Doing one, right, great thing is one, right, great thing. Period. It is value added to the circumstance, if not society. Each good deed nudges the arc of what is right and good in the right direction. We should celebrate good deeds, done by anyone, not diminish someone. Ponder.

——————-

“Have more than you show,

Speak less than you know. “

William Shakespeare

——-

“If you say I’m great, thank you very much.

But I know what I am.

I could be better …  you know? “

Keith Richards

—-

“I exist as I am, that is enough.”

Walt Whitman

=========

Ok. I hate egotistical people. I hate arrogant people.

Ok.

Hate is a big nasty word. Let’s just say I have less patience for someone who is overflowing with confidence than someone who appears solid and tends to be more silent. For once I will begin with my point <so you can stop reading after this if you want>.

First.

I do not believe you can coach confidence. I believe you can only help people manage self-doubt. In other words you either decide to manage how to live with whatever demons you may have inside or decide to mask them on the outside <with confidence … or arrogance>. In fact I could also argue that if you learn to live with the demons inside it can actually make you a much better person than the people who brim with bombastic confidence <the ones who have only learned to mask the demons>.

Second.

I tend to believe we confuse what is important on this whole confidence thing meaning that maybe it isn’t really confidence, but instead we should focus on words like ‘dare’ or ‘courage’.

Ok. That said.

To me confidence is not, and never will be, a character trait.

To me courage is, and will always be, a character trait.

Courage is doing things despite the fear. Confidence is faith <in your abilities and yourself>. Courage is going forward even when you don’t feel that faith. It is about taking action in the absence of certainty that the task can actually be completed, if not completed well.

Third.

Labeling  behavior justifies it. Huh? Think of this like a warped version of ‘personal branding’ where once “he who shall not be named” is named you are almost encouraged to live up to your label/brand.

Yikes. Did I just type that? Yup.

In today’s world we have become masters labeling everything. It permits us to “slot” things in our heads and in the world more easily. In this case we have come up with labels to justify our self professed abilities. The big umbrella label is this thing called ‘confidence.’ I would suggest that simply by labeling it, well, it really becomes arrogance. And we all know <I think we do> that arrogance is often a mask for insecurity or some other emotional difficulty. Arrogance, or overestimated ego, can be cloaked in a variety of labels maybe the most famous, and insidious, over the last generation is “type A” personality.

Whew.

Type A has become not just a label, but a fucking badge for people who think highly of themselves. I read a fun little book recently called “Assholes” which reminded me that regardless of the context associated with this badge “I’m type A” most often precedes some asshole attitude or behavior.

–

the categories encourage and launder shitty personalities – and that’s largely unhelpful. It’s possible, one would presume, to be overachieving without being the jerk who yells at the guy working the double shift on minimum wage … or to be decisive and effective without being totally full of yourself.

–

People who self-identify as type A use the term as a synonym for success. To be clear. That is bullshit.

–

“Hey, I may be a bit maddening at times, but it’s only because I have higher standards than you.”

–

The corollary to this standard Type A assholedness is that anyone who objects to ‘type A’ somehow simply becomes something ‘lesser than.’ Suffice it to say that this type A label is a fabulous example of how overestimated ego assholes use information incorrectly to forward their own agenda <in pseudoscience ways>. We should note that over the years type A, and all the other letter personality types, have been warped by pop culture:

——-

… this is not at all how the term “type A” was initially intended to be used.  It first reached the mainstream in a 1974 book called “Type A Behavior and Your Heart” and its 1996 follow-up, “Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment”.

These books were not written by a psychologist but by a cardiologist, Dr Meyer Friedman, who described the type A category in mostly negative terms, as a group of angry, thoughtless people whose behaviour put them at heightened risk of a heart attack.  You know who else was type A in this schema?

Hitler.

——

Let’s just conclude point three by saying that labels are often fancy packaging for something less than what a truly humble confident capable person aspires to being.

Fourth.

The line between true confidence and overestimated ego <arrogance>can be a very fine line.

Can.

Thinking you can do something and believing you can do something is a very very fine line and confidence or arrogance are things people use to drag themselves over the line. Regardless, it can wear on you mentally by wandering this line. I say that because whatever tool you use to drag yourself over the line is often a mask for insecurity, or maybe not full on insecurity, but simply underestimating ‘self.’

Uhm.

That’s called ‘self doubt.’

Uh oh.

As we all know self doubt is evil and sly and has the ability to slip inside who and what you are and eat you up from the inside out. Regardless. With any degree of self doubt playing a role in this formula, confidence <or full blown arrogance> is not the solution. It isn’t because that would simply mask the real issue. The solution is facing self-doubt and learning to have a relationship with it <because you will never eliminate it>.

I read a survey somewhere suggesting something like 85% of us believe that we’d be more successful in careers if we were more confident. And 60% believe that greater confidence is one of the top two changes that would most enhance our career success <more than a better team, additional training or knowledge, or more time for actual work>.

Suffice it to say that most people assume confidence is critical for career success.

They are wrong.

Dealing with your inner critic is what is most critical to success. Confidence means having the courage to argue with your inner critic. Arrogance means you ignore your inner critic. Confidence means that at least I THINK I have a chance of out arguing my inner critic.

In fact. Confidence can lead to maximizing a healthy inner critic.

Self-doubt can be insidious, but it can have some practical aspects. Practical in that it suggests you are approaching the edge of what you can do or at least what you may feel comfortable doing. It makes you stop for a second and assess the edge of the comfort zone. In addition your inner critic has an uneasy relationship with truth. Many times it is not really telling you the truth and yet a part of you feels sure its words are true.

Confidence permits you to separate the ridiculous from the practical. Confidence permits you to listen, assess, and step out of a comfort zone and make some progress. On the other hand arrogance means you just blindly step out of your comfort zone.

Yeah.

Arrogance blinds you and confidence means living life with open eyes. Please note, while I made some very clear distinctions in discussing this ‘fine line’, it is a fine line. And any time someone suggests that confidence and arrogance are worlds apart I would suggest that they truly do not understand the issues at hand.

Anyway. I sometimes wonder if the self-help “business” has added to our levels of arrogance. There are so many self-help books and self-help “gurus” espousing a selfish and preposterous “believe and you will get everything” mantra or “fake your confidence to get what you want” it almost seems to suggest an arrogant belief in entitled success.

Ok. Let me spend some time on ‘overestimated behavior’ and why it can happen <and it happens pretty much to all of us>. Well. Overestimating is easy to do because we base future behavior <or success> on past success. That’s it. And, unfortunately, far too often the answers we had yesterday are not ‘the’ answers necessary for today or tomorrow.

As stated earlier confidence is not static.

——

“Confidence, like art, never comes from having all the answers; it comes from being open to all the questions.”

Earl Gray Stevens

—–

“Thoughts aren’t facts.

Just because we think something, does not mean it’s true.”

Lucy Elizabeth

——-

Confident people accept the fact they don’t know the whole truth … heck … the whole of anything, and are comfortable, or ‘quasi-comfortable’, with partial glimpses of things.

——

“No human being is constituted to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and even the best of men must be content with fragments, with partial glimpses, never the full fruition.”

William Osler

——-

I would suggest that confidence is actually a state of mind. It’s the feeling of self-assurance that arises from the appreciation of your abilities and qualities. You believe you have something, or a combination of things, to offer, i.e., knowledge, skills, and/or maybe some experience. I imagine it is kind of knowing that you can get the job done, but that doesn’t mean we do not overestimate on occasion as we vie the next job to be done.

Uhm.

To be clear it is often a constant struggle to not overestimate your behavior and instead simply seek to do the best you can <and while it may not actually be ‘the best’ it is a job well done and you don’t overestimate what you know based on a job well done because you always recognize there is ‘more knowledge’ to be found>.

All that said. Just so everyone doesn’t think I didn’t do any homework on this assignment let me bring in some research on talent or confidence and what drives success. To me this brings to mind the chicken or egg discussion as well as perception versus reality.

Huh?

Well. While I am going to share some research let me suggest one thing first:

First.

Perception versus reality. False confidence <you don’t really have the ability> supports the ‘fake it until you make it theory’. This is about creating a perception of confidence. And anyone rising up thru an organization, good or bad, has to do this or they die in an organization. You almost always assume responsibilities on the way up that you have no clue on how to do, but you figure it out. After a while this experience <actually doing it> either creates a sense of overblown confidence or a realistic ‘I don’t know what I am doing but will hunker down and figure it out’ attitude.

The former is bad.

The latter is good.

Second.

Chicken or egg (or The Halo Effect). Does confidence drive success or success drive confidence?

Well. Research studies on drivers of success inevitably judge confidence against … uhm … well … success. I would suggest that success breeds some confidence. If you don’t experience success in any amount that matters, your confidence lags. Basically, as I suggested back in 2013,  confidence. alone, isn’t worth shit (https://brucemctague.com/confidence-is-worthless ). Sorry. That’s just the way it is. There is a correlation between experience <doing something> and confidence. Therefore confidence is not an attitude, it is actually something you do.

That is “understanding reality.”

That is “understanding what your strengths & weaknesses are.”

For example here is some research:

=

– According to Medical News Today, confidence, not talent, is a driver of success. Researchers at the University of California (UC) Berkeley’s Haas School of Business found that those who were more confident experience more success than their peers, despite their talent.

<what they fail to note is that of two people with disparate talent but similarly confident … the ‘more talent’ has more success>

=

– According to a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology those who appeared more confident achieved a higher status than their peers. At work, “higher-status individuals” tended to be more admired, listened to, and had more influence over group decisions.

<what they fail to note is that if the ‘appear confident’ was not matched with good decisions or actual behavior they no longer appeared confident but rather looked ‘overestimated ego.’>

 =

Business News Daily also published studies on confidence that suggested confident employees have more fruitful careers than their peers who aren’t as self-assured. Their research discovered a correlation between confidence and career success and also revealed that those who self-reported higher levels of confidence earlier in school earned better wages, and were promoted more quickly.

<what they fail to note is that the confidence is also linked with ‘courage’ and ‘courage to try’ both of which reflect “you are more likely to have success if you get in the game then if you do not”>

=

What does all that mean?

Is confidence really the key to greater success?

<nope>

Confidence is inextricably linked to tangible doing. With no link it is not confidence; it is empty arrogance <or overestimated ego>. We always need to remember that confidence is not static. Our confidence to perform tasks can increase and decrease. Some days we even feel more confident than others. And how we perform our tasks can create the overall ebb & flow. Assertiveness, confidence and self-confidence are linked to these tasks <action> & behavior. As people become naturally more assertive in actually doing things confidence follows & develops.

——–

“On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

George Orwell

———–

Anyway. I do wish more people were reminded that confidence, the frame of mind or ‘believing’, is only a part of the equation and in fact percentagewise it probably represents the smallest fraction <albeit a powerful little fraction> and that performing, doing, taking action is really the majority of success. I do wish more people were reminded that true confidence is paid off with a deed and typically a deed done well <not just completed>. Therefore if confidence isn’t backed up by actual skill … well … you’re delusional and that equals an overestimated ego <or arrogance>.

In the end.

To me the line between confidence and overestimated and overblown ego is defined by the deed. And even then some arrogant asshole is going to misconstrue the quality of the deed they did, versus the reality of ‘lesser quality than what they attribute to it, simply because we all have our blind spots, and arrogance increases the depth of the blindness.

— 

“When we define ourselves by what we can recognize, by what we can comprehend- rather than, say, by what we can describe- we are continually under threat from what we are unwilling and/or unable to see.

We are tyrannized by our blind spots, and by whatever it is about ourselves that we find unacceptable.”

Adam Phillips

—

Arrogant people are constantly tyrannized by their blind spots.

Confident people see the blind spots, accept they are there, use innate curiosity to eliminate or limit the blind spots, and keep on aspiring to do better each time. And maybe that is the truest of distinctions between arrogance <overestimated ego> and confidence. Curiosity every day. Why? Because curiosity leads to learning more and learning leads to skill acquisition. Getting better each and every day, getting into the “know more” business rather than the “here is what I know” business. And embracing curiosity doesn’t have anything to do with confidence or arrogance, but courage. Courage to accept what you do not know, publicly & privately, and proceed forward ‘forthwith.’

<I just wanted to use that word>

Arrogant people with overestimated egos are cowards.

They don’t have the courage to face what they do not know.

They don’t have the courage to admit their best is not really the best … just a skill that gets the job done in the here & now.

Arrogant people have to be blind to their blind spots because if they were not the truth would kill them. Ponder.

=======

“If the truth shall kill them, let them die.”

=

Immanuel Kant

Today, August 1st, is the anniversary of when MTV was ‘born. In 1981 it shared its first video and the VJs (video jockeys) became a thing. It seems like only yesterday that I was in graduate school glued to the TV late at night watching MTV videos while trying to figure out the solution to the next random B-school case study. For its first 10 to 15 years I was an avid MTV watcher (I started slipping away as they played less and less music videos).

Whew (again.) Hasn’t MTV come a long way from the days of hour-long video marathons to hardly playing a music video anymore? (said slightly wistfully)

But. Criticize MTV all you want. You will still find it difficult to deny its powerful influence on pop culture and music.

Martha Quinn, Nina Blackwood, Alan Hunter, Mark Goodman & J.J. Jackson were the original VJs. Each with a distinct character and style. They gave us the stories and introduced us to the bands as well as the videos.

And Yo! MTV Raps. The original show showcased a balance of hip hop and an introduction to rap. It was truly interesting because original hosts Fab 5 Freddy, Doctor Dré and Ed Lover didn’t yet have quite enough content to populate the show’s segments so videos from other “black” genres like reggae, funk, R&B and soul were peppered-in to help hip hop’s development in culture and expand its scope. That meant you could see Digital Underground’s silly (but awesomely danceable) “Humpty Dance” beside Public Enemy’s political anthem “Fight The Power” to DJ Jazzy Jeff Fresh Prince slick teen rap/hip hop as well as the funky style of A Tribe Called Quest.

Rock blocks.

Bon Jovi’s hair.

Madonna rolling around the stage during the original MTV awards show singing “Like a Virgin.”

Oh.

And all the music video memories the show created for an entire music loving generation.

Here are some of my favorite MTV memories:

• Duran Duran “The Reflex” watching the wave crash over the stage while men who looked prettier than most women played the awesome song.
• Me out on a date at Celebrities (a bar/dance club) in Greenville SC where everyone stopped to watch Michael Jackson Thriller on the big screen over the dance floor.
• The haunting voice of a little child followed by the voice of Andy Partridge as XTC sang the quirky “Dear God.”
• The randomness of Men at Work and their  “Down Under” video with a vegemite sandwich and the fact one of the musicians has a stuffed koala bear tied to his leg the entire video.
• The fact you could only see Rough Trade perform their awesomely rough and dark “All Touch” video late at night. “All Touch”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpraodUSyjA
• Axel Rose doing the snake dance during a very well produced and edited “Sweet Child of Mine” video.
• Peter Gabriel with his wacky claymation videos.
• The artistic and unstoppably catchy “Take on Me” by Ah ha.
• The culturally defining “Addicted to Love” with an impeccably attired Robert Palmer and his female entourage (I had only known Robert Palmer from the song Every Kinda People)
• Alice in Chains unplugged. Spine chilling. ‘nuf said.
• 10,000 Maniacs Unplugged may have been one of the most underrated Unplugged shows of all time.
• How if you got bored with INXS singing “Need you Tonight” you would have missed the INXS version of Bob Dylan’s flip card trick at the tail end of the song with “Mediate.”
• Cindi Lauper having the wacky obnoxious “Girls just want to have Fun” with the poignantly tight thoughtful “Time after Time” (which remains a timeless song on its own) being played in the next block of music videos.
• And, of course, Bon Jovi’s black & white ode to being on the road … “Wanted Dead or Alive.”

So.

Those are my MTV memories. But. Here is the Guardian’s bets 30 moments:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/aug/01/mtv-30-best-moments

I only haggle with the Guardian in that before MTV started not doing music videos they had 30 definable video music moments.  And THAT is how I believe MTV was truly defined.

“I want my MTV” as a catch phrase and before everyone could hum the ESPN sportscenter musical phrase EVERYONE could identify with the MTV music jingle over the weird logos on screen they kept throwing up there.

Now, of course, MTV doesn’t play any music videos.

But that’s okay.  Time moves on and the channel has figured out different ways to impact this generation & culture.

And yet, on their birthday, I will be nostalgic for the music videos.  The cheesy campy ones that you couldn’t tear your eyes from because it was music video and it was all new and watchable and you couldn’t wait to see what came next.

And it was great.

Thanks MTV.

===========

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value. 

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.  Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & effect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No.

The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. Generally speaking, that is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and inevitably some more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

Generally speaking, this is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

That said.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’ gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

• 1. The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.” Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

• 2. Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline, but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. And, to reprise the end of point 2, someone weaves a great narrative to destroy, but forgets to offer an alternative.

Simplistically, this is the story that everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” And, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed.  It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because, that said, it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then, well, there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

I am certainly not suggesting a citizenry with ill-informed vague outlines creates a healthy society. But informed versus ill-informed is a topic for another day. For today I am suggesting the majority of people navigate Life and the complexities of the world mostly using vague outlines.

Look. Life is restless. Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines. Ponder.

===

“From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember’d;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother …”

Shakespeare’s Henry V

===

In about 1801 aboard some ship it seems Admiral Horatio Nelson, quoting his favorite Shakespeare play, toasted a small group of his best friends and the leading captains/admirals in the Royal Navy as “we happy few.” Oh. Let us remember that this small group helped a small island’s navy kick the crap out of every nation in the world.

That said.

When I began thinking about this and decided to write it was focused solely on business. And it will remain so, however, as always, I seem to find that personal Life mirrors business life in many ways. Particularly if you define your Life <or let’s say that your Life is often defined by> in some significant way by what you do professionally.

Regardless.

I think we are all seeking our own “happy few.” People we can surround ourselves with that don’t comfort us; they just make us better.

I think of this on occasion because I still see or talk with people who i have worked with from decades ago with which I had worked well with. And no matter the years apart, when we work together, we still work well together. Ok. Not just well, but really well.

My point is that we are still part of ‘we happy few.’

Now. About this ‘happy few.’

The group in which we can not only be ourselves, but actually prosper. These can be friends, coworkers or whomever. Some symbiotic relationship seems to exist, even within some hierarchical relationship, that makes things better. And, maybe more importantly, make you better.

This ‘happy few’.

The people you go to battle with in life or in business.

The people who know what you are thinking before you even think it and even when they don’t, when you surprise them they don’t reject, but rather … well … think. Not out of respect, but rather because they assume there has to be some thread of usefulness pragmatism or hope that can be used.

I have written several times about how great businesses are often somewhat based in some fashion of serendipity … having the right people at the right place at exactly the right time. < https://brucemctague.com/right-people-right-place-right-time >

I still am a firm believer in that.

Maybe even more so now.

Because after all these years, time after time, I have been reminded that in the seamless inner workings of a great business relationship of ‘we happy few’, I know in my heart of hearts, if I could gather ‘we happy few’ in one place, at the right time, we would kick ass. And, in my case, having worked in a number of places I believe I could gather the happy few from all places, put them together, and while they would all laugh at the common ‘me things’ which make me, well, me … in the end the ‘we happy few’ would work well together as a ‘we.’

This happy few.

The few are defined by time as well as a natural connection.

Time teaches the nuances. The timing of actions tied to intent. The ability to ‘see’ inside what is being thought in all dimensions without all the explanation. And the comfort to stop and ask and explore and debate the unsaid before it is even said.

And then the natural connection.

In ‘we happy few’ the leaps of logic are no longer leaps, but simply common sense. In this collective mindset there is a tendency to not waste time imagining what is possible because the happy few just see through some personal filter of what is possible.

There is no gap between thinking and feeling. It’s all connected among the happy few.  Discovery is messy but within a small interconnected group there always appears some form of tidiness.

What I just described is a natural thing, maybe honed by time, but the metal upon which is placed on the whetstone of time is already there.

Now <part 1>.

I am not suggesting the sea is always smooth. Nor am I suggesting the sailing is always seamless. In fact I tend to believe what makes a true ‘happy few’ is the conflict as well as the resolution. The ability to fight and make up, without thinking it was a fight, nor that you are actually ‘making up.’

It just is.

The conflict is natural and positive; the resolution is natural and positive. For some intangible reason the ‘what’s next’ portion of we happy few is attainable and possible and happens without any barnacles on the side of the ships to slow you down.

Now <part 2>.

This is all frustrating to those outside this small band of brothers.

Frustrating in that they need and want the words & explanations.

Frustrating because they want to separate <and often debate> the thinking and the feeling.

Frustrating because they can only imagine the finite and need comforting to step into the infinite.

Frustrating in that they only see the impossible and begin demanding the possible.

Frustrating because all they see is the mess in discovery and not the tidiness in the what is discovered.

Well. This is ultimately all frustrating to the happy few because they are already thinking of ‘what’s next.’

This happy few.

It’s different than  family. It is certainly a professional thing. Family can make you blind because its, well, blood. With family you can go through walls for someone, often for all the wrong reasons, because of the one right reason; its family.

In the professional world?

This small band goes through walls for only one reason — the right reason. It is never <if but rarely> blind, but based on respect & trust & a sense of completion of something good based on something more than feeling <which family sometimes leans on>.

I feel sorry for those who professionally have not had the ‘we happy few.’ I would guess if you haven’t experienced it … you have been a little less successful. And I will not have to guess by saying you just haven’t received the full benefit of professional life.

You may attain a different success level, but you haven’t attained the success of the camaraderie and trust and the real opportunity to be open and be yourself in the professional world.

And maybe it’s that last thought that is the most important.

Because having been a leader <even in a smaller sense of the word and world> one of the most difficult things is to be yourself. Open yourself up to exposing the flaws and mistakes and the sometimes stupidity that comes as the façade to what comes before something not stupid. And with ‘we happy few’ you have that small window of opportunity to open up. You don’t forfeit all the things that come with being a leader or having to lead, you just gain because you actually get to grow as a person.

And that is what we happy few is all about.

We got better.

They made me better.

And in doing so I got to lead and be a leader <through some luck of the draw>. We happy few means being one of the luckiest people in the professional world.

And I believe Admiral Nelson knew that.

He was good at what he did. He was smart and intuitive and courageous. But I think in his heart of hearts he knew he was lucky in that he was part of ‘we happy few’ which enabled him to be the best he could be.

His “we happy few” permitted him the luxury to rely on simple strategies rather than complicated complex plans. The interconnectedness of the small band made not only him, but all of them, certain in the knowledge everyone would support one another in striving toward the bigger objective and yet be confident enough to use their own initiative when required. While the thinking was complex and sometimes leaned on a good dose of imagination, in the end the thoughts were easily communicated in simple written instructions reinforced verbally when possible or necessary.

His captains were intelligent, experienced officers; they needed no more. And that is what we happy few is in the professional world. They need no more than each other to be happy.

Ponder.

———: historical note.

About Nelson’s “we happy few.”

Nelson’s happy few were the Royal Navy captains who served under the command of Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson.  Several of which infamously served as his flag captain at different times. He originally used the term only for his captains at the Battle of the Nile but in correspondence it was deemed a broader perspective in Nelson’s eyes.

The ‘band of brothers’ comprised, in order of seniority, James de Saumarez, Thomas Troubridge, Henry d’Esterre Darby (1764?–1823), Thomas Louis, John Peyton (1760?–1809), Alexander Ball, Samuel Hood, Davidge Gould (1758–1847), Thomas Foley, George Westcott (who died of a wound sustained during the battle), Benjamin Hallowell, Ralph Miller, Thomas Thompson, Edward Berry, and Thomas Hardy. Those whom the naval historian Sir John Laughton considered worthy of an entry in the original Dictionary of National Biography were, with one exception, outstanding officers. Saumarez, Troubridge, Louis, Foley, Hood, Hallowell, and Hardy would hold important commands as admirals. Ball was the first governor of Malta, although he died before reaching flag rank. Thompson ran the Navy Board for a decade. Hardy topped them all: he became first sea lord in 1830 and helped erect Nelson’s Column. By contrast to the others, Edward Berry was prone to serious errors of judgement at sea and in combat.

<source Andrew Lambert – Oxford University Press>

The one left off the list was most likely Nelson’s best friend and most respected companion … his second-in-command at the Battle of Trafalgar Cuthbert Collingwood. I have used Cuthbert in a post before: https://brucemctague.com/moment-to-do-the-extraordinary

=======

“Memory is a crazy woman that hoards colored rags and throws away food.”

Austin O’Malley

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

“You remember too much,”

my mother said to me recently. Why hold onto all that?

And I said,

“Where can I put it down?”

Anne Carson

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

I am not sure what it is about people and the past, but … whew … the past should come up with a new name because it seems to reside in the present more than it does in the past.

Maybe we should stop referring to past regrets, memories, decisions, moments, whatevers, and simply refer to them as eternal things.

Maybe then we could just accept when they happen, in the moment, that they will be our constant companion from that day on.

Maybe then we could stop with the incredibly silly advice of “you need to let that go” or “what’s in the past is done” <as if these trite-isms will magically make the past disappear>.

I say all that because no matter how much anyone tries to convince us and coach us, and no matter how much we, personally, try to convince ourselves and coach ourselves, we cannot leave a memory, in particular, our memory behind.

Sorry. Harsh truth. We cannot really ‘put it down’ and then keep walking.

And, you know what?

That’s okay if you just frickin’ accept it rather than fight it every step of the way <investing energy every step of the way>. In fact. I could argue that if you take on this mindset, you never really leave anything behind, BUT, you actually learn how to set it aside in the appropriate moments. And, in my pea like brain, that is what matters. I honestly like my memories; even the bad ones. They make up who I am today and represent some aspects of who I was yesterday. I attain more each day and rather than discard some I have found that human memory space, unlike a thumb drive, does not have limited space. It all fits in there.

Good, bad, boring and exciting. They all fit in there.

And I like the fact that when I want to, and when it may be good and helpful to do so, I can trawl through my memory banks and think about a memory or two.

But they don’t overwhelm me nor are they constantly whispering in my ear.

I think by me accepting they are eternal they know I am not trying to kill them off so they are comfortable taking naps and long sleeps in the comfort I am not going to grab a pillow and suffocate them in their sleep.

Sure.

Sometimes they wake up and say “pay attention to me” or “well, I am awake, what are you are doing and what have you been doing while I have been sleeping?” and sometimes, just sometimes, I am glad they wake up when they do and make me pay attention to something that maybe I had stored away and forgotten. And, yeah, sometimes they wake up at inopportune moments & times and demand I pay attention to them when I would much rather prefer they would just shut up.

==========

“The past is never where you think you left it.”

Katherine Anne Porter

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

I am fairly sure you really cannot leave a memory, or the past behind. I do know for sure that if you do try and leave it, uhm, it will never stay exactly where you put it.

Huh?

Think “context.”

I may place a memory in some drawer labeled ”sad regret” only to go back at some point and find that drawer empty and open the drawer that says “empowering self-enlightenment” only to find that memory tucked in there now. Yeah. Time, context & experiences can actually move the past into different slots than where you may have left them.  I imagine in some way you are actually reinterpreting the past because of all the experiences since then.

Anyway. Here is the weird thing about ‘the past’ that maybe should make you sit & ponder a bit. The past is not some stone placed somewhere on your Life path. It actually exhibits characteristics more like a loyal pet. It will follow along sometimes slowly, sometimes fast, sometimes behind, and sometimes beside.

Look. I am not a psychologist nor am I some Life coach just an everyday schmuck who has had a shitload of experiences in Life and figured out trying to ‘leave behind’ some past memory & experience truly has a snowball’s chance in hell of working. So I figured I would try just bringing the along for the ride as I accumulate them to see how that went.

And it has worked out pretty well.

Regardless. What I do know is that your past is never where you think you have left it so you may as well bring it along. ponder.