==

“I’ve often noticed that we are not able to look at what we have in front of us, unless it’s inside a frame.”

Abbas Kiarostami

==

‘To work in the world, one needs to know how the world works.”

Zygmunt Baumann

===

I’ve written about framing in a variety of ways. Navigating invented boundaries to framing is 90% of success. Today I will suggest the more uncertain, the more confusing, the world is, the more we will craft a frame that “explains” it all to us. This is a different frame, and framing, than I have explained in the past. In this framing instead of crafting a frame to provide clarity of reality, we instead craft a frame to explain what we believe is reality.

Which leads me to the framing effect.

Framing effects occur when people give different answers to structurally similar problems depending on their “frame” (Kahneman). This self-crafted frame is crafted by our biases, intuitions and “common-sense” beliefs despite how bad intuitions tend to be and how non common commonsense is and how misguided our beliefs often are. Regardless, this creates an effect where our frame makes certain logic more palatable and that affects the reasoning. We converge on our own thinking. This convergence only increases in a group dynamic. So, while the fact we frame may have all the appearances, to ourself, that we are reasoning, the truth is the decisions are almost foretold. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention LLMs here. An LLM, in today’s world, is an imprecise, precise looking, frame. We ask it a question and the computer, having gobbled up more information and knowledge than any individual human is capable of, spits out a response. We ask; it answers. And its here I bring up one of my favorite nerdiest books: The Alignment Problem by Brian Christian. It was here I saw the thought “the computer is extremely confident when it guesses.” Sometimes, not always, we ask; and it guesses an answer. But it doesn’t tell us it guessed nor does it offer any thoughts on how confident it may actually be with its answer. The good news is a new tool call Thermometer has been developed to frame some confidence levels for us. My fear is that the crappy answer machine train will be way down the tracks before Thermometer, or anything like it, is commonly used. LLM digression aside, we are our own LLM. Ponder that.

Which leads me to expectations.

Frames establish order and order creates expectations creates expectancies if not expectations. And in doing that we attain what Stuart Hall called a breach of our expectancies. In other words, we naturally order our world and anything that represents symbolic challenges makes us feel uncomfortable. Media has a significant role in this. Not only does media record resistance, but often they normalize it by placing it within an acceptable framework of meanings and symbols (even suggesting it is the majority while it is a minority view). By repositioning and recontextualizing things within society it subverts conventional thinking and legitimizes new thinking through something called “the false obviousness of everyday practice (Althusser).” I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is framing (orderliness) to encourage disorder.  The reality is that this disorder coheres into a meaningful whole. It creates a new internal structure for a subculture creating an orderliness where in each part, and person, is organically related to other parts, and peoples, and it is through the fit between them that the members themselves make sense of the world. Within these people can see their core values held and reflected. The frames, and framing, offer society coded exchanges of reciprocal messages.

“Men in bits of paper whirling in the cold wind

That blows before and after time.

TS Eliot

Which leads me to shaping.

Shaping is a version of framing, shaping is the active use a of a frame to craft a desired outcome, and how things are framed drives perceptions, attitudes, behaviors and even decisions. The problem with most framing is that in seeking understanding (or some cognitive engagement) they create a sense of ‘identical problems’ (“I have seen this before”) when, at best, you have only seen a version of this problem before. A frame tends to unite seemingly random things. Within a frame even beliefs are united. Usually in a neat fashion. Unfortunately, uniting demands dimension, perspective and inexactness which offers some uneven edges that makes thinking richer and more interesting than some smooth filed down concise recap. Shaped frames tend to emphasize ‘reciprocal messaging’ and reciprocal messaging actually restricts the addition of additional messages and stories therefore it smooths down communal thinking. Basically, frames can make reciprocal messaging an echo chamber where stories and myths thrive. I say that because restriction is often cloaked in “honing a good story.” Unfortunately, reality is always a little uneven and less restricted. That said. Effective consistency is certainly a way to ensure some things are not seen and, yet, remain connected in some way. Ponder that.

Which leads me to contagion.

The contagion rate is the fraction of the time that an encounter between an “infective” and a person effectively convinces the susceptible people enough of the story to spread it further. Many encounters may be needed before a particular person is “infected” with a narrative. Now. Contagion may seem like an odd concept when tied to framing, but hear me out. Technology has reshaped how we frame things. And technology has certainly reshaped contagion. To be clear. It is a bit naive to suggest this is a new issue. Certainly, technology has amplified some issues, but our crappiest beliefs (narrative) have thrived as narratives for quite some time. While we may never be able to explain why some narratives “go viral” and significantly influence thinking while other narratives do not, we would be wise to add some analysis of what crappy thinking clusters tend to embed self-activity thinking.

Narratives are major vectors of rapid change in culture, in social ‘vibes’, and ultimately in behavior. Spreading narratives, often many parallel narratives around a common theme, have been creating cultural change long before social media. The only difference may be, well, the framework of the model, because there is a higher contagion rate for narratives due to social media automatically directing narratives to clusters with likely interest in them (let’s call this “directed infection”). That said. An effective frame in a contagion also heightens the removal rate, the rate of forgetting or the simple decay of memories (this is actually cue-dependent forgetting). The removal rate increases because there are declining cues for the memory, i.e., a story seems less connected, less apt, or even superficially contrary to current theories and prejudices. Contagions and framing have a symbiotic relationship.

Which leads me to narratives and frames.

Narrative is a word used to describe ‘the accumulated wisdom around the best frame through which to contextualize and think about things/events.’  Narrative is the filter through which sensemaking is distilled. It is the glue that connects disparate events together to create an understandable whole. The fundamental objective of any of these attempts is to create an indelible narrative imprint increasing the value of the narrative itself. What I mean by the narrative itself is crafted typically by those in power attempting to keep their power through substories, i.e., subgroups enhance that narrative without which those in power would not be able to keep their power. Basically, they use these narratives, frames, to fuel the narrative itself; the ones they desire. This is impoartant because what seems a single society, and a meta narrative, is usually divided by multiple mesa populations with their own mesa narratives. So long as they speak the same language, figuratively not literally, they enjoy the same signals, pursue similar goals, accept the same rules and regulations, there is mesa social cohesion in a meta society. But let communication fail or let a gap of misunderstanding develop among mesa communities so that the signals, symbols, words or phrases, no longer carry a universal meaning, a gap appears where an entire narrative, or frame, can slip into and vanish. Frames create a social construct which creates ‘order.’ The rules and regulations create the boundaries of what could be called law and order which preserves a degree of order essential for the survival of the society as a whole. This ‘order’ is more social identity than it is anything else. ‘This long order are the rules that protect an individual from the depredations of others and represents a concerted defense to protect an individual from the depredations of others. All of these things happen within a larger construct of which is framed by the individual need for satisfaction through identity stimulation and security’ (Robert Ardrey). Yeah. Its actually a bit surprising, but security ranks lowest among our needs and identity highest (there is research, I just lost it). To know who you are; to achieve identity in the eyes of your social community; to sense a fulfillment of and from that identity, all meet a need.  We abhor anonymity and effective framing insures a place of identity.

Which leads me to clarity (and transparency).

Frames expose evidence; real or fantasy. People love evidence. The pursuit of evidence and explanations and clarity creates an intense pleasure when we ‘find’ it. We are encouraged to believe the transparency a frame offers enables not only truth, but encourages a feeling of “how right we are.” I believe it was Georg Simmel who said “transparency prohibits fantasy from incorporating its possibilities; no reality can compensate us for their loss because fantasy is self activity that cannot be replaced in the long run by obtaining and enjoying (reality).” He is right. We may be delusional, but we like fantasy thinking because it offers the easy evidence we require. In fact. Transparency is not the holy grail, it is, in fact, lack of definition. That may sound a bit nuts but the lack of definition enables us to fit in our own little fantasies. And this is where we go back to frames. Within the frames we craft for ourselves we enable a periphery of things within which change and pleasure and possibilities to thrive. Rather than create the concise clarity within which common sensemaking can occur we enable our self-activity, self-thinking, a home to cozy up to a fire of fantasy-like thinking. I have also written a number of things on our love of fantasy thinking, but the difference here is that even with logical framing, we easily delude ourselves. So, use your frames wisely. Ponder.

==

“In the very midst of destruction and decay, we can now find striking evidences of birth and life. It shows clearly and, I think, indisputably, that with intelligence and a modicum of luck the emergent civilization can be made more sane, sensible, and sustainable, more decent and more democratic than any we have ever known. If the main argument of this book is correct, there are powerful reasons for long-range optimism, even if the transitional years immediately ahead are likely to be stormy and crisis ridden”

Alvin Toffler 1980

==

anyone else want to curl up on a lily pad and float away

==

Sometimes, too often in fact, the world cannot only feel insane, but you feel like you are going insane. It’s a response to stress. Stress on beliefs, stress on mindset, stress on reality (and unreality), stress on time, stress on self-capabilities, stress on resources. They literally can make you feel nuts.  It’s the uncomfortable dance between overwhelming and, well, whelming. Often, our ‘whelming’ mechanism is to ignore the larger stuff or always view it through simplistic terms. I actually believe it is a coping system and I tend to, while being frustrated with those people, give them a break. They just don’t know how to understand something so big and so overwhelming and can’t see any way to control it so they see it as a blob and deal with what is in front of them.

Which leads me to lily pads.

Some of us navigate the overwhelming bigness by finding lily pads of certainty in the present – and ongoing presents. That doesn’t mean you don’t feel like you are drowning on occasion and it is also tempting to just stay on your lily pad, but lily pads offer some stability. My own sanity has pretty much been grounded in actually giving lily pads of certainty to people. By giving I get some affirmation that some things can be managed and some things are certain and some things can overcome doubt.  I imagine I avoid the allure of certainty by permitting others to touch upon it on occasion. Maybe it is my way of avoiding being overwhelmed because, well, it is an overwhelming world where uncertainty overshadows certainty, facts exist like stars in the sky, but truth resides in combinations of stars (and not enough people look to the sky) and progress can sometimes appear elusive. Maybe lily pads are sane-ish zones in an insane-ish overwhelming world.

Which leads me to sanity.

My sanity most likely resides on lily pads. One step away from drowning I imagine. But maybe they offer small sane stages to dance within an insane world. Maybe everyone needs lily pads. Ponder.

“Complicated problems originate from causes that can be individually distinguished; they can be address­ed piece by­ piece; for each input to the system there is a proportionate output; the relevant systems can be controlled and the problems they present admit permanent solutions. On the other hand, complex problems and systems result from networks of multiple interacting causes that cannot be individually distinguished; must be addressed as entire systems, that is they cannot be addressed in a piecemeal way; they are such that small inputs may result in disproportionate effects; the problems they present cannot be solved once and for ever, but require to be systematically managed and typically any intervention merges into new prob­lems as a result of the interventions dealing with them; and the relevant systems cannot be controlled — the best one can do is to influence them, or learn to ‘dance with them’…”

Professor Roberto Poli

===

“Just because we don’t understand doesn’t mean that the explanation doesn’t exist.”

Madeleine L’Engle

==

There are a shitload of things that happen in the world, and to us specifically, of which we will never understand. In fact, the probability of never understanding something is higher than the probability of understanding.

Which leads me to probabilities.

In our minds, the more probable, the more likely there is an explanation. In the good old days, we didn’t speak of probabilities, we would sit down and pragmatically think about the likelihood of shit happening – both good shit and bad shit. And, yeah, most times when probabilities are being discussed these days “crisis” is tossed around and when ‘crisis’ enters the narrative we inevitably seek explanations – relentlessly seek explanations. Let me be clear. Crisis is never good. That said. There is certainly bad crisis, i.e., “the bottom has dropped out from under our feet and we are 5,000 feet up”, but then there is also good crisis, i.e., “holy shit, they loved it and we have an order for a 1,000,000 sock puppets but we only have a 1000 capability sock puppet manufacturing capacity.” Both are certainly a crisis just that one focuses on survivable and the other on thriveable. I share that to suggest explanation importance is relative.

Look. Explanations in Life are tricky things. This is why gamification was/is so appealing. But we know from research that finite progress (milestones, sprints, etc.) are a doom loop of chasing things in which people get trained to chase output instead of outcomes, items instead of impact, explanations instead of learning/understanding. People inherently gain greater satisfaction if they show progress – better today than yesterday, better tomorrow than today – so why don’t more people do so? Well. Progress can be a fuzzy thing with fuzzy explanations. Because of that we emphasize measurement which, unfortunately, heightens discomfort of the alternative; the plausible but not certain, the probabilities of, not the prediction of. The plausible does not usually equate to “is” and it is within the wretched hollow in-between where we become captive to nothingness where no explanations reside. This is where “there must be an explanation” falls. So, we twist ourselves into pretzels turning thoughts of plausibility into images of possibility, then images of probability, ultimately shaping/morph itself into a perception of “is.” We move the uncertainty ball into the certainty space, one explanation at a time, not because we actually believe it will make our lives meaningful, but rather because we fear the absence of certainty. Second is that, well, absence of a pursuit of explanations, you worry you may actually end up with nothing and knowing nothing about why you have nothing. Yeah. The truth is while business and society use “somethings” to make us captive of what are actually ‘nothings’, nothing is personal. What I mean by that is even though we may not view the world in a zero-sum way we fear having nothing at the end of the race. We show up to our meeting with Death with no explanation for what we did in our Life. Please note I am suggesting even in death we will reflect more on our ‘doings’ than on impact. That means we become a captive to a fear of nothing explained so we jump onboard the ‘something train’ and hope even if we don’t do anything meaningful (however that could actually be assessed) we will have something; rather than nothing. We make all of our ‘somethings’ explainable. Ponder.

Which leads me to end with an important reminder.

Preciseness, and rationalizing, explanations are mediated truths which deprive us of the ambiguity which is the engine of imagination. The enemy of imagination, and imagination revolutionaries, is certainly pragmatism, finiteness, and rationalization, uhm, explaining and explanations. To be clear, I tend to agree with “doesn’t mean an explanation doesn’t exist,” it’s just that our pursuit of ‘an’ explanation is reductionary rationalization rather than expansive imagination. Imagination has become ‘something to do,’ i.e., a pragmatic thing to do with a pragmatic objective. Imagination has been replaced by innovation pipelines, blue sky thinking workshops, and any number of constructed tasks to be deployed with a specific objective in mind. Everything. Imagination must be ‘explained.’ They become singular expressions of imaginative imagination when imagination should be embodied within an infinite thought and the pursuit of infiniteness. Yeah. Sometimes unexplained. Yeah. That’s a problem in today’s milestone/KPI/achievement obsessed world, but the essence of the imagination is located precisely in its improbability and imprecise explanations. In a probabilistic, finite-driven, rationalizing, world that is a challenge. That is why we need imagination revolutionaries who hold imagination high as the idea, and ideal, around which an imagination revolution can occur and a better future can not only be envisioned, but constructed. We need imagination revolutionaries who can embrace the idea that what we do not understand may have explanations, but those explanations will be beautiful, and plausible, in their impreciseness. Yeah. The power actually lies in the lack of definition. Ponder.

==

“My point is that perceptual bias can affect nut jobs and scientists alike. If we hold too rigidly to what we think we know, we ignore or avoid evidence of anything that might change our mind.”

Martha Beck

==

It just seems nutty to me talking about a recession. Nutty because we have a healthy labor participation rate, unemployment is less than 6% (which historically we would be applauding), the overall growth is well over 2% and estimated to remain at 2% or above. It’s nutty to me because inflation continues to ease while corporate profits remain at an astounding high. The implication to that would be is there some room, if corporations had it in their good hearts, to actually lower some prices and still maintain some healthy profits. That eases some price point pain for people (and they spend more and the economy grows and, well, …   yeah …). It’s a bit nutty to me because while people will point to sell offs in the stock markets the reality would be is the majority of the businesses seeing a sell off just reported positive earnings and positive growth. It’s just that their earnings and growth weren’t ‘enough’ for an insatiable market (and , yeah, the share valuation was a bit nutty in the first place). It’s nutty to me because I envision what it would be like facing this when we had free (money when interest rates were at zero). That would have been bad. The reality would be is that we actually have some flexibility to be able to address some of the market concerns. It’s nutty to me because the fundamentals of the US economy are about as solid as they have been in almost two decades. And generally speaking it’s nutty to me because it’s almost like we are asking to be in a recession. What I mean by that is while we talked about the nuttiness of the ‘vibecession’ and how a healthy economy was being portrayed as imminently going to become bad, we now appear to be seizing upon individual data points to give us the reason to believe we deserve to be in a recession. That is nuts.

That said.

America has a nutty view in that it is always on the lookout for not only something better, but for the worse to happen. And while we always talk about our thirst for hope what we really want is to hurt people we hate. So while we drone on and on about unemployment and not enough growth what we want is an enemy and something (or someone) to lead us to victory against that enemy. It is a nutty version of purpose. Instead of finding ways to help people the general narrative is to attempt to inflict damage. This nutty malleability of truth disorients not only the general narrative, but people. It’s crept into the world TikTok video by TikTok video, Instagram by Instagram, and YouTube video by YouTube video. There can be hours and hours of memes and videos demonstrating the arc of good things and truth, but it won’t matter because all someone has to do is go on TV and deny it and point to some nebulous bad thing somewhere over the horizon. A history of proof can be erased in a moment. But the truly nutty thing is all of these things simply paralyze us. We not only don’t know what to believe, but we’re not really sure which ideas we should align ourselves with. We aren’t really sure what positions we should take and we, well, don’t do anything (or the natural things which would enhance the probability of good things happening). And into this vacuum steps people who want power. Which forces me to circle back to the concept of inflicting damage. If you pursue power in today’s environment, your pathway to power isn’t to offer hope, but rather to inflict damage on the enemy.

Yeah. The nuts bringing up the recession aren’t bringing up recession to solve it, but rather to blame someone and inflict damage on them. That’s nuts.

I find the recession discussion a bit nutty with stable household income, high(ish) consumer spending, and good business investment data. This isn’t to suggest if you have a 401k you may not want to look at it for a bit, but I think the recession talk is a bit nuts. But maybe I’m nuts. Ponder.

==

“Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.”

Kahlil Gibran

==

“In his pursuit of the dream, he was being constantly subjected to tests of his persistence and courage…”

The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho

==

We often discuss focus in terms of the present, but what about focus and the future? To be clear. I most likely have a different view on focus. I see focus as a 6 lane highway in which you are always moving forward. The center line is the moments of clarity (crisis, emotional investment situations, when things feel ‘the rightest’). The remainder of the time you’re staying on task (your horizon point) somewhere on the highway focusing on what is relevant to your survival and your progress.

In my mind today’s world seems less about focusing than it is active versus passive engagement with information.

• Passive engagement means flickering focus on fragments of interest/relevance or ignoring what is unimportant to your task (and, yes, you can miss some things but they don’t really impede your progress).
• Active engagement is seeking things to focus on to enhance your progress on the task (but you pick these things on the move because stagnant means getting run over).

That said. Engagement is focus. Ok. Its about focus. Returning to that highway, the 6 lanes matter because I think to forge your way thru a chaotic world you will get bludgeoned to death if you treat it like a straight-line gauntlet (note: you die in gauntlets). You actually have to be, well, ‘serpentine’ in interacting with information. You have to focus while moving so you don’t get overwhelmed by information. The key here is in the pursuit of progress, or ‘the dream’, you are advancing. That may seem like an odd way to discuss focus, but let me suggest we could learn a lot from young people about focus. Watch one play Call of Duty. Their ability to focus in a multidimensional way WHILE always moving forward shows a dimensional sense of focus we could all aspire to.

“Why are we so full of restraint?

Why do we not give in all directions?

Is it fear of losing ourselves?

Until we do lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves.”

Henry Miller

Which leads me to focus and structural corruption.

Suffice it to say most people enter an occupation with a variety of aspirations aside from receiving a paycheck, and then discover that work is structured so most of those aspirations will be unmet, in fact, they cannot be met.

Suffice it to say most people enter into almost everything in life with a variety of aspirations aside from focusing on achieving some result, and then discover that life is structured so most of those aspirations will be unmet, in fact, they cannot be met.

This simplistic suggestion is the foundation for why people are disillusioned with work, life and the systems undergirding everything. This is, at its core, structural corruption. Oh. Structural corruption doesn’t materialize out of nothing.

“It begins with a private but clearly stated agreement within a small group to cut corners, to find ways of doing things that appear to be in its favor but fail to account for their broader implications. The behavior then spreads to the wider workforce that hasn’t been party to the original consensus, but which now views the practices that have resulted as standard operating procedure. Often years pass before it becomes clear that the breadth of the original agreement to engage in questionable conduct exposes the entire organization to compromise and reputation loss.”

See. that’s the problem with focusing on short term objectives. Short term objectives accept structural corruption, forces constrain systemic compromise, and tamps down the highest potential in the results. That means you can focus on the short term to your heart’s desire and I can guarantee you will never attain the highest possible outcomes (let alone attain aspirations). Focusing on advancing toward ‘what will be’ sees beyond structural corruption and envisions new ways of doing things and thinking about things. That is What I would call “advancing focus”.

Which leads me to advancing.

“Advancing” takes work, demands resilience and focus. Shit. Reshaping structural corruption takes work, demands resilience and focus. Why?

“Anyone who believes that we’re just going to leap into some sort of glorious new age is very unrealistic … far-reaching turmoil can be expected, as individuals and institutions either adapt to, or resist, change.”

Alvin Toffler 1990

To be clear leaders and governing elite talk about leaps all the time. The problem is that most of the ‘elites’ “attack everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.” The consequence of this is for people to retreat rather than advance. Yeah. Self and community become the last defensive outpost on the barren battlefield of certainty, security, and safety. The battlefield air is further sapped of oxygen by the feeling the pursuit of a wealth is how the war is waged where nothing is measured by the quality, quantity, and ethics of productive labor but rather fealty to the amoral forces of global capitalism. This all creates a sense of quote do it yourself end quote individualism and a zero-sum attitude making any real safety elusive and fragile. And this is where I circle back to structural corruption. Because structural corruption has even seeped into the pores of what we view as a community. The seduction of a community in today’s world is a sheltered vision of the future dominated by the present because it is only within the present where individuals in the community can actually see and feel the cozy tranquility of certainty security in whatever freedom they may believe is accessible to them. The truth is the most promising kind of unity is one which is achieved and achieved daily by collaboration, debate, negotiation, and compromise between a variety of values, desires, preferences, chosen ways of life, and self-identifications. This suggests that unity is an outcome of coherence and not a given condition of similar collective interests. Structural corruption subverts the best of community and shapes it into a simplistic desire for defense against an uncertain unsafe world. This means two things about advancing.

• Advancing demands focus and work. In addition, advancing rarely incorporates retreating from the world. That is where focus comes in. The world offers an infinite amount of challenges and people only have finite energy. Active advancing is inextricably tied to effective focus.
• To advance is in some way to refuse to play the game by whatever rules the system suggests is a moral/ethical crime, i.e., against norms not just laws. The system encourages people to not see the game is not played the same way anymore. What I mean by that is it is no longer played between the bigger and the smaller, but between the quicker and the slower. Those who were able to accelerate faster and gain velocity are the ones who actually catch the power needed to be able to beat structural corruption.

This is where mass and gravity step in. To defy structural gravity in any meaningful way, a mass of coherent communities need to collectively fly, but that’s another piece for another day. Today let’s encourage focusing on advancing toward what will be.

So, I hesitated to end with this thought because Antonio Gramsci was a renowned Marxist, but the thought seems relevant: “the way to overcome cultural hegemony is by creating a new culture that is not based on the values of the ruling class.” And maybe that’s what it takes to advance towards what will be – a new way of thinking and a new culture. Ponder.

Today is my birthday.

I hate my birthdays.

Well. Okay. Not hate. Let’s say they are kind of like how I feel about New Year’s Eve. Just another day in the year unlike Christmas (a chubby guy with presents and egg nog with rum) and 4^th of July (you get to blow things up).

That said. For some people birthdays are special.

I keep hoping one day my birthday becomes as special to me as some birthdays are to other people. Storypeople (Brian Andreas) is one of my favorite artists and thoughtful saying artists. He summarized the thinking perfectly:

“I used to hate birthdays, she told me, until I figured out I was the Queen of the Universe & now I do them for the little people.”

storypeople

Me? I keep waiting for the day that I feel like the King of the Universe and start liking my birthday.

But for now? To all my friends who love their birthdays and celebrating it like Christmas … well … Happy Christmas! … oops  … Birthday!

I envy your ability to seize the opportunity to celebrate your life.

I tend to find the people who enjoy their birthdays as the people who know how to enjoy their lives.

The people who look at each birthday as an opportunity to smile a little about their life.

The people who seem to be glass is half full (if not more) type people.

They aren’t tortured souls, but rather more life celebrators.

I envy them because I think they have kept a little of their ‘little kid’ and not afraid to let everyone know it. The best don’t really care about the gift part at all (excepting maybe from someone really special in their lives) they enjoy the celebration. The enjoy the moment.

It’s fun to them getting together with a huge chocolate cake, ice cream and maybe tons of balloons and friends, family or loved ones.

And here is the real nuance.

I think they like to celebrate them, but love the fact that people actually remember it’s their birthday.

So. While I am certainly one of the non-birthday people (who could give a rat’s ass when it comes to my own day) I will make a big deal with someone else’s birthday if it’s important to them.

But most importantly I remember (or try as well as I can).

For the greatest gift I believe you can give a friend is found in the details.

So.

happy birthday.

And, in the end, here is one thing about your birthday that is truer than true:

“Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.”

Dr. Seuss

“Blaming others is nothing more than excusing yourself.”

The shooter at the Trump rally has now brought on the ‘blame game.’ In the cross hairs of this blame game is the secret service. In the interest of candor, I will say that I have crossed paths with secret service in the past and found them extremely competent and almost anally focused on detail (on everything not just their job). Anyway. Conspiracies, of course, will abound, but let me point out a couple of things:

• Secret service is a coordinator of security as well as responsible for securing the security of a specific individual. This becomes important to point out because at an event like a rally they are dependent upon local services to implement their security plans. What I mean here is that the secret service should be judged on their security PLAN not just on implementation. Their job is to show the plan to secure a location, and people, with supporting services and insure everyone knows the vulnerabilities and how those vulnerabilities should be monitored. The secret service cannot monitor all vulnerabilities; they can just point them out to people who can.
• Secret service sniper. I believe the secret service sniper shot the shooter within 10 seconds (maybe 7) of the first shot. This implies the secret service had that vulnerability assessed within their scope of coverage (their plan). The sniper had a direct line to that vulnerability and responded as soon as the danger arose.

Anyway. I am not in the business of defending the secret service, but I absolutely despise the blame game. As a business person I know any business is a “quivering mass of vulnerabilities” and it is inevitable, even with the best planning, that a clever vulnerability will eventually defeat the best laid plans.

Stop the blame game. Its not productive. What would be productive is to stop twats from wanting to kill people.

“we do not attract what we want, we attract what we are”

We all knew that one boy (almost exclusively male) in high school who was a magnet for mayhem. Or maybe a magnet for violence. “Things” just happened when they were around. Often you struggled to point out the one thing that could associate them with the violence or the mayhem excepting that in some form or fashion, they were involved. These were the boys the mothers kind of cringed every time they heard their own son was going to be doing something with them (mothers have a radar for magnets of violence/mayhem). Society is strewn with magnets for violence. In fact I would argue as they get older, more mature, and are successful as magnets for violence, these are the people who embrace watching the world burn simply “because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. (Alfred in Batman).”

Anyway. There are two aspects of the magnet:

• Attracting violence

Shit just happens around these people and they don’t avoid the shit. Sometimes they seek out environments, sometimes the environments seem to seek them out and sometimes (rarely) life offers moments unsought. It doesn’t matter. Trailing this person is always a trail strewn with mayhem and violence. I would say that leading this person is usually words. What I mean by that is even the dumbest violent magnet uses rhetoric that opens doors in people’s minds for the possibilities of doing or condoning violence. I call this a bad version of ‘productive vagueness.’ Business is strewn with productive vagueness, a lack of specificity in what is desired from a behavior standpoint which permits some autonomy as well as some plausible deniability. Anyway. It’s like a magnet of violence is more a door opener than an actual violent person (although they are not opposed to doing some violence). Trump is a magnet for violence and exhibits all the characteristics of a high school magnet who has matured into an adult magnet.

• Attracting violent people

Bullies, authoritarians, power hungry narcissists, are just dangerous individuals with little larger power. The problem is they are magnets for violent people. Magnets rarely do the violence or even smart enough to do violence that avoids the legal system; they empower people who can do it. I have always pushed back on “power corrupts” because power cannot corrupt everyone – it is contextual to the individual. Paraphrasing Ursula Le Guin: ““It is very hard for violence to take hold of the unconsenting soul.” Maybe that is what I mean by magnet here. A magnet for consenting souls. This argument is similar to one that has followed Trump around like a bad rash. Deplorables was probably the first smart iteration. The full comment was not that everyone who was going to vote for Trump was deplorable, but rather all the deplorables would vote for Trump. Not all people who are part of MAGA are violent, but if you are a violent soul you will inevitably be part of the MAGA crowd.

There is also a subset of this ‘attracting violent people.’ And that is violence fighting violence. The “left” is absurdly non-violent in nature so there will inevitably be groups who will defend the non-violent – antifa comes to mind. I highly recommend Talia Lavin’s book “culture warlords”, but as she points out, antifa is not an organization, it is a responsive group. They are quasi-violent’ people who come together, ad hoc, in response to violent “right” groups. They are, well, anti-fascist and while not all MAGA is fascist, if you are a fascist (or unwittingly adopt some authoritarian fascists-like attitudes), you will inevitably be part of MAGA.

Regardless. A magnet for violence will attract violent people (and their ideas) like moths to a flame.

Trump is a magnet for violence. Even his idea of “unity” is violent. To suggest anyone creates violence more than he in the US political arena is absurd. Absent of Trump, America would still be divided/fragmented, the political rhetoric would still be horribly corrosive, but the country would be structurally less violent. Ponder.

===

Mother, mother

There’s too many of you crying

Brother, brother, brother

There’s far too many of you dying

You know we’ve got to find a way

To bring some lovin’ here today

Father, father

We don’t need to escalate

You see, war is not the answer

For only love can conquer hate

You know we’ve got to find a way

To bring some lovin’ here today

<What’s Going On>

Marvin Gaye

==

“To be neutral, to be passive in a situation, is to collaborate with whatever is going on.”

Howard Zinn

===

This is about guns and shooting and words. First. Guns. Suicides, of which there are far far too many, reside in the purview of handguns. Inner city crime, mostly minority on minority, of which there is far far too many, reside in the purview of handguns. What lies in the purview of young white males is mass shootings with an AR-15. Reminder. And AR-15 is a civilian version of a military M-16. And we had another young white male, with an AR-15, shoot into a crowd. What makes this one a bit different is that instead of shooting white school children (Sandy Hook), or Hispanic school children (Uvalde), or black people (Charleston and Buffalo), or a country music crowd (Las Vegas), this young white male decided to open up on a Trump rally. Its too early to know his intent, or motivations, whether it was a specific assassination attempt or just ‘kill-for-attention,’ suffice it to say there was a young white male, with an AR-15, a crowd of people, and he shot. Regardless of his actually intent, whatever it may have been, the Republican party find itself in a quandary. The MAGA world was attacked through the same 2^nd amendment rights they espouse. And not just attacked, but their leader’s life threatened. But that’s not the tricky part for them, it’s that it wasn’t the ‘radical left,’ but rather just a disturbed young male (registered as a Republican). There is nothing nefarious here, at least not politically, just another young white male with an AR-15.

That said. Let’s get to rhetoric.

First of all. I am excited to spend the next few days being lectured about the dangers of inflammatory political speech by people who’ve spent the last few years cheerleading civil war (sarcasm). Second. I have written about how political rhetoric needs to be dialed back. Oh. I did that before 2016 and in 2016. Third. There is no equivalence between right rhetoric and left rhetoric. At its worst the left suggests MAGA is an existential threat to the country (and democracy) and their call to action is “vote.” At its worst the right, well, encourages violence as a call-to-action option. Even worse, their rhetoric veers into “they are the enemy” mental models therefore there is no such thing as ‘unity’ to a MAGA member; just victory and supplication (or elimination). Fourth. Conservative media, for quite some time, has been quasi-apocalyptic in their calls to fight by any means necessary the evils of liberalism (or socialists and communists as they suggest). To be clear. Apocalyptic phrasing around democracy is different than apocalyptic phrasing around America. Anyway. The rhetoric from the Right has only gotten hotter. Fifth. The most violent rhetoric of the past 8+ years is from Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly promised a civil war, called democrats unamerican, called them treasonous (coded message for ‘should be shot’), routinely calls for bloodbaths, “stand back and stand by” to white nationalists and suggests January 6 capitol attackers are heroes. These are incontrovertible facts.

Words are weapons and words, used well, contrast choices. I end this section with that because in the MAGA alternative universe world, where they turn up down, words should not be completely eliminated, just used more wisely.

“Almost any criticism of Trump is already being spun by MAGA as an incitement to assassinate him. This is an Orwellian attempt to silence what remains of the effort to stop him from regaining power.”

Edward Luce/Financial Times

Anyway. Almost all political rhetoric these days suggests an “us versus them.” That is horrible.

It creates an either/or mentality where complex issues gets dumbed down to inaccurate simplicity.

It creates an either/or mentality which encourages us to be, and express, the worst version of ourselves. This clearly does not, and will not, help us address the complex reality we face.

Add on the layer of the internet and social media and our worst version gets amplified.

Add on the layer that the amplified voice, and voices, the reach into the minds of the few mental-health-in-need individuals in a greater culture in which tools of violence (guns) are far too readily available.

I point out the layers because whatever we do each layer needs some solutions to create obstacles to an alignment of disparate variables which enable the unacceptable occurrences we see.

Americans believe they are extremely divided along lines of identity: 77 percent said the country is divided over religion. Eighty-three percent said it’s divided over race and ethnicity. And fully 91 percent of respondents said the United States is divided by politics.

We need to accept that divisiveness in rhetoric affects attitudes and ultimately behaviors.

We need to accept that mental health reform, societally discussed … culturally discussed … and professionally discussed, needs to be not only discussed but dealt with.

And, yes, we need to accept that gun ownership, or the prevalence of everyday people having guns, often makes police work more challenging and increases the likelihood of errors affecting people’s lives in that there are split second decisions made on <a> whether a person they are facing has a gun and <b> will they use it or not.

All of these things lead to a difficult complex situation in which divisiveness and extreme points of views/rhetoric tend to not be very productive if not even detrimental to the overall situation.

Which leads back to rhetoric.

And while we can talk about guns, or the economy <because economic inequality and lack of real opportunities creates a foundation for unhappiness if not anger> or any other issue we want … we need to begin with the words.

===

“We don’t get harmony when everybody sings the same note.

Only notes that are different can harmonize. The same is true with people.”

Steve Goodier

======

Whether we like it or not words beget actions. Any good speaker, any good leader, any effective protestor knows this is fact. Words have inspired people to act for generations. Therefore, we all must acknowledge the consequences associated with what we say. Free speech and freedom of thought is at the core of who and what America is, however, hate of what is said and what is thought is the counterproductive ugly side of that freedom.

I say this because you cannot be either for police or against police – they are an integral part of the fabric making up the structure of America. We are all pro police.

I say this because you cannot be either for or against immigration – unless you are a Native American they are an integral part of the fabric making up the structure of who and what America is (and a healthy economy). We are all pro-immigration.

I say this because you cannot be for or against America – America is a complex weave of a structure of how we think, what we believe, self-identities and attitudes. Disagreements on tactics aside, in the end we are all pro-potential, pro-progress, and pro-America.

That said. No matter one’s beliefs, the rhetoric of extremism seems to create an absurd version of “us versus them” where, well, no one wins – we are all the victims. What I mean is that when extremism is taken in totality, where each side states that if you don’t believe what I believe you are not only wrong but “bad”, uhm, the only conclusion would clearly place everyone, when taking in all views, clearly as wrong & bad, i.e., no one can be right because everyone at some point ends up in a “wrong bucket.”

Therefore, what’s going on is a divisiveness which suggests everyone is in the wrong. And if that is true … well … in a land of nothingness nothing will inevitably win. Anyway. Here are the most powerful words I can think of to address this discussion.

It’s got to stop.

We need some fundamental changes – in attitudes and in behaviors and in words.

Look. American violence is clearly out of hand. American inequality is clearly out of hand. American divisive rhetoric is clearly out of hand. Too many simplistic inaccurate depictions of what’s going on make it incredibly difficult to find the common ground where common sense ideas can prevail.

And this is where I look to leaders and what’s going on.

Ah. The Leaders. Let’s call them our ‘governing officials” <politicians>. And let’s call them disappointing. I discuss this hesitating. Hesitating because I truly believe in the power of people and the power of an individual to say ‘it stops here & now’ and that in doing so attitudes, like dominoes, begin to fall in line. But in a country in which politicians will not seek common ground, but instead shout out the top of their lungs “all things divisive,” how can we the people be united? If leaders <on both sides> refuse to compromise … it is us, we, everyday schmucks who pay the price.

We are the victims of their behavior – all of us – not just the ones who die or are physically directly affected.

We are all victims when the system fails.

We are all victims when our leaders fail.

We are victims when a small group of like minded people fail.

We are victims when an individual fails.

We are all victims if we fail to do something.

We are all victims when we begin to believe the bigger vision of who and what America is … is … well … failing.

And ultimately.

We are all victims when the rhetoric is divisive

This all gets just a bit worse. Unity, or common sensemaking, has always been dependent upon mingling of peoples and work is where roughly three-quarters of Americans’ interactions with people from another political party happen. Other life activities are significantly more politically divided. Yeah. Less than 50% of people say they encounter political differences among their friends. Only 39% say they see political diversity within their families, and an incredibly low % of people encounter ideological diversity at religious services or community meetings. This is really bad because many of these places have traditionally been where people practiced habits of democracy. So, as institutions weaken, and people self-identify more, democracy gets weaker and people are more easily divided.

So, I will offer the first step.

For you, and me and my leaders. Stop the divisive rhetoric. Words have power beyond the imagination. Stop the divisive words. It must stop to stop what’s going on. Unite America by offering uniting rhetoric. It is amazing what can happen, what will actually ‘go on,’ if everyone actually believes we are united. I tend to believe all of us every day schmucks know that we have problems and that there are issues to be resolved, but I would feel a shitload better if I truly believed we were united in addressing them. And maybe, just maybe, less divisive rhetoric will encourage us to maybe, just maybe, spend a little more time around people who are not just like us, and find out they are not evil, they are not our enemy, they are not vermin, they are people. Just like us. Ponder.

==

“She knows who she is. She just forgot for a little while.”

Donald Miller

==

I am going to stick my neck out a bit here and say I think most of us know who we are. Sometimes the lines seem a little vaguish, but I think, generally speaking, we know who we are. I begin there to frame “forgot for a little while.” “Who I am” is a moving target. As Whitman said, we are multitudes. But our center is generally our center and while the clothes our center wears may change with the seasons, the center is the center.

Which leads me to a thought I saw somewhere: “we all break our own rules for someone.”

Well. We do. In fact, we even do it in some situations. But it seems to be more important when we break our own rules for another human being. Its just a bit more personal. Break our own rules sometimes feels like forgetting who we are, but its not. You are clearly, well, breaking your own rules. That suggests you know exactly who you are. Anyway. We beat the shit out of ourselves when we do his. I wonder if we should just apologize to ourselves instead. Apologize for putting up with something you didn’t really deserve – and you knew it wasn’t something you deserved. Look. Just because you are at peace with yourself, at peace with who and what you are, doesn’t mean that you will not war with yourself on occasion. I would argue those little wars are you checking on yourself. Checking on whether you should adapt; or not adapt. So maybe ‘forgetting’ is really permitting curiosity (or hope) win out – for awhile.

“I wasn’t actually in love but I felt a sort of tender curiosity.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald / The Great Gatsby

Which leads me to the silliest phrase we say: “I knew I shouldn’t have done it.”

Saying that is silly. Its silly because adapting to another human being may be one of the most human things we can do. In fact. Its not silly at all. The reality is we meet a lot of temporary people in our lives. Some we love and some we are just curious about. Some change us for the better and some show us we were right about who we are. We should always entertain “the temporary.” Who knows? Maybe temporary becomes a positive permanent.

Which leads me to forgetting for a little while.

Speaking of temporary, forgetting for a little while is just a temporary situation. Being oneself is like a kaleidoscope of swirling colors. At any given point one color can look just a bit more appealing than the others and you, well, chase that color – for a little while. Because forgetting and chasing go hand in hand – and they both have an intimate relationship with temporary. One cannot forget forever nor can anyone chase forever. The forgetting and chasing may go on longer than is comfortable, but in the grand scheme of things it is, well, temporary.

Anyway.

We customize our lives – 30000 daily decisions at a time. In fact, one of the most freeing thoughts you can have is to realize you customize your life by making decisions in situations; as they happen to you. It may feel like you have just forgotten who you are for a little while, but you don’t really. Ponder.