……………… typical Bruce index card ………….

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

“Creatives need constraints like a good architect needs the laws of physics (and in particular, gravity). It’s by working within the constraints that, ultimately, we creatives test our limits and push ourselves to grow.”

SJ_Murray

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

“In all pointed sentences, some degree of accuracy must be sacrificed to conciseness.”

Samuel Johnson

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

One 3×5 paper index card and a writing utensil (my preference is a pencil). I

would say 90% of any of the ideas I have ever had that have been worth a shit have occurred in that constrictive space using that ancient writing tool.

That said. This is about ideas and thinking. I am a scribbler. And a sketcher. And a pencil guy. I carry around a stack of index cards & constantly sketch out thoughts for people. I can confidently say my index cards are strewn around the world. I am sure some are used for dart boards, some for a good laugh & some actually was a seed for some idea.

To me, index cards means I cannot rely on, well, anything. The space demands that I use it however the idea demands. It is an exercise in brevity & clarity and forces some economy to the idea or thought.

When pinned up on some board the idea or thought has no place to hide. Shit. The thinking has no place to hide. If that space can display the core of some value proposition (which, inevitably, that is an idea), thinking has won the day.

Now. In my defense there is an entire book on ‘The back of the Napkin”   (I bought and then donated to some business library) and Jessica Hagy wrote a book called Indexed (which I never actually bought)  and Hugh McLeod wrote Ignore Everybody (a fabulous book) and has built an entire company/business around ideas succinctly communicated – all espouse the value of a constrained ideation method.

All that said.

While I have used index cards for decades the whole idea of constraints & old school simplicity came to mind the other day where I had a great conversation with a young person and at the end of it he said “I envision you live your life free of constraints and the rules that inhibit the majority of people.”

I hesitated <slightly taken aback> and responded “I’m sorry I gave you that impression … I think Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general,  are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

Yeah. I believe Construct is good.

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

constraints maximize pragmatism & demands productive imagination to explore possibilities.

“Creatives need constraints like a good architect needs the laws of physics (and in particular, gravity). It’s by working within the constraints that, ultimately, we creatives test our limits and push ourselves to grow.”

@SJ_Murray

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

So let’s talk about the relationship between construct, constraint and constrict. Constructs can either, or both, create constraints or constrict. Typically, that is not a reflection of the construct but rather the constructors (people) or the managers of the construct (people).

constraints maximize pragmatism & demands productive imagination to explore possibilities.

Constructs can be either good or bad because constructs, in general, define some finiteness in a complex infinite world.

Note: I believe construct is incredibly important for the future of business. I believe the key to the future is a business which can think conceptually and implement well against those concepts. It will be a natural way of combining emergent & deterministic strategies against concepts represent the most valuable opportunities.

Think about football fields, rodeo rings, Broadway stages, yes, even index cards, any finite space creates a construct for someone to maximize the space … in a multi-dimensional way. Thinkers take the 2 dimensional traditional constructs and seek to build within any and all dimensions.

Sounds weird, but finiteness offer freedom.

As a corollary … no finiteness encourages aimless unfocused wandering.

Note: ‘no finiteness wandering’ could be construed as freedom by some, but it isn’t really. Freedom in and of itself only has value where it is attached to some purpose or construct or intent. No finiteness freedom sounds good <on occasion>, but inevitably is extremely dissatisfying.

I’m not suggesting unfocused wandering doesn’t have some value, but rather that the great ideas and thinking don’t come from the unfocused, but rather the focused.  I am actually suggesting there is a massive difference between construct, constraint and constrict. When I refer to finiteness and boundaries I have also very clearly stated ‘nonrestrictive.’

Restriction: Too restrictive is most often a reflection of someone or something imposing philosophical and/or ideological control over others. More often than not tight space ‘finite builders’ leaders see people as a single unit, or engine, in which all the people are parts rather than autonomous individuals. They believe that if any part acts outside of the boundaries the entire unit could break. They build their boundaries not seeking to enhance creativity and innovation, but rather to control each individual’s behavior in order to ensure that what you do as an individual does no harm to the whole. It is meant to rein in and not let free and meant to create conformity and unity <albeit it is actually “oneness’>.

It is a faulty premise … and a defensive constrictive premise.

Why is it faulty?

—-

“… provide an extended definition of creativity that embraces potential cross-cultural variations in this construct.

Creativity is defined as a 4-criterion construct, which includes attributes of novelty, utility, aesthetics, and authenticity. Novelty attribute stipulates that a creative work brings something new into being, which presents a new conceptual framework and/or modifies or violates an existing one. Utility attribute stipulates that a creative work is what a producer or a recipient considers creative, what represents an important landmark in spiritual, cultural, social, and/or political environment, and what addresses moral issues. The aesthetics attribute stipulates that a creative work presents the fundamental truth of nature, which is reflected in a perfect order, efficiently presents the essence of the phenomenal reality, and is satisfactorily complex, expressing both tension and intrinsic contradiction. Authenticity attribute stipulates that a creative work expresses an individual’s inner self and relates one’s own values and believes to the world. These attributes establish a comparison matrix, which can be used to evaluate and compare the levels of creativity of works from different areas of human endeavor.”

Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin

———-

Constraint: Creativity of the mind is exactly the same as creativity of innovation. It is multidimensional and needs a balance of constraint and freedom in order to maximize potential.

The best creativity, thinking & ideas, happens within a construct offering constraints. Well established boundaries, ones that supply some constraint without being restrictive, create an environment in which the mind can roam freely within a realm provided some focus for that freedom.

True creative freedom is found within finiteness not without.

As I said in the beginning … “Life, as well as business, is best lived within a construct and while I believe society and some experts try and establish some silly rules … rules, in general, are good and boundaries typically enhance creativity.”

Anyway. While index cards certainly offer constraint (forces you to focus, or simplify, a thought) the real value is in the puzzle piece management, i.e., being able to envision how a thought fits into the grander narrative/scheme of things

Life, business, thinking in general, is a million-piece puzzle of which we gather the pieces one at a time. While our minds naturally store away everything we see and read and experience, an index card permits us to catalogue those pieces, no matter how tiny, onto a small canvas. The index card is a method of processing information, collating it, filing it away for when it is needed.

Let me be clear Life, and business, and thoughts; each is a million-piece puzzle. Period. Full stop.

Some people gather pieces and assess and others just don’t have that ability and use just the pieces that seem the most important.

Neither is good or bad in and of itself.

But I will say what is good is assembling those puzzle pieces in a constrained space. I don’t care if its index cards, notepads, whatever. If you can assemble puzzle pieces and assemble a thought within a space <canvases seem to be the construct du jour although I tend to use x/y axis> you can almost guarantee that people will be able to see the idea and its value.

But let me end this with a contrarian thought to what I just offered: assembling those puzzle pieces in a constrained space.

What if the entire idea of a constrained space is false?

What if all those post it notes and index cards are simply potential pockets of certainty within an infinite, boundless, world of uncertainty mired within complexity?

I thought about this staring at a whiteboard with index cards arranged on it. What if instead of viewing them as possibilities or information on some canvas (which is a construct) we see them as possible certainties in a lack of construct uncertain world? What if I viewed these index cards as finite games to be played within an infinite game? None of this suggests the value of using index cards and having construct to place some smart constraints on thinking & doing is valueless. In fact. It may even suggest that focus and clarity is even MORE important because they may actually represent the only real certainty you can find to place in a constantly changing complexity context. Ponder that.

===========

 “To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don’t be.”

Golda Meir

===========

Compromise. It is a tricky thing. Tricky concept. Tricky discussion.

Type ‘art of compromise’ into google search and you get about 37,800,000 results <in .31 seconds>. Sometimes it seems like we are faced with compromise choices about 37,800,000 times every 31 days.

We face compromise every day, if not every minute.

We face it in the meaningless minutiae — ‘I will slow down to let that asshole pass me’ — to the important — ‘I believe this is the right thing to do, but …’

If you spend a minute thinking about it, we face compromise after compromise after compromise after, well, you get it.

But.

Where do we draw the line? In fact. Do we draw the line often enough?

And where the heck do we draw the line so that our lives are not completely defined by compromise? <which, if you did, would mean you stand for nothing>

“To sell your soul is the easiest thing in the world. That’s what everybody does every hour of his life. If I asked you to keep your soul – would you understand why that’s much harder?”

Ayn Rand

It is a Life truth that not everything that matters can be counted and unfortunately many of the most important things rarely are.

This is troubling because in the world of exhaustive compromise we need to be able to not only count, but count on, the most important things.

I say that because Compromise is sly. Sometimes it is cleverly insidious.

In a ‘group think’ consensus environment where, compromise takes a death grip on decision making, everyone is at risk of being led into that empty abyss of unthinking acquiescence and the inevitable downward spiral of individual and collective compromise dragged down by a lack of independent thought will inevitably lead to a gray personality, ubiquitous conclusion wrapped up in a semi-blurry moral compass.

To me Compromise is the enemy of individuality.

Yup.

I said it.

And a bunch of people are not gonna like me for typing that.

But Compromise seems to be mostly <at least in today’s world> about compromising principles and diminishing individual responsibility in the mistaken belief that the short-term advantage of a larger group harmony inevitably leads to a long-term satisfaction of a ‘greater good.’

Well.

If you ever wanted a definition of ‘middle of the road’ living <personally or in business>, there it is. More importantly <to individuality> it appears that invariably the consequences are some form of damaged personal integrity <if not some bad decisions>.

In my eyes we are far too often advised to “choose your battles.”

Unfortunately, that suggests we, individually, should know which issues are worth fighting for and which aren’t really important.

Note: This is a fantasy.

The logic is that you should save your strength for the things that really matter.

That also assumes that EVERYONE recognizes the things that really matter.

Note: This is a fantasy.

This latter point I just made, i.e., EVERYONE, is especially important because if ‘everyone don’t’ then you end up simply being stuck in a consensus driven group environment where compromise dictates just one more short term decision.

That said, let’s face it, not everyone is good at recognizing the things that really matter. In fact … most of us suck at it.

Look.

I understand that not all conflicts have clear winners. In some instances there may be reasonable but contradictory claims. You can go ahead and fight it out, but no one person will really ‘win.’

I also understand In some situations we must be able to compromise.

But. Where do we draw the line? Because I feel like we are not drawing any lines.

Compromise is far too often simply a different version of hell.

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one–the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Compromise is sly.

So I will say this. If you need to compromise, the one ‘truth’ I believe you must never ‘lose’ with regard to the discussion is you must never lose sight of ‘yourself’.

You have core needs and beliefs. Do not relinquish anything that you feel is absolutely essential  <understanding that you must be willing to accept something ‘unessential’ to you that will inevitably influence how you feel and ‘how you look’ – in the mirror and to others>.

Compromise never feels perfect because, more often than not, it isn’t. In fact in more cases than not it is distinctly imperfect if not wrong.

Decide where you are willing to bend.

Be willing to give up something in order to gain something significant.

In the end.

Even if it is associated with a business decision, compromise seems to be about bargaining with life.

And maybe we should spend a second thinking about what we are bargaining with.

“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another – too often ending in the loss of both.”

Tryon Edwards

Oh, speaking of losing ‘both’, I have a couple of words I want to use: Integrity and Self. They are inextricably linked and cannot be de-linked under the guise of compromise.

Look. What is ‘right’ is often not only a moving target, but also can be found in degrees within a variety of solutions and answers.

What is not a moving target is one’s integrity and sense of Self.

Oops. This can end up being a little tricky because you yesterday is not you today and certainly not the you tomorrow.

Self, in and by itself, is a constant work in progress <oops part 2: this sounds like one of those trite philosophical thoughts for which I apologize>. And your judgment is influenced by personal beliefs <what principles you embrace> and what you know as of the moment.

In all situations requiring careful judgment, especially compromise moments, we are influenced by our own biased personal beliefs. And that is where Integrity places you firmly in the path of Compromise. Firm ground on which to stand and say ‘stop … you do not pass this place until we have talked.’

“Don’t compromise yourself; you’re all you’ve got.”

Janis Joplin

Or … as Golda Meir states … ‘either you be or you don’t be.’

Compromise is sly & crafty because it tries to confuse you between ‘you be’ and ‘we be’ in terms of priorities.

Well.

In my mind there is far too much compromising while getting nothing in return <we are stuck in the middle>.

In my mind there is far too much compromising for short term gain <and short term decision making>.

In my mind there is far too much compromising at the expense of fostering individual thought <and individuality>.

Maybe it’s time you put a line in the sand.

Maybe it’s time you put a stop to the the onslaught of compromise.

——

Portuguese:

saudade

… a longing for something so indefinite as to be indefinable.   Love affairs, miseries of life, the way things were, people already dead, those who left and the ocean that tossed them on the shores of a different land – all things born of the soul that can only be felt. 

==

Anthony De Sa

———–

“He marveled at the indifference of the world, the way it kept on, despite everything.”

==

Anthony Doerr

————-

Ok. I am fairly sure everyone desires the greater intangible things in life: the things, or thing, you just cannot put words to but you know is out there and you will “know it when you see it or feel it”. Unfortunately, well, the intangible also tends to be elusive.

It is also very very difficult to clearly define or put words to it <hence many people choose to focus on some specific milestone or objective>. I would suggest the intangible is elusive because the world is indifferent to our desires. What do I mean? The world is relatively uninterested in offering the intangible in tangible form. The world simply tends to fork over tangible crap to us and it is up to us to peel it all back and bask in the intangible good stuff found within.

But that takes time and is more difficult.

Therefore. We tend to seek tangibles.

And more tangibles.

And then more tangibles.

This means that we are almost destined, despite that in our soul we deeply long for something indefinable, to settle for tangible proof that we are showing some progress.

I do not really care what the proof is … just that we settle for it.

What Is Elusive? The definition of “elusive” is:

elusive: evasive, slippery, difficult to find, catch or achieve

Speaking of desiring proof – that is why we often create deadlines. Deadlines are powerful things as we face our longing for the indefinite <and the definite>. More often than not we use the deadline to insure we do not waste too much time on something we are not sure can be easily defined. But think about what a deadline really is.

Today the term is now used, mostly, to refer to “the time by which something must be completed.” In the historical sense a deadline refers to the boundary around a prison which, if prisoners crossed it, they’d be shot by the guards. Wow. Okay. So while deadlines are everywhere in the business world and we no longer get shot it does seem like we just get shit when we cross a deadline.

Now. Psychologists have done a boatload of research on the effect of deadlines on people. Invariably the majority of people actually improve performance as a deadline nears. They explain this by something called “the Yerkes-Dodson law.” This law suggests performance increases as arousal <excitement, stress, tension, nervousness> increases. Well. At least up to a point from which performance declines as the person, and senses, are overwhelmed.

Basically this suggests we become more aware of consequences of failing to complete what we want to do as time slips away and act upon that awareness <with some focus because the consequences of not meeting the deadline while may not include being shot certainly includes a load of shit>.

In addition. Deadlines tend to eliminate procrastination mostly because we dislike the unpleasant feeling of consequences of not meeting a deadline.

Note: Stick with me because this all has to do with our longing for something indefinite.

Ok. Now comes the next horrible thing that happens as we pursue what we truly long for. We have a deadline in our heads and we encounter something called the planning fallacy. We suck, extraordinarily so, at estimating how much time to allocate for things because our brains, in general, are quite overly optimistic with regard to our own capabilities. Therefore we underestimate time. In addition we do this because our brains have a nasty habit of looking back on past poor time allocation and failed deadlines and blame external causes <and yet the next time the thought will be that this time we will be unencumbered therefore meet our deadline successfully>.

All of this circles back to that ‘arousal’ consequence, which we hate, as it rears its ugly head one more time as our optimistic assumptions crash into the actual reality of the situation. I bring it back to ‘arousal’ because all that painful consequence stuff occurs WHEN YOU ARE PURSUING A TANGIBLE GOAL.

The waters get even murkier if you are setting some deadline on how much time you want to spend on pursuing this elusive indefinite thing. But. We are truly optimistic folk. Well. At least some of us are. What one person thinks of as elusive and indefinite another sees hope and opportunity. And depending on where you are in Life your feeling can change. The one consistent steady thing is that at all times there is a longing for something more, some longing for something so indefinite as to be undefinable.

So what can we do? We have to take responsibility for our lives and choices and this indefinite thing. We cannot subvert the longing and suffocate it with the tangible.

To be clear <part 1>. The longing should not dictate our lives and behavior, but it also should not play a role in our lives and actions.

To be clear <part 2>. That isn’t easy. Life can throw a bunch of curve balls and … well … some high hard fastballs. The biggest fastball Life throws at you is what I call “Life comparison shopping.” You shop your life against other lives.

In the good ole days it was called “keeping up with the Joneses” <using one’s neighbors as a standard of comparison for the consumption of material goods>. This sounds silly, but we are human, and it is hard not to notice when your neighbor buys something. But they are not the only standard of comparison. Television shows, magazines, websites, and pretty much anywhere you consume information inundates us with stories about what other people have, wear and do.

Yes. While we know we shouldn’t care mostly because, while we may not articulate it this way, we know conspicuous consumption is ubiquitous.

But.

Tangible proof is, well, tangible proof.

The tendency to compare yourself to to other people is fundamental and is going to occur whether or not we intend it. And, yes, in some cases, social comparison is useful. In the absence of objective standards of success, social comparison  helps us to evaluate and improve ourselves. And yet, at the same time,  sometimes social comparison suggests you are inferior in some aspect <wealth, intelligence, appearance, etc.> which can create some feelings of envy or ‘lesser than.’ Okay. This is where the tangible proof path absolutely frickin’ kills us on this pursuit of something undefinable.

“Lesser than” feelings erode the belief you can ever attain what you long for <I mean your head says “c’mon … if you cannot even be good enough to do that how can you be good enough to attain something you cannot even define .. all you can do is just discuss as something you ‘long for’?”>.

Then we remain on the middle path too long. We start missing out on the dreams. We shelve the longing and inevitably that which is undefinable remains undefined and that which we long for simply becomes an immature pursuit for only those who are dreamers. You justify this decision, and personal behavior, as you walk the middle path by always thinking that eventually you will get around to pursuing this longing … and eventually reach this undefinable thing that will makes you happy.

And then time is gone. And the longing, which is easily dismissed as “shit, I couldn’t even define it anyway”, is still there but the opportunity is gone.

Look. Pursuing something so indefinite as to be indefinable is tough. It is not for the faint of heart. To do so you need to accept that while some results are very tangible others are less so. The secret is to get your head straight from the outset on how ‘performance’ is to be measured then build in the means for measuring activity. I say that because I think the measurement is much more important than setting a deadline.

I mean, well, how can you set a deadline on something you cannot even define? <someone smarter than I would have to figure that out>.

In the end I use this quote:

====

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts, and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat pack. The price is too high.”

Jimmy Reid

=====

Part of being a human being is this inherent longing for “something.” Maybe it is captured in that one word:  saudade.

“all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t do the day to day stuff that needs to be done nor am I suggesting that deadlines aren’t quite useful for some day to day shit, but I am suggesting that stuff shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of our longing for “all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

====

“Once you create a self-justifying storyline, your emotional entrapment within it quadruples.”

Pema Chödrön

====

This is about Change and its relationship to what we believe, or, the stories we have and tell.

I was reminded of this topic (again) because of 2 things:

• Another fine Leda Glyptis article “tell it cos it’s a good story”
• Another fine Mike Walsh podcast on Six Pixels of Separation (where he discusses his surprise on how quickly change is occurring)

To me, they are interrelated – individual stories within larger industry stories, i.e., things we believe and have emotional investment in, and how that relates to change.

Let me tell you how (and why maybe we should be paying attention).

It becomes incredibly easy to discuss change with ‘digital transformation’ or ‘disruption’ or any variety of business industry buzzwords. Mike says something that has also creeped into my way of thinking “the longer this <pandemic> goes on the more embedded some change will be.” He is correct, but not in a simplistic monolithic way as many futurist procrastinators suggest. I would suggest this is more like Neils Pflaeging’s beta codex model (“change is more like adding milk to coffee” view) at scale for 7 billion people, 200 millionish businesses and 125 millionish micro/small/midsized businesses. Pick your derivative, but if you ever want to discuss one-to-one change, this is it.

It becomes incredibly easy to discuss change in individual behavioral terms, but it is quite possible we need to speak of change in terms of narratives within narratives <individuals within a larger system> within which there are tweaks of behaviors & attitudes. This would mean it isn’t really systemic change, but rather individual change creating a systemic change. As Venkatesh Rao pointed out this whole pandemic shitstorm has collapsed the grander narrative from which, I would argue, an emphasis on individual narrative, micro business narratives and individual business narratives in general, increase in importance (when the whole falls apart the pieces seek to strengthen themselves).

The Narrative Collapse:

In this case all we learned was the fragility of life – in totality. This creates an overarching impact (a structural aspect to 100% of people) that we are now living within which could be described as a Narrative Collapse. We have conceptually lost the plot.

That said.

Why do individual stories matter?

I truly believe Change really isn’t as difficult as we make it out to be. We do it all the frickin’ time. I do believe the way we go about change – how we discuss it in monolithic terms and how we ‘implement’ it and what we ask people to do/think – is, in general, absurd. Maybe if we think about it a little differently, we would become more receptive to the unevenness of change which would possibly stop us from trying to implement change (a deterministic approach) and instead make change emergent.

Any time ‘emergent’ comes up people get a little uneasy and begin applying labels, constraints and, in general, restrictions (which are inherently reductive). Think about the fact Change is, inevitably, narratives within narratives and stories within stories. Our largest issue isn’t with change itself, but rather the arc of the storytelling, particularly in business, bends toward simplistic labels and titles. It’s often like we are stuck in an executive summary world when the world would benefit from reading the entire story to be told.

It seems like we would be better off, and happier, if the stories within the stories were told, and heard, yet they need to be tied to the grander narrative (if not explicitly collapse the larger narrative label). Simultaneously, those who control/communicate the larger narrative need to link it to the stories within the stories. The sum of all the parts or maybe the ‘e pluribus unim’ of story telling.

It is a collection of stories within, and of, a larger narrative.

It is a collection of individual stories within, and of, a larger narrative.

Note: this is NOT personal branding. Brands are not people and people are not brands.

So how the hell could something like this be applicable to an organization?

Well. When all the stories and narratives are woven together, collective meaning is created and individuals and organizations thrive. People feel valued, create value and the organization offers value. More importantly, people, who want to be the person who they aspire to being, get closer to that aspiration by fulfilling more of their potential. Regardless of your industry & business, we need to always remind ourselves that the organization is made up of humans, not machines, even if they actually use machines to produce things or augment themselves so they produce more. This becomes even more important as we speak of value & value creation.

This grander narrative aligns everyone to the value (not the values). The values are outlined not through some document, but by respect for other’s story and a desire to meet the larger narrative. We feel good by doing good things to enrich collective and individual. Because I own my story, I have a sense of control. In other words. Because I contribute to the larger narrative, I also feel control. And yet because my story resides within many other stories, I also feel comfortable delegation so that other’s stories can also thrive.

All of this creates:

Energy.

Optimism.

Self interest.

Greater good.

Productivity.

Meaning.

This collection of stories creates a positive bond between people, and organization, based on both rational and emotional. Our doing feels good and it feels good to be doing. Without going into psychology and neuroscience all of this also reduces stress, fear, worry, loneliness and increases attention, engagement happiness.

In the good ole days this may have been called ‘esprit de corps.’  In today’s world this would be an organization which is constantly changing or, well, emergent. And just so this doesn’t sound like chaos I will remind everyone that individual narratives contain some deterministic aspects – rituals, process, systems, etc. Think of these things as default bias (and not all bias is bad) or heuristic decision-making. If you think of that sort of things as ripples from individuals, teams, meetings, organizations and industry you will get a sense that an organization will naturally evolve in deterministic AND emergent ways. Why? Because business is inherently human, inherently a collection of individuals with stories (and all the things that come with it) dealing with other individuals with their own stories constantly glancing at the larger narrative checking to make sure they weren’t falling off the grid.

Note: this is a prelude to my thinking on a Conceptual Age Organizational model tied to what I believe we are moving into businesswise – The Conceptual Age

All that said.

I could argue that the entire pandemic, in collapsing the larger narrative, has done more for personal story development than any webinar ever given by GaryV. It has forced billions of people to rethink their own narrative and their story, and their story’s meaning, within larger narratives – the business they are in as well as the world. In other words. Change is being facilitated one by one. Like milk in coffee.

Stories within stories. I will end with noting that there is no control within this concept other than at the individual level. Organizationally that means power resides within the individual story and change occurs when. Collectively, individual stories align in a coherent fashion within a larger narrative. Ponder that.

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

“Show not what has been done, but what can be. How beautiful the world would be if there were a procedure for moving through labyrinths.”
―

Umberto Eco

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

“You are not going nowhere just because you haven’t gotten where you want to go yet.”

—-

Taylor Swift

====

So. Direction is one of the most stressful discussion in Life & in business. Where are you going? How are you planning on getting there? And, of course, are you sure that is the right direction?

Well.

I never thought I would ever use a Taylor Swift quote let alone use it to make a point. Her quote made me think that “not getting to where you want to be” and “nowhere” can look awfully similar.

But it is not.

Not even close.

The idea of “getting somewhere”, whether in your career, in Life, in personal change, in a relationship, in anything, sometimes seems to dominate our Life. This destination, this ‘thing’ we have envisioned in our mind, becomes sort of a measurement with regard to how we are effectively, or ineffectively, living our life. And in doing so if we are somewhere other than ‘there’ <which may mean we simply just haven’t got there yet>, a lot of people will suggest that means you are nowhere.

That is wrong. Very very <very> wrong.

We spends gobs of time and money trying to answer these questions. If you think about it while it may not sound completely absurd (defining direction insures you are at least not going somewhere completely useless) it can actually look like an incredibly poor investment with a dubious ROI <or what I often call “ROC”: return on choice>.

It can be a stress on your everyday life.

It can be a burden.

It can create an absurdly long list of plans and things to do.

It can also translate into a lot of wasted time (because often where you decide to go isn’t exactly where you end up simply because Life’s terrain dictated a slightly better destination).

I sometimes think this is a reflection of what is wrong in today’s society – this belief if you haven’t achieved something you have achieved nothing.

Most of Life is a reflection of a shitload of journeys and paths and, well, a lot of walking, running, tripping and crawling. Because of that a shitload of people would suggest that most of your life you have been running in place <which sounds silly as I type it> or ‘wandering aimlessly <which also sounds silly as I type it because most times most people are wanting to get to where they want to be> and basically they are suggesting that, uhm, you have expended energy — and got nowhere.

99% of the time those people are just assholes.

Assholes who focus on destinations and not journeys. They only take satisfaction in highlighting specific milestones, objectives and outcomes achieved. They struggle to see the satisfaction in exploration, wandering and the journeys taken to the outcomes.

Look. I am not going to suggest achieving something, specifically, getting to where you want to be is not an admirable and useful objective. Because it is. Getting to where you want to be is aspirational and it implies you want to be better than what you are today. Being better and becoming better is something all of us should embrace.

But I will suggest that simply because you have not got there yet that you have gone nowhere.

In fact, I could argue that simply deciding where you want to be is somewhere.

Yeah. Sometimes just knowing what you want has value in & of itself.

Yeah. In fact, doing something, even something small, is better than nothing and is something other than nowhere.

Anyway. You know what? it’s all exploration even if you don’t care about where you want to go. Why?  You end up somewhere.

Here is the bottom line.

I would guess 90% of us are somewhere other than where we want to be. We may see glimpses of it and we may actually have touched it briefly, but most of us are still in the midst of getting there.

<to complete that equation I envision 5% don’t even try having given up and 5% believe they are there>

90% of us are certainly not ‘nowhere.’ We are simply works in progress trying to get somewhere better than who and what we are today. That means suggesting just because you haven’t got to where you wanted to be is ‘nowhere’ would mean that 90% of us are milling about in some wretched space of nothingness … and that is silly. Most of us are pretty happy and fairly content and typically thinking about being better.

There is a lesson here.

While I imagine Ms. Swift doesn’t philosophize on this thought like Umberto Eco, she has certainly embraced her responsibility & empowerment to communicate the right things to hordes of young people. And for that I applaud her. I do so not only because she is impacting young people’s minds in a good smart way, but because there are a boatload of older people who have been gobsmacked into believing if you haven’t got to where you want to be that you are nowhere <and they do not hesitate to tell a shitload of people that>.

Embracing an ‘outcome is the most important’ Life philosophy is a slippery slope.

I would much rather we embrace a “just because you have not got to where you want to be does not necessarily mean you are nowhere” Life philosophy. You can embrace both but if you begin with the latter you are more likely to not only encourage the right behavior in people you will most likely encourage a more positive view of your own Life.

Lastly.

Okay. All this may sound rudderless. But 99% of the time while this discussion sounds, well, directionless, void of objective & absent of any ‘milestones’, it is none of those things. 99% of the time we have a sense of some destination, we just can’t really articulate it. Now. In a world that has an unhealthy relationship with measurement, achievement & “if it is intangible, can you make it tangible”, that ‘not able to articulate’ is a sonuvabitch to try and embrace.

I sometimes think at end of the end of this type of ‘going somewhere, just not sure where’ journey the people who didn’t try to cram all the plans into the time and simply kept walking knowing they would get somewhere will absolutely find themselves some place better than where they started from and most likely end up somewhere good.

I will say Life can truly be a ‘wonderland’ if you don’t over think it. Sometimes the journey is an exploration and as long as you keep exploring the “somewhere” you get to is richer and, in the case of a business or an individual, maybe a stronger place. Maybe Life, and even business to some extent, is a time to wander.

To explore. To just see what you will see. And see what you will find.

Maybe this is time to remember Calvin & Hobbes: “Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.”

Maybe Alice in Wonderland, Umberto Eco & Taylor Swift and Calvin & Hobbes have the right idea. Nowhere may be a good destination objective.

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

just-shower-thoughts:

    One of my greatest fears is that someone has written my favorite song, but they’re not famous enough for me to hear it.

====

“As I make a final right-hand turn onto our street, my GPS informs me that I’ve ‘reached my destination.’

‘My destination,’ I laugh aloud to myself.  My GPS doesn’t know squat.”

Colleen Hoover

=====

“I’m so scared of dying without ever being really seen. Can you understand? “

David Foster Wallace

===========

“I did something and it was never seen.”

Someone’s grave stone

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

Pondering my legacy, legacies in general, and 1000’s of posts written on EnlightenedConflict.

10 and 1/2 years.

126 months.

548 weeks.

3833 days.

91,980 hours.

5,519,000 minutes.

Almost 3000 posts.

A little over 4 posts a week for over 10+ years.

3,000,000+ words <a conservative estimate>.

While not every minute, hour, even day, has been spent writing for my site I certainly have thought, and been thinking, over a significant amount of that time – and the fruits of that thinking time has been borne out in piece after piece on this site. My words and thoughts over all that time have remained consistent. On November 18^th 2009 I wrote my first Enlightened Conflict post and 6 days later I offered my second post and wrote this:

… it is in my DNA to be “constantly preoccupied with possibilities of new combinations.” Now. That can make me a pain in the ass to work with. One time a mentor, and a manager I loved working for, once said to me, “sometimes you are a pain in the ass, but I am glad you are my pain in the ass.”

And if you visit my LinkedIn site you will see a past client says:

……… Me ………….

If you don’t want to be “nudged” into new ideas and creative solutions – don’t ever call Bruce McTague. If, however, you want to look at things through a different telescope and find 3-dimensional ideas you’ve never considered, call Bruce now. Not tomorrow. He’ll make you uncomfortable, but I firmly believe that if the idea doesn’t make you uneasy, it’s not a big idea. Easy to work with, but always stretching your mind, Bruce is a true business Partner. You’ll grow working with Bruce.

I am still a contrarian, still snarky, still writing about the possibility of new combinations and still a pain in the ass. But with almost everything I write I try and offer pain in the ass type thinking … not fluff. On November 30^th 2009 I wrote this: communicating meaningful information so people can make meaningful choices.

I am still not a nudger and I am absolutely unflinchingly focused on communicating meaningful information, thoughts & ideas so people can make meaningful choices and think meaningful thoughts.

Well. All that said. Anyone who has invested this amount of energy into something would make one have a tendency to sit back and wonder what happens if I actually did something in my Life and nobody notices it when I am gone?

And before you think this topic is bullshit or “that’s not something I worry/think about” take a second and think about this.

Why do so many people buy symbolic bricks with names on it on a wall somewhere?

Why do we put stars in the ground with people’s names on it?

Why do we have gravestones and epitaphs?

We do these things because we want people to remember at least something about us. It doesn’t have to be big, but … well … something for god’s sake.

All of that leads me to legacies. Everyone leaves something behind — some footprint.

With me … my largest footprint <at the moment> would be everything I have written. Which makes me slightly wonder what happens to everything on Enlightened Conflict. Does somebody stumble across them and publish some or do they fade way into the nothingness of ‘something done but never seen’? Will someone own my words & thoughts when I am gone?

Anyway. I once wrote that I own my words and thoughts, therefore, in some way I assume they must have some value <at least to me> – maybe just pennies but of some value.

It would be nice to think some of these thoughts get passed around from person to person like pennies – everyone has some, they are often overlooked until needed to complete a transaction and are annoying when you realize you left some in a pocket when you do the laundry. But most importantly I see these pennies being used to create a transaction. In my mind, in this case the transaction is thinking and maybe a purchase against what I see as the true corruption of our age – ignorance.

Montaigne:

The corruption of the age is made up by the particular contribution of every individual man; some contribute treachery, others injustice, irreligion, tyranny, avarice, cruelty, according to their power; the weaker sort contribute folly, vanity, and idleness; of these I am one. It seems as if it were the season for vain things, when the hurtful oppress us; in a time when doing ill is common, to do but what signifies nothing is a kind of commendation.

I admit that I believe these types of pennies I offer are becoming more and more valuable. I believe that because I worry that time is currently painting a portrait of disappearing thought in which all who see this portrait are corrupted by what they can no longer see and walk away thinking ignorance is beautiful.

Yeah.

That corruption breeds a sense of everything changing, but in an invisible way. We only see the change in a low level slightly nagging unease & unhappiness. In a way our moral & character health deteriorates despite our relentless pursuit of feeling better through pills, supplements & absurd self improvement plans. Mentally our focus shifts toward what is visible and away from the invisible <that which creates the unease> and we fixate on what we think we know rather than unlearning/revising what we know.

We stop engaging with thought and even engaging with the thoughtful people <the intellectuals — real & faux> because it is just easier.

The sad truth is that we are largely doing all of this corruption to ourselves. Why? Mostly because conflict is necessary to make the invisible visible, but conflict, and making the invisible visible, is hard & sometimes hurtful.

What does this have to do with a legacy?

I could argue that if your thinking is invisible in some way, you run the risk of becoming so invisible that when you leave there remains no footprint to mark your steps in Life.

Ponder that.

Ponder it a little more because I imagine leaving Life as an invisible person has little appeal to anyone. Not that you desire to be the most visible person in the world just that you would prefer knowing that when you were gone who you were just became completely invisible.

Please note that I am not tying visible to any success, but rather tying it to thinking or some thought/idea <although I imagine it could be tied to ‘doing something that may truly matter’ in terms of impact on other’s thinking/actions>.

And, while I am talking about the legacy I personally want to leave behind, I would imagine this thought bleeds into almost everyone’s Life. Yeah, in this case, I don’t think I am different than most people. We all would prefer to not be corrupted by ignorance and we would prefer to want to ‘do something’ and, preferably, something dynamic beyond our own purposes.

=====

“[My ultimate goal is] to leave this world a better person, and for me to not be the only one who knows it.”

Gavin DeGraw

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

Ah. But the idea of being dynamic beyond your own purposes is fraught with peril.

It means dreaming big. Okay. It means thinking big <and, yes, I do believe far too often we aim too small and too low>.

As for me and my thinking big? I want to attack ignorance as if it is the enemy and, looking back, the majority of my writing have relentlessly unflinchingly, never nudging, attacked ignorance. I have done so using the idea of Enlightened Conflict as a North Star.

I believe conflict of thoughts is healthy and believe vocalizing the conflict is necessary for progress. I believe Conflict is natural and will always exist – between countries, religious beliefs, ideologies, the haves and the have nots, etc. I believe with my writing I have a unique opportunity to insure conflict of thinking can be managed to some extent by encouraging positive conflict or enabling conflict with rules.

I debate with people, I write about thinking, I defend our youth, I rant about the old way of thinking, and while I like to avoid “us versus them” narratives as lazy, in recent history, I have found a muse in Donald J Trump <in fact … my 2101st post was a Trump business lesson>.

Trump has offered me the opportunity to have a living breathing example of almost everything I detest in business leadership, business acumen and how a business shouldn’t be run. I do not detest him as a person <I don’t know him> I just detest how he conducts himself as a leader and a business person. He has reminded me that passion can inspire thinking and writing and reminds me that business sometimes needs to stop nudging and be more demanding of what is right & good.

Regardless.

In the end all I want is some enlightened thinking and new ways of looking at things and sometimes it is useful to use someone or something as a foil to make a comparative. This style and way of thinking has proven to be a good timeless way of approaching things because should you view a post in my first 100 you would find it is still relevant and will still contain thoughts you may find scattered in my last 100 posts.

Anyway. One last thought on legacies — compromising. I still worry about compromising.

I know I have some fear that compromising has left far too many people numb to life or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe more specifically numb to ‘doing something that matters’ and, certainly, numb to thinking and new thoughts.

I still worry about me compromising. And maybe I fear that numbness if I end up compromising. I kind of think this is a legitimate fear.

I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Read. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. And learn. And unlearn. And learn some more. Nowhere in there do I see compromise I only see doing shit. And, in my eyes, nor do I see any ‘nudging’, but rather unflinching doing. Yes. Doing something unflinchingly.

Because doing something unflinchingly that can leave the world a better place? Whew.

I gotta tell ya, if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big — something really big … something that matters in a big way, something that someone would recognize someday  as a legacy idea — well, I don’t know. It kind of seems like you have to go for it – uncompromisingly and unflinchingly.

I have to think that if am going to lose, I want to know I lost doing something and not losing because I compromised in some way.

That said. I don’t want to be known for writing 3000 posts, or however many I end up writing, I would like to have a legacy suggesting I did something that mattered <and someone could point to what that something was>.

In the end.

I have done lots of thinking and done lots of writing and I very rarely have duplicated a thought, I have never run out of new quotes to share and I have never had “writer’s block” or not had something to write and, yet, I have consistently pounded on stupid & senseless business acumen and the misguided tripe & fortune cookie wisdom people are fed with regard to Life.

That sounds big and, yet, small at the same time. I have to imagine whether someone has written as much as I or not most people will find that they have done something that sounds big but may look small in the harsh light of reality. The only way I know to build a meaningful legacy <making what may appear small big> is to do what I do – do a lot and not nudge and be absolutely unflinchingly focused on communicating meaningful information, thoughts & ideas so people can make meaningful choices and think meaningful thoughts. And, yet, sure … I still do wonder what will happen to everything I have written because at the moment they are my legacy. I imagine I am not alone in thinking that “I did something and it was never seen” on my headstone isn’t really what anyone wants.

For now all I can do is insure that I do something meaningful in a ‘non-nudging way’ and hope it gets noticed.

——————————–

About the author:

Bruce McTague is probably considered a sometimes irascible pragmatic contrarian. At the same time he is most likely considered a naïve believer in the inherent good in people and believer in the value of Hope as an engine for real progress.

He has been called cynical and optimistic.

And because of all of that he believes Life, just as people, are a complex bundle of contradictions therefore simplicity is often a refuge of fools.

He believes there is no problem or conflict that cannot be solved if people are willing to listen, face harsh truths and make the hard decisions. He also believes that the world would be a much better place if everyone would spend just a little more time unlearning what they have learned, think a little bit more and that we would all benefit if we became better at articulating our thoughts.    

Lastly, in the end, he believes that everyone everywhere deserves to have hope.

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

“I don’t want to be remembered.

 Memories age and you might remember words I whispered in your car but you’ll forget how my voice made your name sound safe. You will faintly remember that there was once warmth in my touch but the skin on your chest where my hands made a home is cold now.

Time will steal all the sharp edges that made it seem real. Years will rob you blind and you’ll simply be living with my blurry ghost.

That’s worse than being forgotten, so confuse me with another girl in a coffee shop and change my name in future stories. Walk down memory lane and unlock the exit.

Ignore the ghost that packs up the memories and leaves and do me one last favor; shut the door behind me. “

write-from-the-start

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

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

“All cruelty springs from weakness.”

―

Seneca

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

“All the animals, the plants, the minerals, even other kinds of men, are being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve an elite few, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

Thomas Pynchon

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

“Normalizing your boss.”

I would say 95% of us who have had the opportunity to weave our way through corporate America to reach a senior level position have been forced to normalize the behavior of at least one of our bosses.

Some more than others, but in some ways you become a normalizer, or a translator or maybe sometimes you simply sweep up the mess they left behind. That’s just what you do … uhm … assuming that boss actually has some redeeming value. As you get closer and closer to the most senior positions it becomes more and more obvious that gaining responsibility doesn’t always smooth out the edges of someone, but rather more often makes that person lean harder on/into the specific aspects of themselves which they can use to meet the growing responsibilities. Yeah. Many leaders don’t “round out their skills & character” <and become a well-rounded leader>, but rather hone the pointed skills that provide value or increase their power <sacrificing some other skills & attributes along the way>.

Ah. But then you run up against the ‘bull shitter in chief.’

Maybe they got their position through some family contact. Maybe they were a psychopathic ‘kill or be killed’ employee who successfully killed off any competent competitors for the position. Maybe out of sheer organizational incompetence they rose to a position in which they are completely unqualified for.

All they have in their hip pocket is bullshit.

But they are your boss.

Whew. Defending selectively incompetent behavior is one thing. Defending ongoing bull shit is another. Why? The former can actually enhance your reputation <and improve your own skills as you provide solutions in real time> while the latter only diminishes your reputation.

Yeah. I am sure some people will debate what I just wrote, but I would suggest they will only end up quibbling over my phrasing and not the truth behind the thought.

Reputation is not a simple concept. Your reputation is made up of a variety of things which means you can fuck up in one place, but offering a strength in another situation simply builds your reputation unevenly <which can be managed if you are self-aware>. The problem with normalizing a bull shitter’s incompetent behavior is that you aren’t shoring up selective incompetence/deficiencies you are actually forced to normalize their behavior by offering an alternative truth to whatever bullshit truth they advocated on all fronts – not selective.

I imagine the majority of us have never really faced this either <a> as a full onslaught from an incompetent boss — because most organizations weed out this problem fairly efficiently or <b> for long <most bull shitters get exposed by ambitious less senior competent no-nonsense fairly quickly>.

But, yet, I tend to believe in our nightmare scenarios in our minds we worry about what we would do if faced with an ongoing incompetent bull shitter boss scenario.

Personally <and anyone who knows me will probably nod their head and go ‘yeah’> I wouldn’t be able to do it. I would actually call bullshit <and get fired or ‘eased into a different responsibility’>. But, even that said, having been in a quasi-position like this you have a tendency to take on each bullshit situation as discrete from another and avoid any real pattern of behavior until forced to actually face a pattern of behavior. That is how we deal with it … and that is also the personal risk we run as we ignore the larger situation rationalizing it in our own minds as ‘discrete scraps of irresponsible incompetent boss behavior.’

All this come to mind as I think about Donald J Trump.

Let me use his first self-proclaimed “big foreign trip” <which fostered the image of Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure … or Pee Wee’s Big adventure  or even Pooh’s Grand Adventure – pick your poison> back several years ago <simply because there are so many to choose from but this was possibly the first which encapsulated the challenges people around him would face> .

Beyond the fact the trip was bookended with a self-proclaimed “big foreign trip” and a self-proclaimed self-reported “home run”, in between there were a number of cringe-able moments in which people were demanded to stand up and become responsible for defending or explaining some tone-deaf remark, some historically ignorant comment or some insensitive gaffe that the president did over the entire big adventure.

Was it the bullying body language he demonstrated at the NATO summit, shoving aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro? <a small country that I am fairly sure the president has no clue where it is>

Was it his apparent unawareness of where Israel is located, an ignorance displayed when he informed an audience of Israelis that he’d “just got back from the Middle East”?

Was it his seeming indifference to the difference between “Islamist” and “Islamic” in front of an Islam audience <a mistake he blamed on exhaustion on the 2^nd day of a trip … “does he have the stamina?”>

Was it his belief that after stating for months that NATO was obsolete that it was unnecessary to verbally state USA unequivocally stood with its NATO partners?

Was it his constant misstatements with regard to how NATO actually works?

Was it after a less than 30 minute visit to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial, which <or any Holocaust museum> has a nasty habit of bringing people to tears or, at minimum, some deep reflection with regard to humanity and the sometimes startling cruelty humans can inflict upon one another … he left an absurdly out of touch positive note in the memorial’s Book of Remembrance – “It is a great honor to be here with all my friends – so amazing and will never forget!”

Was it his odd alternative universe in which he suggests he has “righted people’s views of where America stands with friends & enemies after a misguided 8 Obama years” where Saudi Arabia is a good friend <let’s avoid they have none of the freedoms America typically support> and where Germany is described as “bad” <albeit only their trade deals … uhm … and their views on immigration … uhm … and their views on globalism>.

Was it his unflinching ability to lie to the face of the world’s newest democratic leader Macron by unequivocally falsely, in a sincere voice, stating “I was for you.”

Or, finally, was it the overarching sadness <to most Americans> in watching the seeming shift to ‘pragmatic relationships policy” <ones in which money exchange defines who we like and who we do not like> in which we find ourselves watching our leaders partying with disciplined non democratic autocrats and constantly showing uneasiness and sincere lack of warmth in interactions with the world’s finest democratic leaders.

Sigh.

Here is what I know <about not only Trump, but normalizing a boss’s behavior>.

If I were working for Trump I would find it hard to read any news, but, particularly European newspapers, without cringing and certainly being embarrassed. But if Trump were my boss where I would be most concerned is that he would be using me to lend some legitimacy as he behaved in some less-than-legitimate behavior.

And that is where one needs to step back and worry about their reputation.

Because lending credibility for a boss who has selective competency is different than lending credibility for a … well … “bull shitter in chief” boss.

As one article put it well … “seasoned people simply lend an air of occasional competence to an otherwise shambolic White House. By appearing before the cameras, looking serious and speaking rationally, they add a veneer of normality to this administration.”

And maybe that is where this whole thing ends up.

It is not about us, the people and media, accepting Donald J Trump’s behavior or getting numbed into believing it is normal … it will be about experienced competent people deciding how much they want to normalize his behavior. This whole situation is not really about a decision on what is best for America <although they will certainly be forced into thinking about that>, but rather their own reputation.

Good competent people will be standing there knowing they can contribute to <a> doing what is right and <b> herding an incompetent boss … both of which America in a larger context benefits … and, yet, they stand there watching their own reputations slowly slip away … drip by drip … word by word.

Good competent people can normalize selective incompetence, but they will struggle to normalize a ‘bull shitter’ whose only competence is ongoing ignorance. At some point people will begin questioning your own competence as you continuously articulate some semblance of nonsensical normalcy and they will definitely start questioning … well … your integrity or character.

And then what do you do? Because, in the end, that is what you are left with – just you & your character.

Why?

Because, frankly, no matter how skilled you are a shitload of people in this world are just as experienced as you are and a lot of people are skilled and competent just like you therefore you get judged, ultimately, on what you did when faced with a situation — did you speak up?

Did you defend the wrong and indefensible? Did you do what was right?

I am not suggesting this is easy.

In fact a good bull shitter can offer such an elegant smoke screen it can offer the competent some cover so they can offer up some truth and competence in a way that … well … is true & competent.

However, in the end, the difficulty resides in the smoke itself.

Because at some point every competent person associated with a bull shitter is asked to explain the smoke … and … well … how do I explain the smoke?

You can’t. And, worse? You cannot put out the fire.

Good people, no matter how good, will choke on the smoke eventually.

….. choice when working for a bullshitter in chief ……

And, let’s be clear, no one wants to see good people die.

It is painful to watch.

It is painful to watch good competent people being broken and reassembled every day, to preserve someone, who are the loudest to theorize on freedom, but the least free of all.”

That is the personal choice one makes when normalizing a boss … how much smoke is there and will I choke from the smoke they make?

I cannot offer a well-defined “here is how you know and what you should do” today because this is a personal choice. But, no matter who you are and where you are, watching good competent people standing in the smoke being demanded to define a smoke, not of their own making, is painful. And sad.

=======

“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.”

(The best laid schemes of mice and men / Often go awry.)

“The poem denotes the narrator of the poem is plowing his field when he cuts through a mouse nest. The poet shows regret and apologizes to the mouse before he goes on a tangent which reveals the deeper meaning of the poem. The connotation is that even when you mean no harm and have pure intentions, you can destroy somebody else’s well laid plans.”

Robert Burns’ poem “To a Mouse”

========

“You’re little but you’re big.”

Pretty Little Liars

===========

Ok. We are mice <hence the phrase ‘rat race’>. We may like to think of ourselves as the ones plowing the field but, alas, we are simply mice in the field.

What do I mean by that?

More often than not, most of us usually have no, or very little, control over our lot in Life.

More often than not, most of us are little people doing little things in the big scheme of everything that is happening.

More often than not, most big things that go awry were little things when viewing in the rear view mirror. In other words. We do little things all the frickin’ time that ultimately have a bigger impact than we could ever imagine assuming we were even paying attention to the little thing we did.

And, yet, despite  all of that  we are planning creatures.

We plan our weekends, vacations, and lives. We plan little, medium and big things.

Some of us plan every detail and polish each detail to perfection. Some of us decide on a plan that involves not having any plan. At either end of that spectrum we are planning our time so that we can get the most out of it.

On weekends we plan our time that we might do what we want to do and get done what must get done.

On vacation we plan to see new things and we actually plan relaxation <which seems kind of crazy>.

On life we plan where we will be in five years what our career path should be and what we plan our personal live to look like.

Shit. We even plan our spontaneity.

Suffice it to say.

What you are planning to do with your life may be one of the biggest things in your life. Okay. Maybe not but it is certainly one of the most discussed things in your life.

And for young people?

Yikes.

Everyone really wants to know what your plan is. What do you want to do with your life <and all the steps in your plan leading up to whatever that ‘do’ is>? These are all big questions and it sounds quite nice to have big answers and a nice big neat plan.

Well. The unfortunate Life truth is that for all of our planning nothing is more certain than the fact that something will go wrong and ‘the plan’ is no longer a viable plan.

Even worse? More often than not some little unplanned thing occurs and whole big plan goes awry.

The main issue in big plans and big planning is the fact that little things are ever changing. And, worse, they are changing all the while oblivious to the neat orderly plan you had in place.

Now. Even with all this change I imagine you have a choice — plow through the change with an unchanging plan or let your neat plan take on some less neat fluidity.

Which begs the question, if big plans cannot be solid because of all the little things changing … then what use is a plan?

Well. Plans and planning do matter.

And big plans, done well, do matter.

And “done well” can be defined as things change so does the plan <that is if you do your big planning right>.
In fact as things change, well, other plans are formed. To be a good planner I guess you have to pay attention to how things are changing and then adapt the plan to fit the situation.

Boy. That sure does sound like a lot of work making a plan only to change it to another plan.

======

Murphy’s laws

• If anything can go wrong, it will

• If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong

• If anything just cannot go wrong, it will anyway

=====

Anyway. This is not an indictment against big plans and big planning.

In fact I would suggest that you know you are a big planner <as in one effective at creating Big plans> if all the little things that go wrong do not make your big plan go awry they simply make you adapt while maintaining progress toward the ultimate objectives.

In the end. Remember. Little things can make big plans go awry. Shit. Little things can make anything go awry. Unfortunately for most of us schmucks more often than not what we think is little is actually big and what we see as big is usually little. And maybe, just maybe, that is why 99% of plans go awry. Ponder that.

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

“Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.”

Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy

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

So. Every once in a while you get asked a question that makes you think about yourself and reflect on how you have changed. I was asked one the other day <a seemingly harmless question>.

What was your favorite class in college?

My answer was easy. Philosophy.

Now. I would like to think I have become more of a philosopher late in age. Okay. Maybe just more philosophical.  I imagine mostly because I would like to think I finally have the knowledge and mind adeptness to grasp such intangible concepts … things I just couldn’t do in youth.

But as I type that I am reminded of a quote from Game of Thrones:

Tyrion to Cersei:

“There’s nothing worse than a late blooming philosopher.”

Oops. I have become what Tyrion hates — a late blooming philosopher.

Anyway.

Another piece of information about my favorite class Philosophy.

Despite being my favorite class — I got a D.

But I loved the class.

I didn’t know it at the time but it began my love affair with ambiguity. In general, academically, I was a relatively indifferent student but I worked my ass off for that class. And, yeah, still got a D.

Oh. Once again. I loved that class.

I loved it all despite the fact that philosophy is all about logical thinking, yet, ending with sometimes illogical ambiguity. In hindsight at that age I was too linear a thinker and while I loved the thinking I ultimately scorned the ambiguity. Or. Maybe it scorned me.

As a moth to flame I was drawn to it and got roasted as I got too near the flame. But. It was definitely the beginning of my true love affair with ambiguity. All that class reading and studying hovered in the back of my head for years. Never really moving to the forefront, but always lurking.

Ah. And then my next memorable date with ambiguity. It was in business school where I entered b-school lore.

“I am indifferent.”

During a case study discussion the professor says “so Mr. McTague, what solution do you believe is the proper option here?” Me…“I am indifferent.”  <I may have even said “I don’t care.”>

The poor choice of words aside <which stayed written on the board at the front for the remainder of the semester> I was beginning to grasp the fact there is rarely one best solution — just several better, or worse, solutions any of which will get you to where you want to go. Philosophically this was a HUGE business lesson. It is really practical useful learning assuming you can actually implement it in the workplace. Philosophy continued to lurk sometimes moving to the forefront in the form of philosophical quotes or random thoughts I gathered in the development of speeches I gave.

Interestingly this love of ambiguity has served me well in business.

Inevitably it meant that I never really got hung up making decisions. I kind of figured out making a decision somewhere in the spectrum of “the better decisions” was better than dicking around seeking the ever elusive so-called ‘best’ decision.

But, in thinking about the what is your favorite class question, I started thinking about if I had always had this philosophical muscle or did it develop over time.

So I pulled out my high school year book and looked at some things teachers wrote in it:

–          My Spanish teacher … “muy perezoso “<very lazy> … but I got an A in her class.

–          My wacky English teacher wrote something in Latin <and the extent of my Latin knowledge revolved around ‘cogito ergo sum’> pulchra manu. pulchra cogitandi. I thought she was a wackjob and never bothered translating it until maybe 15 years later: “beautiful handwriting. beautiful thinker.”

–          My history teacher: Most interesting student I have ever had.

–          My physics/chemistry teacher: Pursue physics. Physics will never be the same if you do.

–          My guidance counselor <who, in hindsight, I probably caused him more gray hair than anything or anyone he ran into in his entire life>: I hope you find what you are looking for. <note: because he, nor I, had a clue what I was looking for>

** note: I highly recommend pulling out your high school yearbooks and read what your teachers wrote about you. It is humbling, terrifying and satisfying (all at the same time)

Well. I imagine I was a very frustrating kid to my teachers and parents. I know I was a very confused kid. In hindsight I was just as frustrated as them, but I wasn’t mature enough to be actually frustrated just confused.

Now. Some adults handled me better than others. Some in their frustration tried to force me into some decision or tighten the boundaries. Others simply tried to widen the boundaries to show me how far I could go.

Regardless. I am sure I frustrated both and all.

In comparison, in some ways I envy my sister. I am relatively sure she was, and is, intellectually sharper <and smarter> than I. In addition I sense she figured out how to focus her brain <and intellectualness> much earlier than I did. Ah. That focus thing. She could have been a world class engineer (if that is what she elected to be) or lawyer, shit, I believe she could have been a world class anything if she elected to pursue it. She could focus, and still can, her brain power. That is a talent. She has it <I do not>. Oh. Separate note. Instead of engineering or law she selected almost an opposite direction and has done quite well.

Her strength? Focus.

My strength? Ambiguity.

** note: but I believe we both have a strong low tolerance for bullshit … which philosophy can sometimes hover around

Anyway. I am sure any specific strength, with its correlating weaknesses, is frustrating to adults which makes us <as kids> frustrated with adults.

But I imagine that is how it is with adults and children. Each disappoints the other in ways that neither recognizes nor intends and it takes time to overcome the disappointment. In the end a child doesn’t always understand the complexities of adult choices and an adult rarely understands the complexities of what a child is going through and the choices they make or don’t make.

A child’s best hope in life is that parents, and all adults, try to do the best for the child. That doesn’t mean that making those decisions on ‘what is best’ is easy and, in fact, it is a difficult process and the choices made for you imprint you … maybe mark you, in some way, that is, if you permit it to. If you deal with it, you move on and progress and it may even mark you positively.

We end up growing up the best we can under the circumstances given us.

I would suggest it does us little good to second guess ourselves years later. To me it seems a better option to simply try to understand why we are as we are, who we are, and then try and better ourselves by learning from that.

Anyway. My path was, and is, certainly winding. I imagine it is winding not because of capability, or the lack thereof, but rather because of my inherent love of ambiguity. I do know that as I have grown older not only have I become a ‘late blooming philosopher’ but also recognize I seek opportunities wherein lies ambiguity.

I philosophically, and tangibly, like finding solutions within the ambiguity <in business and in Life>.

All that said.

“A musician must make music, a painter must paint, a poet must write if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What one can be, one must be.”

Abraham Maslow

Maslow was a smart guy. I do not believe I am a deep thinker nor am I a philosopher. And I am absolutely sure that I don’t have it all figured out — that includes myself, Life and business. Even today, of later age, I am a work in progress. I imagine that means I live a Life somewhat constantly in ambiguity.

I imagine in a broad sense that being philosophical is something I do as I seek to understand fundamental truths about myself, the world we live in <and the wacky people residing in this world> and, interestingly, business itself.

In the end I would still bet that I would get a poor grade in philosophy. I am too pragmatic to be a philosopher. I like, far too much, actually finding an answer <or at least the best answer available> within the ambiguity. That doesn’t mean I cannot be philosophical, just not a philosopher.

Well. No ambiguity there, huh?

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

“Feeling must have rendered her numb.”
―

Mary Lawson

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

‘.. striking a balance between humans and machines … on one side biased and arbitrary human organizations and on the other, soulless technocracy based on unfeeling machines. There is a path.”

—

Mike Walsh

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

Far too often we say “the world has become more complicated.” No. it has not. It has simply become more complex.

Far too often we say “the world has become faster.” No. it has not. A minute is still a minute, an hour an hour and a day a day.

Far too often we do not talk about overstimulation, how we numb ourselves to certain things (as a personal defense mechanism and not under some nefarious reason) and the fact that the sheer amount of information we are bombarded with forces us to ‘self-ratio’ what we take in and what we assess and how we do both.

Far too often we start parsing out segments & aspects of what could be construed as part of the ‘overstimulation totality.” But. Here is the deal. Overstimulation, while we want to blame technology, is the combination of the medium, words, pictures, movement, symbols, associations, tone of voice, etc. received in totality. Individual elements, while interesting to debate, have no real meaning on their own. It is the totality in which we begin to re-ratio our attention, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and thoughts. This is compounded by the fact technology is so pervasive it is impossible to turn off – either directly (our own use/input stimuli) or indirectly (we are interacting with people who have extended their senses to link with technology).

This is important because many worthy ideas have been sacrificed at the altar of overstimulation.

In 1964 Marshal McLuhan (Understanding media: Extensions of Man) suggested the idea of numbness associated with the advent of a pervasive technology/media. The idea that as media propagated and became an extension of people it would impact our ‘ratio of things.’ In other words, we would have to choose to reorder what we thought about, how we thought about things and what we would do. Ultimately, should technology infringe too far as part of ‘extension’ we would purposefully numb ourselves simply as part of survival (cognitively, attention, default, etc.).

In 1970 Alvin Toffler suggested the advent of technology and the rapid changes it would inject into our lives would inevitably create a sense of overstimulation. In other words, so much would be occurring in a finite amount of time we would cognitively go into overload.

Regardless. Just google the woes of a technology world and there are millions of pieces on distraction, short attention, and any number of specific ‘things we should fix.’ It’s like the world has decided to ignore the problem and focus on the symptoms. The casualty of this discussion is actually ideas (environment, climate, thinking, education, business, etc.).

What hath technology wrought? Increased complexity. Here is what I believe (and have some research proof):

The world is not any less, or more, linear (causal relationships exist).

The world is not moving faster (a minute is still a minute)

Attention spans have not decreased.

People have not become stupider.

Curiosity has not diminished.

Purposeful ignorance has not increased.

What has increased is complexity in choice making, what to pay attention to and discerning which fractal (or fragment) is meaningful. 

** note: This piece today is likely a Life companion piece to my incredibly dense business piece on Insights & their relationship with Complexity.

It has become a world less of consistency and more about coherence. A world in which while detail still matters if you don’t get the definitions right the details cannot attain coherence. A world in which if you are not self aware of default versus purposefulness you will not have the ability to better your choicemaking.

None if this is to suggest it is easy nor to suggest choice making isn’t actually a little more difficult than in the past. A choice is a choice no harder or less hard than at any time in history. SEEING the choice and navigating the interconnectedness of causal, and less than causal, effects is more difficult. While McLuhan speaks of ‘changing our ratio (of consumption & focus”). Its really simply a conscious decision of what Urban Dictionary calls being a “cognitive misers “, i.e., do not to examine things intellectually if they don’t feel they have to. While psychological research tells us that some people are cognitively complex while others prefer cognitive simplicity, i.e., some people are open to experience while other are closed minded ** & some people are cognitively flexible while others are cognitively rigid ** I would suggest the overstimulation of senses tamps down ALL cognitive ability.

Now.

While I believe all those things about people, I also believe this about business and professional communication:

I believe as a reaction to increased complexity business increased its emphasis on simplicity and soundbites.

If I were generous, I would suggest it was a natural reaction as business, and leaders, tried to insure employees & people could navigate an increasingly complex world (to the benefit of the business).

If were less generous I would suggest leaders used simplicity as a weapon to increase their power. In that pursuit of power, command & control, they basically hollowed out the more meaningful things in business.

** note: brevity is good, but the concept has been bastardized by the pursuit of simplicity and oversimplification. Brevity is saying the most with the least words.

I believe as a reaction to increased complexity professional communicators, and businesses, began prioritizing attention-getting over value of what they wanted to communicate.

If I were generous, I would suggest this is a natural reaction as businesses, and professional communicators, tried to insure their ‘important ideas’ were actually heard in an overstimulated world.

If I were less generous, I would suggest business, and professional communicators, became intellectually lazy and prioritized attention over value (because engagement through value is more difficult than simply saying ‘pay attention to me’).

“… if falsehood, like truth, had only one face we would be in better shape. For we would be as certain the opposite what the liar said. But the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand shapes and a limitless field. “

Montaigne

There is an additional dimension of this overstimulation – lies versus truth.

Lies, or facts without context, can take on a hundred thousand shapes <maybe an endless number> versus truth. Whereas truth has one and only one face and shape.

If one has become numb to the barrage of fragments of information, memes and images, it becomes easy to sit around discussing topics with others sharing similar points of view which only leads to some intellectually lazy assumptions about the people making arguments that of a different perspective.

Simply put, it is much easier to sit around with friends discussing how stupid & naïve the other people are than actually discussing and thinking about the issue. Shit. People even sit around dismissing research & scientists as ‘kooks’ or ‘do not know what they are doing’ or saying things like ‘it is flawed.’ They state these things unequivocally despite the fact that if someone were to actually read an entire research study <instead of the soundbite or some headline> you would find that they are smart well thought out studies with facts and conclusions. While this could be construed as ignorance it is more often a symptom of overstimulation. You are so bludgeoned with information you select what to focus on (your ratio of competing attention changes). The consequences of this is that some fairly important ideas, struggling to clearly define themselves, get lost in overstimulation details.

Now. I am brutal on anyone I perceive as embracing purposeful ignorance   and, yet, I realize the majority of people – a significant majority – are not purposefully ignorant, they are simply making choices and managing their ratio of intake.

That said. We have people sitting around in their thinking cocoons all being barraged with far too much information to cognitively absorb and, well, you become numb to anything that threatens your sense of “what I can handle.”

Well. Then we are officially off to the ignorant race.

Regardless.

The reality is we CANNOT know everything nor view everything on the internet nor even see a large percentage of some really important shit. That is a fact. And, yet, we get bludgeoned on a daily basis with memes, emails, tweets, newsletters, listicles, advice, opinions, tasks, expectations, and the list goes on and on and on. And while the list goes on and on, the internet, technology as a whole, amplifies everything with some selectivity (algorithms).

There is a balance. There is a balance between being human and being technology invested (that is a topic for another day). But I wish we would stop saying technology is bad and the world has become more complicated and focus more on how people, humans, improve their cognitive skills in a highly stimulated world that will not change.