===

 “… Trump is a “guy whose thoughts are often just six fireflies beeping randomly in a jar”

David Brooks

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

“This fundamentally boils down to character, and his character is rotten. He’s a narcissist who happens to have taken control of the Republican party. There’s some areas where he agrees with party orthodoxy, and some where he doesn’t. But his only doctrine is: whatever is good for Donald Trump is good for the country. When he goes down – and he will go down, at some point – one of the things that will be striking is just how quickly members of Congress will turn on him.”

Eliot Cohen, former state department counsellor to secretary of state Condoleezza Rice

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

“Ultimately, Trump is not dangerous because he is immoral, but because he is amoral. Trump has already bought into the system entirely. He is as vacuous a candidate as there can be, giving no thought to the moral questions and the theological issues that underpin those questions. He doesn’t care about who he hurts or what philosophy he takes, as long as it gains him power. He is an antichrist not because he is explicitly evil, shouting and screaming against God, but because he disregards God and morality all together.”

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

So. With some new polling coming out in the USA suggesting voters in some key states think Biden is too old and a Trump administration would be better for the economy than the Biden administration, I thought I would remind everyone how horrible Trump is, and was as a president. I will set aside the age issue because even though I would prefer a younger president its not like we are choosing between 2 spring chickens. And as for the economy, that perception is just nuts.

What isn’t nuts is just how horrible Trump is – as a person, a president, a leader and even a nation decisionmaker. Trump is a divider, he is a fierce destroyer of systems and institutions (and even results and outcomes), and consistently lies (about everything). Worse, he consistently plays to the nation’s fears, not its hopes. Trump is dangerous on so many economic, societal & cultural levels its disturbing. All that said maybe the most dangerous is he has bludgeoned our senses so much that many of us have become numb to Trump and his amorality. A significant portion of us have normalized the non-normal behavior under a “it is what it is and will not change.” And this is partially driven by the fact we are tired. Not tired of news coverage, but just tired of having to deal with the amoral incessant simplistic drivel he offers. And its even more tiring to think we need to fight this battle one more time in another election cycle. That said. In all of this tiredness society has permitted the majority of people to reside in a world of amoral relativism despite the fact they are actually quite moral. We have learned to straddle a world in which there are two moral universes and one universe is grounded in reality and the other is grounded in perceptions. The paradox is that Trump speaks in absolutes with total disregard to reality. His absolutes speak to the perceptions of a minority – a passionate minority.

Which leads me to the consequence of relativism – exception acceptance.

Everything is imperfect, but Trump has made being grossly imperfect a relative argument. The moderate Republican finds themselves saying things like “I find myself saying there are some conservative things I like but ….” Ah. “But-ism.” The idea is that “well, maybe he is imperfectly okay (which is reflective of the world in totality).” He offers this idea to undermine institutions, but it is the basis for his existence. This is not ‘what-aboutism’; this is exception acceptance. And once he puts us on the slippery slope of exceptions it cascades into a debate on what % of good is necessary to make it all okay. He creates a scenario in which there is no good or bad which enable him to suggest he is ‘good.’ This also reflects his view of “winning.”, i.e., there is no perfect way to win so don’t judge me on how I (or we) win. Suggest what is possible, not probable. This is what every conspiracy theorist does, but Trump resides solely in “possibilities not probabilities” which forces all of us to discuss everything in degrees, nuances & complexity. We do this in a world which craves simplicity. He forces us to frame off of ‘what could be possible’ rather than “let’s deal in probabilities.” He wins as soon as we offer up “the possibility of bias exists” because as soon as we admit the possibility of existence – it exists. This kills the idea that two things can exist at the same time like:

• “I can think something, have some specific beliefs, but I can still do my job.”

• “It is quite possible MSNBC is biased, but it is more probable they care about the truth.”

Anyway. He treats “what if”, i.e., exceptions, as absolutism and we debate degrees & relativism, all compounded by the fact he banks on the fact we have had it pounded into our heads that “if it is not simple it is wrong (or someone is lying).” His amorality deserves no exception relativism. It takes no exaggeration to make that point.

Which leads me to Healthy narcissism versus being a narcissistic asshat.

The difference between healthy and asshat is usually found in someone’s ‘devoid-ness.’ And Trump is devoid of … well … he is devoid. To be clear. I fully recognize some people like his bluster and bloviated sense of self. They view it as confidence; not a con man. But let’s just agree that is horrible for a leader of a country. But back to that distinction between healthy and asshat. Craig Malkin, a clinical psychologist and lecturer for Harvard medical school, suggests a Healthy narcissism is a trait that all of us carry: the drive to feel special or unique.

“In fact, people with a healthy dose of narcissism are happier, more optimistic and consistently confident than people at the low end of the spectrum”

Pathological, malignant, or asshat narcissism begins “when people become so addicted to feeling special that, just like with any drug, they’ll do anything to get their ‘high.’” Uhm.

“Now, you know, I was a good student. I always hear about the elite. You know, the elite. They’re elite? I went to better schools than they did. I was a better student than they were. I live in a bigger, more beautiful apartment, and I live in the White House, too, which is really great.”

Trump talking about himself

Trump is a narcissistic asshat who thrives on being adored AND hated. Always remember this fundamental truth about Trump: – he has always felt like the guy on the outside looking in, the guy people wouldn’t accept in their social circles and wouldn’t let into their club. Stuffing it in all of their faces is the motivation for everything in his life. His unhealthy narcissism is one driven of amoral vengeance. That amorality, and vengeance, means his legal boundaries are crooked, at best, and nonexistent, at worst. That said. The question isn’t whether Trump is a crook. The question is: What kind of crook is he? Well. An amoral one for sure.

Which leads me to a crooked version of leading.

There is a bunch I can say about having an amoral leader <one I actually called “fighting for the soul of America”> but for today what I would suggest is that it will inevitably lead to leading from behind which in Trump’s case was having a transactional relationship with the world. Obama always got crapped on for leading behind, but listening to Trump and watching some of the ‘deals’ he built he offered a different version of leading from behind – values do not matter, i.e., if you can pay, we will play. That is non-leadership leadership. This is ceding the ability to guide through power relationships, but rather simply make everything transactional. This cedes bending the arc of things to the benefit of a country, and its people, and empties everything (amorally) into dollars & cents. Simplistically his leadership was “we will provide whoever wants our arms & support <if you will pay for it>” and “we don’t want to fight but we will supply you so that you can fight.”  It is a hollow America standing behind anyone who wants to pay for our support. Our criteria beyond money? Appearance of global security. In other words … we support any global conflict under the guise of if we support it well it will end faster <and peace arrives faster>. We don’t carry the stain of intervention and yet gain the short term economic fruits.

He almost seems to believe that by standing behind he will be able to assess the pieces as they fall and gather up the ones he wants. And, yes, I wrote standing behind because this is not a leadership position; this is an opportunistic position. He seems to seek an opportunistic global strategy. In his amoral naïve approach others used him for their own gains and the world splintered using American resources to do so.  Needless to say, we are now paying the piper for that attitude and policy attitude.

On a grander note it is relatively easy to see that America, under Trump, ceded its position as global leader. Circling back to the polls I mentioned upfront, it’s almost like people are oblivious to the fact that he is the one who created the issues we are dealing with at the moment.

Which leads me to remind everyone Trump is a racist.

I have one friend who adamantly believes Trump is not a racist and that he “treats everyone equally horrible.” That’s nuts. That is actually relativism. Taken in isolation Trump is racist. And all you have to do is look to who gravitates to him. As I have stated time and time again, not all who are in the Trump cult are racist, but all racist people are in the Trump cult. Racism or not let’s call it Trump driven white victimhood <which is an extension of his belief he is always the victim>.

————–

“It’s about the white middle class—we have not been represented, and the only way we are going to get representation is if Donald Trump is our next president.

We’re treated like the minority, even though there are more of us.”

A Trump Follower

—-

Trump is a less bigoted version of Obama. His crime is being white.”

A Trump follower

—-

Ah. Trump and that “white thing.” 85% agreed that “America has lost its identity.” This is the group who hyperventilates over any hyphenated ethnic-Americans. They want, no demand, genuine Americans with no hyphens. They struggle to believe someone could be loyal to both American and their native ethnic culture.  It is this basic principle Trump has given voice to <under the guise of political correctness>.  In their belief, America must become culturally and politically a White, Anglo Saxon Christian (WASP) nation again. Simplistically he is shouting that America needs to put the interests of the white working classes first. Trump sees ‘victim’ as ‘white warrior.’ Uhm. That’s racism.

Trump fits the Archie Bunker archetype of “lovable bigot.” His racism signals authenticity and a willingness to tell “hard truths” to white Americans. Yeah. Not only is Trump amoral, he is also a racist.

——

“The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission.”

Peter F. Drucker

Which leads me to remind everyone what the world looked like when Trump was president.

Ah. Remember those heady days of angst, turmoil, tweets and general twattery? Everyday he was shouting into cameras what we were supposed to be thinking.

• The economy was the best ever! (it was no better than Obama’s). immigration control is stronger than ever! (all they did was hold them in Mexico and separate parents and children – and lost track of them).
• The military is strongest ever! (he pardoned amoral behavior of some military opposite what military standards desire).
• USA has never been more respected around the world! (every country’s faith in America plummeted – except Russia and Israel).

It was simplistic bloviating drivel where the louder he shouted, and the more confident he sounded, the more reality stood in proof that, objectively, what he was saying was absurd and just an alternative version of reality.

During that period, I wrote this:

• I vaguely remember when the USA was leading the world intellectually and policy wise.
• I vaguely remember a world in which the rest of the world may have occasionally mocked America for its sense of hubris but didn’t mock the country for its idiocy.
• I vaguely remember that global leadership didn’t take on the banal hues of a high school.

Trump was rude and crude and scary. He was intent on destroying anything he could get his hands on – the legal system, norms, foreign relationships and even the global economy. He was transparent  – transparently dumb, transparently ignorant, transparently a liar.

He didn’t make USA safer, didn’t make the world safer, didn’t make the USA more economically sound (but kind of encouraged the rest of the world be to be more economically sound), subsidized businesses to cloak his horrible business policies and managed the country’s finances like he did his businesses (he actually made a casino bankrupt). He is a horrible amoral man and he was a horrible amoral president heading up a horribly inept amoral cabinet only putting the country into a horrible position for the future. but, hey, some people will still vote for him. So maybe the sane rest of us should remember how horrible he was and get out and make him lose again. Ponder. Seriously Ponder.

“If you facilitate multiple memories of the future, you build up your organization’s sensitivity to potential ‘weak signals’, the hints on the breeze that it’s time to pivot and pursue a direction you’ve already sort of explored.”

Dr. Jason Fox, Leading a Quest

===

‘Rather than simply work within existing parameters of operational excellence (incrementally optimising your business model to meet customer needs), pioneering leadership sees you embarking upon quests. Such quests allow us to systematically explore complex and uncertain futures. We don’t set goals in the hopes that a particular future will manifest — rather, we explore multiple possible futures, and prepare proactive stratagems to capitalise on each.’

Dr. Jason Fox

• – Authors note: I used ChatGPT to help with the distinction between some concepts, also, thanks to my friend Dr Jason Fox who actually spurred this thought.

=====

Let me begin where I will end. Clarity is a quantum thought. Yes. I just said that. What I mean is clarity is multi dimensional. Clarity is a constant oscillation of connected things, therefore, fleeting and situational.

That said.

Clarity gets conflated with a variety of things. How to do something (process), what to do (rules) and why to do something (clear understanding of the goals, objectives, and tasks at hand, as well as a clear understanding of the resources, constraints, and stakeholders involved).

Agility gets conflated with a variety of things. How to do something (process), what to do (rules) and why to do something (prioritizing and choicemaking).

Yeah. They get conflated by the same things.

Clarity doesn’t eliminate ambiguity, but rather accommodates ambiguity and therein lies its connection with agility. Clarity can enhance agility by offering a solidish pad from which agility springs from. Agility then offers the ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances and to respond effectively to new contexts. I believe we can all agree that when there is some clarity in a situation, it is easier to make decisions and take actions that are aligned with the goals and objectives. This, in turn, can enhance agility by allowing quicker shifts of energy and resources as well as adjust strategies as needed.

Basically, clarity and agility are related in that clarity enables agility by providing clearer direction and understanding of the situation, permitting quick effective adapting to new circumstances.

Which leads me to “is clarity the same as sensemaking?”

Well. There is some space between clarity and sensemaking. Clarity refers to having a clear understanding of a situation or information, while sensemaking refers to the process of creating understanding out of complex, ambiguous or uncertain information. While clarity is important in providing a clearer understanding of a situation, ‘clearer’ is relative. What I mean by that is if you buy into the belief we reside in a quantum world with multiple possibilities existing at the same time, it is incredibly rare clarity will completely reflect the totality of a situation. That is actually where sensemaking becomes important to help interpret the information and make sense of it. Clarity and sensemaking are related, but refer to different aspects of understanding information or situations. It’s sensemaking wherein one interprets information, patterns and meaning of a circumstance. Both are important concepts, but both have severe limitations in a quantum world.

Which leads me to sensemaking’s relationship with uncertainty.

The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there’s a fundamental relationship between our knowledge of a quantum particle’s position and momentum. The more we know about the particle’s location in space, the less we know about how its moving, and vice versa. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.

Sensemaking has an uncomfortable relationship with uncertainty, but certainly has a relationship with the uncertainty principle. Sensemaking always resides in a tug of war between multiple properties. Sensemaking is the process of, well, making sense of things out of complex, ambiguous, or uncertain information, Uncertainty is sensemaking’s constant companion because there will always be some lack of knowledge, information, or predictability about a situation or event. I imagine I am suggesting sensemaking is the solution to uncertainty’s problems. OK. Not completely a solution, but certainly an essential tool if you need to get from here to there in the fog of uncertainty.

Its sensemaking when you can identify patterns, gather information, and develop insights that can help to reduce uncertainty and provide a clearer path forward. Ah. Information. The world has become a bit complicated here. The main thing here is the world has become anti grand narrative and has become a world of information niches and limited action spaces. Yeah. Despite more and more information available, the world has forced everything into fragmented boxes which makes it incredibly difficult to stop the slide into myopia. From there it just becomes a narrower and narrower world where you retreat after getting bludgeoned in the cage match between the information fragments. Uhm. In a quantum world that is the kiss of death.

Which leads me to momentum, velocity and movement.

Momentum, velocity and movement are the outcomes, or the potential outcomes of clarity and agility.

Clarity offers paths of motion, places to rest and moments to accelerate.

Clarity is actually, well, synthesis. It is an ability to create a useful bit of knowledge without actually knowing everything. The clarity offers the lily pad of traction for the true engines of agility – fluidity and flow.

• – Fluidity

Fluidity is an inherent attribute of movement. What I mean by that is business never unfolds in a neat tidy linear set of circumstances. Each situation is the temporary result of a unique combination of circumstances, presenting a unique set of problems and requiring a derivative solution (unique-ish), and, yet, no situation can be viewed as an isolated event. Each circumstance is actually a blend of what came before and what will come after — shaped by the former and shaping the conditions of the latter — creating a continuous, everchanging flow of activity with fleeting windows of opportunities, unforeseen obstacles, and cascading issues. I would even argue fluidity permits one to navigate between alternative realities. Fluidity does not dictate any terms. It is subservient to the ‘reality’ it touches and permits a business to exploit the continuous flow of events and, depending on the level of clarity, gain momentum, engage velocity or maintain positive movement.

• – Flow

Flow is the continuous, smooth flow of value from a business to the market. Generally speaking, it is the optimal operating condition. Flow is more important than ‘scale’ in that it is what navigates the asymmetrical paths, and realities, to ‘more.’ More often than not scale is more rigid, a replication of what exists, while flow is a more natural melding with whatever emerges. You cannot have flow without clarity and you cannot have optimal agility without flow.

I feel the need to add in a point on technology because technology offers (a) the possibility to ‘see’ things in a quantum universe that the human eye cannot see or the human mind may struggle to envision, and (b) the velocity to advantages (even tiny ones) and can certainly enhance fluidity and flow. Conversely, it also offers velocity to disadvantages and stupid shit (even tiny ones) and can enhance inefficient fluidity and misdirected flow. I say that because technology increases fluidity and even poisoned liquid flows. So, when we speak of fluidity and flow, we need to pay attention to what we agree our ‘clarity’ is. This gets tricky because far, far, too often we speak about the ‘next natural step for this system/business,’ but fluidity is rarely about steps and more about evolution in motion. Therefore, words like “framework” or ‘navigation’ or ‘redirect’ become more important concepts. Even things like collective intelligence and collective wisdom and collective principled behavior become even more important because clarity is a shared (so is sensemaking). One person’s clarity, honestly, doesn’t mean shit to the future success of a business (albeit it could bring about some catastrophic failures), but collective clarity is powerful and collective clarity, at least conceptually, has the capability to ‘see’ multiple possible realities.

Which leads me to the importance of humans for clarity (and not AI).

The issue with humans using AI-generated data is the results of their work feed the foundation models that generate the results which need improvement by humans in the first place. It’s a vicious cycle.

Incorrect results are embedded and exacerbate in the models, if not checked by humans. This can get worse quickly because foundation models are then used to generate real strategies and tactics. Then we are off on the catastrophe race as desired goals become circumvented and the downward spiral continues. It can get worse. Foundation models learning from data that is actually created by other foundation models increasingly degrade with every model iteration and possibly even worse is that it occurs at an exponential velocity creating a doomed downward cycle. The reality is the only thing that can circumvent or just pull the plug on these issues are humans. Humans with clarity of objectives and vision and the ability to make sense of the situation. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Norbert Wiener clearly stated this problem in 1962.

This section may sound like it contradicts the section before when I suggested ‘technology can see things that the human mind cannot.’ It doesn’t. technology can unearth gobs of thngs humans cannot even envision, but it is also humans who must maintain control. Humans are the strength, and weakness, simultaneously, in a quantum world. Maybe that is why some sense of clarity is important.

Which lead me back to human behavior.

Human intelligence is a simple relationship between what we perceive what we want and what we do. What this means is that a human is intelligent to the extent that what we do is likely to achieve what we want – given what we perceive. This suggests that not just behavior, but intelligence, also varies according to what one perceives in its environment. This would also suggest experience, or memories driven from experience, which could possibly be effects of culture or social context, only accelerate or amplify the decision-making process. Cognitively, this happens because the brain protects the individual through fitness of incoming information, i.e., what ‘fits’ into what we believe and want, rather than truth passing along learning and information which could be used to increase the likelihood of success in that context. I share this particular section to remind everyone both true clarity and true sense making are shared concepts. In other words, true clarity or true sense making cannot truly occur in an individual form or just with an individual it can only occur in a collective state. That last sentence is increasingly true, and important, if you think we live in a quantum world with multiple realities to navigate.

“in the blackest darkness even a dim light is better than none.”

Which leads to me to end with a nerdy thought.

Clarity is a quantum thought. Yes. What I mean by that is clarity is multi dimensional. Ok. It’s even beyond that. Clarity, at its best, captures the essence of multiple realities. Maybe I am suggesting clarity is like a Donella Meadows leverage point in a quantum system. All of that may seem counterintuitive to traditional thanking on what clarity is, but clarity is just a vivid moment within a blurry flux. To gain clarity it demands the recognition that life shapes environment which then shapes life which then circles back shaping the environment. Yeah. And in multiple possible realities. Yeah. I just destroyed the foundation of linear thinking. Yeah. I even destroyed the whole concept of cause and effect. Yeah. I just suggested everything begins to take on quantum characteristics. As Masanobu Fukuoka put it:

“Nature is a fluid entity that changes from moment to moment. Man is unable to grasp the essence of something because the true form of nature leaves nowhere to be grasped. People become perplexed when drowned by theories that try to freeze a fluid nature. Behind every cause lies countless other causes. Any attempt to trace these back to their sources only leads one further away from an understanding of the true cause.”

But this also means clarity exists in a quantum state of potential. It means clarity exists in a state of dynamic change, nonlinear, but instead one of emergence; ultimately demanding agility. So maybe the ultimate relationship between clarity and agility is that, when done well, means the business navigates what is called the ‘assemblage space’ which is the rough map of what we see and what we don’t – across all possible realities. So maybe the assemblage space is a quantum space? Regardless. I believe clarity is a quantum concept. Ponder.

“For better or worse business invites you to remake it, to consolidate it into a shape you can live in. You too can decide who you are and the business will again assume a fixed form around you. Decide what it is in your own identity will be revealed like a map fixed by triangulation. Businesses are quite like cities, and unlike villages and small towns, in that they are plastic by nature. We mold them in our images and they in their turn shape us by the resistance they offer when we try to impose our own personal form of them.”

Jonathan Raban

===

The world’s locked up in your head

You’ve been pouring in a concrete bed

Nada Surf

====

This is a companion piece to “the flattening of people and society.” The term ‘depthlessness’ actually comes from Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism by Frederic Jameson. Jameson suggests “depthlessness” is defined by the postmodernism’s refusal of depth and focus on surface. In other words, things are superficial and have no depth beyond what is displayed on the surface, i.e., we reside in a world of superficiality. Tie this to Jean Baudrillard’s claim postmodernity was defined by a shift into hyperreality in which simulations replace the real and we are officially off to the societal race where representations replace reality. In fact it was Baudrillard who suggested we would be reaching a point where reality was replaced by false images to the level where most in society cannot distinguish between the real and the unreal. Twisting his thinking a bit what I would suggest is reality takes work to really see. What I mean by that is (using his word) representation in what we see day in and day out and, in today’s world, phone alert by phone alert, only reflects a superficial representation of reality. It has little, or no, depth.

Which leads me to that ‘depthlessness’ thing.

We often discuss a need for ‘instant gratification’ or even just the fear of missing out all of which encourages an overall lack of depth. I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest this depthlessness seems to have pervaded society and rhetoric and it has some inherent dangers. One of those dangers is loss of control. Without depth we all end up skating on the superficial surface of the mostly meaningless. Therefore, even what we would consider deep and considered decisions really are not anchored in anything deeper than anything else that other people are thinking. I believe it was Charles Newman in the New York Times, sometime in the 1980s, who said “the flattest possible characters in the flattest possible landscapes rendered in the flattest possible diction.” Flat or depthlessness all I know is the collapse of substance and thinking and of anything that could be construed as long term, combined with a preoccupation with the instantaneous, has created an emphasis on everything with lack of depth. The circling back to ‘control,’ this not only increases a sense of diminishing control it, literally, does create a loss of true individual autonomy and helplessness, i.e., control. It is within this depthlessness recurrent larger issues, some would call the meta crisis, wallow. Without depth we not only cannot understand but certainly cannot come up with any meaningful solutions and, therefore, our depthlessness has created a lack of control over issues.

Which leads me to suggest this has nothing to do with postmodernism and more to do with people, culture and sucking at critical thinking.

I’m neither a philosopher or sociologist so I’m not qualified to talk about what post modernism is or is not. For today though I believe I can talk about depthlessness in terms of technosocialism. What I mean by that for decades there have been discussions on whether technology drives society or society drives technology. Personally, I find the argument unimportant. They weave together like an intricate dance. That said. Technology has amplified flattening. Deathlessness may be a feature or characteristic of postmodernism, but what I would actually argue is from a societal standpoint it is a characteristic of people. What I mean by that is as things become more complex and complicated and fragmented, people will feel significantly more comfortable on the superficial level. And I believe everyone could agree that technology has certainly made the information world more complex, more complicated, and more fragmented.

“We erect our structure and imagination before we erect it in reality.”

Marx

We have always felt more comfortable with binaries and we have always felt more comfortable when what we imagined appeared to relate to reality. Things get a bit tricky here because both binaries and imagination thrive, or reside on contradictions to reality. It is easy to say, for example, ‘things were better back then” and the reality is “things are better now” and both things can be, simultaneously, true. It is a contradiction, even theoretically in conflict, and, yet, uncomfortably, both can be true. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that it’s the exploration of contradiction which tends to lie at the heart of all original thought as well as the heart of truth. It is within that exploration where we find the power to improvise. Shaped not only by imagination, but by experience, exploration of ‘what could be’ uncovers an almost endless ability (mentally) to test the limits of what history (the past) may have suggested is not only probable but possible. This is kind of important with regard to this depthlessness thing because inevitably a society will have people who imagine and people who don’t. It is somewhere within the space between which leads to progress, leads to cultural touchstones and the exploration of simultaneous newand permanence. Where depthlessness becomes an issue is when this becomes a conflict between two worlds of people, the depth and the depthlessness, who process similar information, but envision different future possibilities. To be clear. They can simultaneously have the same set of ‘values’ and yet envision an entirely different future state. Anyhoo. I once scribbled down the phrase this is what precisely defines the common experience. Common experience is found not in the commonality, but within the differences.

Everyone’s right and no one is sorry

That’s the start and the end of the story

From the Sharks and the Jets to the call in the morning

And life is just bets anyway

Nada Surf

Interestingly, we have having this conflict when discussing technology – LLMs to be specific. Reality and hallucinations. The machines, not really understanding the depth of any specific topic, will ‘hallucinate’ and create some alternative reality. We could even stretch this concept to human vision. Within the complexity of the eye we make up most of what we see and the components within the eye ‘predict’ the image we see.  Uhm, hallucination. Regardless, we use a lot of implicit knowledge about the world and how the world works to understand shit and depthlessness simply amplifies the likelihood of ‘not seeing’ some important shit..

Which leads me to This depthlessness reaches into the bowels of society.

What I mean by that is that it affects how individual people citizens think about some very important issues. Or maybe I should say how we don’t think about some very important issues. Whether we wanna use the complexity of everyday life as an excuse or not, the truth is the majority of people skate along the superficial surface of irrelevant data and information. For example, an important issue like the economy loses any depth as people simplistically suggest things were better than or, specifically, the economy was better for me during the Trump Administration than it Is now. Better is defined on a superficial level based on some individual things important to the individual. This isn’t to suggest that the benefit to “I” is not an important issue; just that it lacks depth. The reality is that pre-covid, at least in the United States, the government used every trick and tactic to prop up the economy for the everyday person despite some horrible policies which affected the depth, resilience, and strength of the economy. Superficially, on the surface, the duck was paddling along quite effectively, but underneath in the depths of the pond the bacteria were growing and the pond scum was rising to the top. Horrible metaphor or not, it’s an example of depthlessness. It ends up being part reality and part hallucination in society.

• ** note: I am happy to go, in depth, on the economy precovid, covid, and postcovid, at a different time. I am simply making a point on depthlessness today.

Climate and clean energy would be another incredibly important topic which most everyday people approach with depthlessness. While the powers are certainly against us understanding the depth of the issues, I would argue that exploring the depths of this particular issue is a fairly dark place. Most sane people avoid dark places. The problem is today’s corporate-dominated global capitalist system is incapable of protecting us from the ecological consequences of our current way of life which are essentially locked in by the interlocking network of business institutions imposing their will against society. Don’t believe me? Well. The young people, who still are open to exploring depth and haven’t completely fell under the sway of the Will of Institutions, know that climate change is upon us and accelerating, and that they and their descendants will disproportionately bear its escalating burdens long after the people who got us into this mess are gone. Regardless. The embrace of depthlessness permits this entire discussion to reside in a conflict of superficiality.

While I am going to move on to business, let me lastly state here, we must recognize that the damage being done to our world is not the result of natural evolution or the natural arc of history; it is the result of system policies, the system’s wealthy and powerful, and the system’s institutions, supported by those of us who tolerate or, worse, accept, this system. If we explore the depths of the issue, and the system, we can, well, design a new system.

Which leads me to business, the ‘institutions’, culpable to depthlessness.

Shorttermerism is actually grounded in depthlessness, but I would argue the worst offender of depthlessness is actually business leadership. One of my most popular writings, ‘the hollowing out of business by one generation,’ which outlines depthtlessness without ever really referring to depthlessness. Business leaders found it was to their own personal benefit to have the everyday employee skating along the superficial surface of data, information, objectives, KPIs, and milestones.

I think I wrote this today because I rub elbows with some fairly nerdy intellectual people and within some discussion on postmodernism and post-postmodernism (I told you it can be nerdy) it occurred to me this really wasn’t some sociological, or philosophical, ‘deep discussion,’ but rather depthlessness was a control mechanism by leadership and a short cut to encourage some specific objectives and more a reflection of a system imposing its will rather than some intellectual society decision. I started noodling the thought that depthlessness was simply a feature, or characteristic, of some version of Taylorism which, as I have argued a number of times, is not just a business ideology but has become a societal ideology. Yeah. I began thinking that depthlessness was an, uhm, ideology. That isn’t to say it isn’t an individual choice or mindset, but rather if we, as individuals, want to explore more depth and substance on some really really important issues than we, as individuals, probably have to make the decision to shed the shackles of an ideology to dissolve the hallucinations. Or, circling back to one of my opening quotes, we need to break up the concrete bed we poured for ourselves. Ponder.

“Man is a rationalizing animal not a rational one.”

Robert Heinlein

===

This is about culture even though it is not about culture. What I mean by that is I saw for the billionth time “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” something Drucker never said, most likely would have never said, and is kinda nuts to say. Ironically, Purpose is more likely to eat strategies then culture. Anyway. Let me talk about what that statement really says and what it should say: “systems eat misguided strategy.” What I mean by that is culture is what people do together and what they do together is usually reflective of the system in place. But it gets a bit worse. The truth is the Will of the Institution eats culture and strategy is simply actions a business takes to feed the Will of the Institution.

Look. The reality is that most employees, including managers and leaders, are rationalizing animals. What I mean by that is most people, within an organization or institution, will use the system as it exists to, well, exist/thrive in the role they are in. that includes strategies. Most rationalizing sane people simply seek to optimize what exists. That’s kind of what most C-level people do. They may not like the system, but it is what it is, the competition is most likely optimizing a very similar system, so you gotta do what you do so the business survives. Maybe that is culture, maybe it is not, but it is 100% a description of a system.

Which leads me to the conflict between the system and the people.

This is a piece in and of itself, but for today let’s talk about angst and anxiety. What the typical business system, under the guise of culture, has done, as a mechanism of growth at all costs, is actually to stifle the future. What I mean by that is business system growth is not the same as personal human growth. Therein lies the most basic conflict and the one which creates the most angst and anxiety. This conflict may certainly lead to disengagement, but I think that word is too sweeping. Someone may disengage mentally, but will be fully engaged with the system. That is actually what many institutions encourage; work the process and the process will reward you. Pretty simple. So simple, in fact, most employees line up and embrace this, or, what I call “the Will of the Institution.” They do so not because they like it, but it’s the system in which they are placed. Strategies may be defined and implemented with the best of the intentions, but if they do not match the Will of the Institution, well, it will get eaten – not by culture but by the Institution itself. By the way, that’s where most radical thinking goes to die. Regardless. There is almost always conflict between individuals and the institution where the institution seeks to impose some “will.” To be sure, the systems produce profits so there is no apparent rationale from leadership perspective to attack the system, but individuals are nibbling away at the system trying to make it (a) possibly reach higher value creation potential or (b) possibly make it more palatable to the potential of the people. Within these institutions, if enough people are nibbling away (because there needs to be enough movement in order to stop inertia) a shift will occur. Once again, this isn’t culture, this is just people fighting within a system and strategy is typically not the weapon they use.

Which leads me to point out that behavior is an outcome of system design choices.

Institutions are infamous for talking about ‘culture’ when they really mean systems and process. Goals and accountability are outcomes of the system. The system is always designed to shape an operating model systematically encouraging a range of choices, often very bounded, designed to shape desired performance and whatever the Institution perceives is the value that should be delivered to generate the profit/financial performance desired. And while it is true an individual can shape the system just as a system shapes the individual, the power is not equal. Individuals nudge systems, systems bludgeon individuals. This means, by default, the system inevitably shapes the social aspects of the institution. I guess that is ‘culture,’ but it is actually a system strategy that eats any positive organizational culture.

Which leads me to machines and people.

Systems, as the Will of an Institution, are basically an attempt to make the entire business, and all its pieces – including humans, into some type of replicating machine; a production line as it were. Technology has only encouraged institutions to think this way. Machines and technology have augmented our ability to ‘distribute’ thoughts, ideas, social connections and a variety of things that add value in the marketplace of people and business. This is captured in Metcalfe’s Law: as the number of people involved in any communications technology increases, there is exponential growth in the amount of communication paths. This is known as the network effect and it has both good and bad properties. I imagine my point here is as connections and connectivity expands, Institutions will seek to create stronger and higher border walls. The main ‘wall’ they build, within some twisted culture worldview, is objective setting. For example, ROI. Or. Profit. Some simplistic stripped-down objective which can be wielded as a dull axe to the culture and systems analysis. It matters because ‘maximize the return on investment’ tends to encourage ignoring the things not so good for society so an ROI-focus meets some specific business objectives. Sure. Sometimes a business will pony up some higher Purpose, or some  societal-focused objectives, but most are just a sub-objective meant as a ‘culture importance’ head nod. Anyway. ROI, or things like that, absolve the Institution, and the system, of anything but that objective. Yeah. A system is less than careful in discussing humans and humanity because it simply views humans and connectivity as ‘social machines’ to be built and optimized of, and by, the system. As a corollary, the builders of systems, i.e., the Institutions, use technology and to a lesser extent machines, to create and use people, as passive recipients with aggressive intent – to produce specific results. People become part of the machine simply by being part of the system and an Institution will gladly step forward and call it ‘our culture.’ It is a reinforcing system in that individuals act both in, and upon, institutions and they embody, realize, and reproduce those institutions through their daily activity. This does not make technology and the machines dependent variables within the system, but tools with which to craft social behavior and dynamics and culture. I would be remiss if i didn’t point out much of what happens in today’s technological world, and culture building, occurs independent of human awareness, yet, humans are still accountable for much of the system itself.

• ** note: as an aside, if this piece makes you grumpy, you have a responsibility to reflect upon your actions/thoughts even though technology may have encouraged the action/thought.

So, while business models are the structures and systems of a business which creates value to offer to a marketplace, it is the business systems which make people subservient to some process and incentivize them to the will of the institution so that while being paid as an individual, they must worship the institutional process/structure/system/culture to do so. Strategy gets eaten at the altar of this.

Which leads me to culture’s relationship with a system.

Business lives in a world of relations, connectivity and connections, i.e., business is not performed in a void. An enlightened business, one which accepts being accountable beyond simplistic profit self-interest, needs to understand how dynamic systems work, social relations work and how everything they do is connected to the community and, ultimately, society. They need to understand that business is not just a sum of its relations, but also the people that stand in between, or intersect, are just as important. The reality is that systems, even when focused on the greater good, tend to never be totally successful because they ignore, well, people.  What I mean is that while we talk about technology/machines to help us better manage value, the economy, and society, we should also, simultaneously, talk about how humans can better manage value, economy, and society. People are only scratching at their potential and systems are not crafted to enable potential maximization – of individual, companies, society, or the economy.  People can babble all they want about culture eating strategy all they want, but the real issue is the way business is used to running is mismatched against an increasingly dynamic, complex, business world and the existing systems, for the most part, reflect that mismatch. Progress is almost always defined in additive, multiplicative or exponential terms. The reality of humans is that they have exponential potential, but current systems arc toward additive results and subtractive meaning. Therein lies the conflict business must resolve for a better future. So maybe stop talking about culture eating anything and start investing energy in systems development so your strategies are effective. Ponder.

==

“Sometimes, the hand that feeds you is also holding you captive.”

Ben Irvine

==

“Beneath the incessant parade of images, nothing.”

Magnificent Ruin

==

We are all captive of something. And often that ‘something’ is tangible, yet has the ultimate value of nothing. That is why progress can be elusive and self identity can become a bit of a tug of war between the “I compass” and the external world. That said, today is actually about being captive of something specific – nothing. I will define ‘nothing’ as things that (a) don’t really have an impact beyond individual satisfaction and (b) don’t really contribute to personal meaning beyond productivity.

The sheer numbers of data, wealth, images, memes, production of stuff, that bludgeon us and our senses on a daily basis only suggest we measure our lives by accumulating some of those things – theoretically by choosing one we give them the meaning of something – rather than what we actually may choose to be measured by absent of these choices. In doing so we become occupants of a space designed by the system, captives of nothing. Yet, this nothing is defined, or bounded, by what is deemed ‘reason’, common sense or, at minimum, reasonable. Yes. The world convinces us it is reasonable to be measured by things with a ‘nothing value.’ And by defining these numbers, or these ‘somethings’, as a measure it will invariably constrain focus toward the present (the now) with critique centered on either the past (kind of a warped assessment versus ‘then’) or against others within the Now defined space (competition within the present). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that if your concern is having “something” at the end of life, judging oneself, consistently, in the present doesn’t guarantee that.

“Everything seems simpler than it truly is, when you are not the one working on it”

Look. The truth is results 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 and items instead of impact. 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, first, what the emphasis on this type of measurement does is to heighten the discomfort of the alternative; the plausible but not certain, the probabilities of not the prediction of. The plausible does not usually equate to “is”, i.e., some certainty, and it is within the wretched hollow in-between where we become captive to nothingness. This is where “if you cannot measure it, how do you know you were successful” 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 not because we actually believe it will make our lives meaningful, but rather because we fear the absence of certainty found in plausibility and probability. Second is that, well, absence of a pursuit of these things, you worry you may actually end up with 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 answers for ‘did you have a successful life.’ By becoming a captive to a fear of nothing 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. And maybe that is the weird (awful) thing. In our successful pursuit of these things, we actually still end up with nothing. I tend to believe far too many people are currently captives of nothing. My reasoning? Well. I tend to believe we are having an existential “meaning”, or “how do I matter”, societal crisis and what I have just written could very well be part of the reason why. Ponder.

===

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

H.L. Mencken

==

“Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers.”

Mignon McLaughlin

I have always disliked using the word ‘radical.’ To be fair, I tend to dislike any word that can be twisted in some hyperbolic fashion. The truth is radicals, and radical, is inextricably linked to the idea of revolutions and, well, revolution often gets twisted in some hyperbolic fashion. So let me speak of radicals, being radical, and revolutions in a non-hyperbolic way to show that radical ideas are rarely truly radical, yet, over time they will encourage a radical departure from ‘the norm’. Hence, in reflection, it will look like a revolution occurred.

To get started let’s go to one of the most demonized radicals of all time – Saul Alinsky. In 1971 he wrote a book called “Rules for Radicals: a Pragmatic Guide for Realistic Radicals.” The reality is that most of his ideas were not particularly radical nor was he much of a radical. He was a community activist seeking to empower the ‘community’ to take back some power from the institutions. Needless to say, institutions didn’t like this and, therefore, he was a radical and his ideas and thinking were ‘radical.’

Which leads me to why radical is so scary.

Radical implies anti-status quo. Anyone residing, with benefits from, within the status quo hates ‘radicals’ and fears ‘revolutions.’ Simplistically, its all trouble and that trouble is created by troublemakers. Suffice it to say, trouble is found in the nuance. As John Lewis said “making good trouble” is what progress is all about. Shit. I would argue good trouble is found in the basis of doing the business of good business. What do I mean? Hearkening back to good ole Saul Alinsky, almost 10 years ago I used his ‘radical ideas’ to make a point about how to conduct business successfully in my piece “a pragmatic primer for business radicals.” That said. Revolutions are never particularly selective in their affect. Therein lies the fear of. Revolutions start with some, fairly simplistic, ‘radical idea’ – which is actually a fairly simple well embraced existing concept – and then, well, you are never really quite sure where it will go and expand its effect into. And that is what makes revolutions so scary (and radicals).

“Every important institution in the public life of the nation – education, employment, unions, churches, entertainment, housing, politics, commerce, investment, welfare, transportation, public accommodations – is immediately affected by this revolution, and this revolution will not spend its course until every such institution surrenders to its objectives.”

Revolutions are social events with social dynamics and, well, institutions are made up of people who interact and these institutions are only effective if they do things in a dynamic way. I imagine the scariness resides in ‘losing power’ or ‘losing control’ (2 things inextricably linked) and any true radical, and radical idea, is always interested in changing the way a system works or does things, i.e., challenge existing power and control. With that I bring in the next scary person – Marx. To be clear. Simply because I reference Marx or admit to reading Marx makes me a Marxist or even a Communist. That may sound radical, but its not. anyway.  Virtually all revolutions revolve around the individual right to self-define one’s situation and possibilities for behavior and the definition of the boundaries and rights of the greater ‘We’ that self is associated with. I would suggest any of the famous ‘radicals’ emerge from the basic belief that people are enabled to self-create their own rules of maximizing potential. Just as a reminder, nobody ever creates rules from nothing in an empty space, i.e., the system or the status quo exists and inflicts their rules on individuals. Reminder. Karl Marx said human beings make their history themselves, but they do not do so voluntarily, not under circumstances of their own choosing, rather under immediately found, given and transmitted circumstances. Yeah. So, radicals seek to change the underlying circumstances.

Which leads me to who is a radical.

I have said, many times, anyone can be a radical.

“Look. I believe everyone is a potential revolutionary. What I mean by that is I believe everyone has the ability to be a revolutionary given the interest to engage. Sometimes you join a revolution or sometimes the revolution is within oneself. From a personal perspective you must ask whether school, community, work, life, etc. produces what we wish humanity to be made of and, if it is not, what we wish and what do we need to change – AND what your place is within that. The reality is many things can change society, but I would argue it always begins in one place – the world as it is and you. You can wish it was different, but “the world as it is” is kinda stubborn.”

 I would argue a radical with a valid idea is how progress is nudged along. I would also argue that the power of any radical, and radical idea, is found in evidence; not feelings. In today’s fragmented world this becomes a relatively important point because proof is relational in character and the success as an instrument of mindset & behavioral change is dependent on the criteria the audience assesses the evidence. We often assume scientific proof transcends culture and politics, but that is not true in today’s world. Well. That is not true for people blinded by the status quo and the existing institutional ‘rules of believing.’ The reality is there is no self-evident truth and radicals create contexts where truths do become more evident.  The challenge is, when assessments of evidence are subordinated to system or institutional considerations, the evidence almost has to be framed as radical in order to be heard. Maybe my point here is a radical is someone who seeks to open the closed existing universe to other possibilities. A radical points out how freedom is oppressed, how ideas are oppressed, and maybe most importantly, how potential is oppressed. I use oppressed because that is where ‘revolution’ comes in. It is within this idea where different ideas battle each other for a future unifying truth where people can be organized to change the system which changes society.  Radicals are effective at sensemaking. They narrate an idea which enables some common sensemaking in order to have effective collective and overall choicemaking. I would argue at the core of any revolution is the idea that within the status quo, the existing system, a person isn’t really free, doesn’t really have full freedom, and doesn’t really have the opportunity for full potential. Radicals are troublemakers in the sense they seek to break out of the existing cage. To be clear, I don’t think seeking freedom is radical.

===

“Every revolution promises paradise.”

William Stringfellow

Which leads me to ‘what is the solution revolutions and radical seek?’

Maybe the solution resides in making sense of the same planet, and community environment, we all live on and in. The reality is 99% of people have a reason for why they think the way they think. Maybe if we better understand what people think now about the world, where they would like the world to be and why the world hasn’t got there, we can begin having some pragmatic conversations about, well, the real world.

Let me say, while this is a sweeping generalization, the main way to connect with someone quickly is to do something or say something that appeals to “me.” Me as in self-interest, self-esteem, self-view and self-actualization.  That may sound like a selfish world view, but it really isn’t. It isn’t as cold & harsh as “what’s in it for me?” as the foundation for all attitudes & behaviors, but rather it is a nuanced world view of individual survival within a larger world – a world which can seem quite uncertain. If I think I am seeing the real world crumbling or spinning out of control in its orbit, and I only view people as far right or far left radicals where I am the only one who can think independently, I then see it as a threat to my interests and ultimately my survival <survival can be physiologically or culturally>. Therefore, I am going to want to be part of a world in which an orbit is established, general prosperity & fairness <however that world may establish it>  exists, and a place where it appears my world view and wealth survival is insured. To be clear. This may sound like ignorant close-minded thinking or simply stagnant status quo thinking or simply ‘conserving and no progress,’ but it is not that clear cut. There is a bit of tug of war between what to conserve and what to gain progress on. I say that because “what’s in it for me?” sounds too small for what I view as ‘alternate world thinking’ or even ‘revolutions,’ but any ‘radical idea’ always has to address ‘what’s in it for me’ to gain any traction. The pragmatic truth is self-interest always incorporates some progress because all people always want the future to be better than the present which demands some progress. And maybe I add that because I think far, far, too often radicals are seen as “I” people when in reality the true radicals, and the true revolutions, are collective self-interested people working together for a greater collective change.

Let me end with a Limits of Growth thought: systems pursue their own Goals. Yeah. Systems, and institutions, tend to pursue goals which are not necessarily good for the common wealth and mental well being. Radicals tend to point that out and revolutions tend to want to rearrange those systems. And maybe that is why we should celebrate troublemakers just a bit more. I think we all know the more a society postpones problems, the more likely it is to run into multiple simultaneous, and larger, problems later. In other words, postponing the problem makes it worse. Radicals don’t want to postpone addressing problems. Ponder.

Dr Jason Fox, How To Lead a Quest

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

“We see only what we are ready to see … taught to see … and ignore everything that is not a part of our prejudices.”

Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot (1800’s)

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

So. I think we all know people who have some fairly strong world views. They can be political ideologies, cultural views and even behavioral beliefs. Those world views tend to warp how they see things. Everything becomes a blue hue if they have a blue worldview. Or maybe they simply always find the ‘blue’ in everything they read & see and pluck it out as proof of some aspect of their worldview. It’s a subtle default. It is also a subtle (okay, sometimes not so subtle), bias. I am not suggesting it is always bad, but it is certainly a default mechanism which can skew how one sees the world. Now. What is bad is that it is a self-confirming loop. The default feeds upon itself constantly solidifying the view. I imagine over time that it becomes so solid it becomes difficult to defuse the default. Once again. If we think about people, we know we can identify them. Once again, if we all think about the people, we know we can also see they don’t see that same default mechanism in place. The looped way of seeing & thinking becomes a self-affirming logic. Sounds rational and unbiased. “I read contrary views to see the world through other’s eyes” they say (as they ignore the fact they are always wearing blue tinted glances as they squint at things they subtly disagree with).

Anyway. What led me to think about this is I (finally) picked up my copy of “Open to Think” which Dan Pontefract was so generous to send me and, as good books do, it made me think about thinking. In particular it made me think about default thinking.

Now. I’ve worked with three of the foremost “how to think” methodology/ideology companies – P&G, Publicis & J. Walter Thompson. All crafted default thinking methodologies. From that point on they diverged in how to utilize the default thinking frameworks, e.g., ‘how to fill the framework.’

I could argue I have thought about how I think, what I think, how people think, what they think, attitudes, behaviorism construct, etc., more than is healthy for me. So. When I got to page 80 where Don states “creative thinking is the default cognitive mode we employ when our minds are clear” (Moshe Bar, 2016, Bar-In University), I chuckled. It’s true and it’s not. Creative thinking, in my mind, is when things clear (not are clear) – its kind of like the sky opening up into blue during a thunderstorm. Now. It is true that this is where default thinking crashes into creative, or any deep, thinking. Those of us who have actually been trained on how to think (using time tested methodologies) have this weird concoction of default/non default creative thinking. Our thinking slots into a methodology, or a combination of methodologies, as we sift thru what to heuristically not clear our mind on and what to clear our mind for. As I have said, and written, several times, I do not believe we are in any crisis relationship with time & distractions. We have always had more than enough stress on our time and always had distractions. Therefore, we have always had focus challenges. That said. There are certainly aspects of today’s world that amplifies potential distractions – perception wise (what social media shoves down our throats with regard to ‘measured time’ & realtywise (we do get constantly barraged with bits of information of which our ‘measured time’ mentality minimizes uses of the bits).

But. Our minds do like to work and ‘clearing it’ doesn’t mean not thinking, its mean clarity.

Its kind of like our inner productivity mental compass. However. What I would suggest is an industrial (Taylorism skewed) mentality through all institutions (schools, work, life) in combination with a fabric of societal thinking exacerbated by social media telling everyone how to be more productive, productivity of thinking has taken on some fairly absurd, and insidious, dimensions.

With social media/internet defining productivity at the expense of everything else, it has flipped the formula where productivity – or ‘doing’ – now trumps actual outcomes and how much you do becomes a more reasonable measurement of usefulness than what you actually do. In other words, it de-emphasizes impact to, well, measurements of measured time. Yes. This applies to thinking too.

So, unless you get lucky in that your thinking has a positive enough impact within a specific short term measured time you may never get judged on true impact (how thine thinking echoes thru eternity).

Moving on.

Don Pontefract, Open to Think

Default versus discovery, movement versus stillness, however you want to think about how you think, the truth is effectiveness, and satisfaction, does require some ‘stop & do.’ Constant learning, constant discovery, constant restless thinking sounds good (& even feels good), BUT we still desire (demand?) some proof or outcomes or its all seeming “moving for moving sake.” This is where default gets tricky. In order to satisfy our proof desire (in relation to our thinking) we may seek proof points thru default thinking. It does three things:

• • • Supports our own thinking (cognitive personal ‘loops’ – confirmation of what we think we know) which is kind of a version of ‘imitation satisfies demand that already exists’.

    • Encourages progress (even if it may be misguided) along whatever path we are exploring

    • Efficiency: default is a heuristic mental trick to get us from “here to there” in terms of effective usage of our time (thinking & learning).

All that said. Defaults can be good. Think of them as waystations on the Metro. They can assist in navigating liminal spaces. They can insure you efficiently board a train which effectively guides you in the right direction toward future possible destinations. Not to sound like a broken record, but defaults can help us navigate pragmatism & possibilities (link). Yeah. I continue to argue that everything, thinking included, revolves around managing & navigating, imagination & possibilities and pragmatism & doing. You may encourage your brain to pursue possibilities (convincing yourself you are open minded) but the pragmatism kicks in to drive thinking closer to what you currently believe. Yes. Navigating pragmatism & possibilities with your own brain can be a real sonuvabitch.

Not only that but externally there are a bunch of people trying to ‘hack’ into your thinking process.. So when some fortune cookie wisdom peddler offers you a nifty meme thought or ‘listicle to success’ understand they are trying to implant a ‘default’ mechanism into YOUR brain. I am not suggesting that all of someone else’s default thinking is bad for you. But I am suggesting YOU should decide, clarify and recognize your own default mechanism before you bolt on anyone else’s. thinking, despite what some people may suggest, does not have some formula. However. It does have some principles – stepping stones to place your mental thoughts on.

** note: Dr. Jason Fox is particularly good at discussing the positives & negatives of defaults & heuristics. He asks: “What default practices exist in your organization that are no longer serving you well?” we should ask ourselves, as individuals, the same.

This is not as simple as we may think. We are constantly using phrases & images that sound deep and meaningful while completely missing the bigger point or using a soundbite or image to showcase the issue without delving into the true complexity of reality. When you take one-liners out of context, or make complex issues into little phrases it makes for a great sound bite, but often seriously misleads people.

Anyway. I have always been fascinated by how people think. What always makes me scratch my head is why seemingly smart and intelligent people think, say and believe crazy things. Mostly I chalk it up to lazy thinking <hopefully not actually ‘not thinking’>.

Look. I know we all do this at least some of the time. Daniel Kahneman <“Thinking Fast and Slow”> points out that human brains are hard-wired to process and function in ways that are easy and fast. Uh oh. That means our brains are actually, most of the time, not really thinking <although in our own minds we all think we are constantly thinking>. For efficiency purposes our brains tend to process information in one of two ways.

– automatic response to input

– actual thinking

The difficult one is the latter — thinking can be difficult, tiring, vexing and time consuming, therefore, thinking ain’t easy. Therefore, our brains typically default to the fast automatic response mode. We do this unconsciously.

Ok. Then <you may ask> what happens when we do actually think?

On key issues it seems like our default beginning point is ‘motivation’ as in ‘what is in it for this person.’ Therefore, we are automatically thinking the worst and then forcing ourselves to actually consider the best scenario.

What a wacked way of thinking about things.

Its particularly wacked when you actually look at the research or deign to actually speak with people. We, people in general & the everyday schmucks, actually WANT to do the right thing more often than not.

And that is the evil of fortune cookie wisdom. It can actually double default – default real thinking and default real empathy (or pursuing a somewhat more difficult journey despite it being the right thing to do). This is all done under the guise of ‘reducing complexity’ when, in reality, we should be reducing complications and seeking true understanding of complexity.

Last thought. Festina lente. To me, it would be silly, and naïve, to preach patience or ‘clearing the mind’ in todays world for 99% of the people. Sure. Maybe on a selective basis it is a viable thought, but for most people its not only NOT relatable but not very pragmatic. Movement is simply a given in 99% of people’s lives in today’s world between personal “do’s”, commitments to business & others and the general onslaught of what Life demands. In fact. I would suggest survival can be a full-time job and stopping may mean threat of survival. Therefore. Festina Lenta. Slow down to speed up and find thinking velocity (which, I could argue, is thinking nirvana). Clear a space in your mind, don’t clear your mind, compartmentalize and make sure you slow down on some things without really taking your eye off of the other things that could kill you. It is an art, a practical art. Most of us think on the move amidst the natural distractions of Life. And this attitude means you get lost of practice (within the 30,000 decisions we make daily) and inevitably if you ram your way through some default thinking, keep an open mind enough, you actually get better at seeing things beyond simplistic defaults all the time.

Look. Our beliefs shape our thinking and our thinking creates our defaults. It’s kind of a looped relationship. So, to constantly shape our thinking, we should always be reshaping our beliefs. I will note that despite popular opinion, reshaping beliefs is actually fairly easy and happens all the time. They key? Constantly providing the mind (the thinking body) new nutrients to thrive. Think about more things beyond your defaults.

Anyway.

Circling back to the beginning.

Blue filter. Blue glasses. A group of Americans reading this immediately attached ‘liberal’ (Democrat) to how they read that. Another group of people attached ‘sad’ to their view. It was their default. Their bias. Their filter. Ponder that.

In the end. Not all default thinking is created equal. My default thought is ‘pragmatism & possibilities.’ Imagination spans the walls of thinking which means my type of thinking is not ‘outside the box’, but rather box expanding. To me possibilities without pragmatism will never gain traction, therefore, doesn’t really contribute to anything. I know my defaults, I know my bias, I know my thinking cage, but in my knowledge, and recognition, it lets me see some things beyond the basic defaults and fortune cookie wisdom and sometimes see beyond my normal sight. And isn’t that all we can ask of anyone when it comes to thinking?  Ponder.

————————-

Reading:

 Don Pontefract: Open to Think

Dr. Jason Fox: How to Lead a Quest

————————

Come as you are, as you were

As I want you to be

As a friend, as a friend

As a known enemy

Take your time, hurry up

The choice is yours, don’t be late

“come as you are”: Nirvana

————————–

The world, and society, can make Life a bitch to live sometimes.

Be yourself … but behave like we want you to behave.

Think for yourself … but here is how we think you should think.

Be different … but remember we love consistency.

The world expects you to be an individual and even encourages uniqueness in a variety of ways and, yet, encourages a high degree of sameness, i.e., conformity. All the expectations create a shitload of personal conflict on what to do, how to act and what is right & wrong.

The lines in all of this are thin. Frightfully thin. And, yet, day in and day out we are often walking this thin line.

Life can also throw in an additional curveball.

While encouraging you to believe that the choice, and choices, are all yours to make, uhm, it also says don’t be late. In other words, take your time, but hurry up. Life suggests you make your choices wisely, but fast. Let us call this “patient urgency” or maybe even “make haste slowly“. As a consequence of this constant suggestion to hurry up, we tend to lean on past experiences.

Uh oh <part 1>. There is a gap between the actual experience and the memory of the experience. Experience, more often than not, is complex while our memory, more often than not, is simplified into some executive summary of the experience <let’s call it a memory imprint>.

Uh oh <part 2>. There may actually be a gap between the complexities in reality and our ability to realistically experience it. Let’s just say that we tend to view reality heuristically <mainly because of that ‘make your choice but hurry’ thing>, i.e., shortcut thinking. What this means is that we don’t truly see reality, but rather a simplified translation. Unfortunately, this simplified version naturally incorporates some blind spots and lots of mis-perceptions. In other words, we often see what we want to see, not what really is.

<note: there is a boatload of research on this>

Suffice it to say all of this makes Life complicated.

It makes being yourself, while trying to understand who you really are, complicated. And it gets even more complicated by the whole “don’t be late on choices” because it means relying on past experiences and judging off of past outcomes which, unfortunately, none of which are reflective of the here & now choice.

What does this all come down to? Us. In order to survive we recognize our only friend is us and our only enemy is us. We battle against … well … us … as Life looks on and chuckles.

We simplify only to find it is complex.

We seek consistency only to realize ignoring change is actually a threat.

All that said.

I loved the line “come as you are, come as you were.” Day in and day out we change little by little. We come as we are as well as come as we were basically accumulating and deleting day by day. If you think about this, I imagine a relatively intelligent person would start questioning why you would base any choice off of some past experience.

And therein lies the answer to why Life can be such a bitch to live.

Like it or not each choice is mutually exclusive. Each choice has some expiration time <of which is rarely printed on the choice>. In addition. Each choice is influenced by two people – the friend and enemy within you.

Sound fucked up? Well. All you can do is, well, come as you are and make your choice best as you can. Ponder.

===

“If the world isn’t sane, technology will not solve it.”

Jaron Lanier

===

“The new technology mimes the prime procedure of human learning and knowing.”

Marshall McLuhan 1968

===

The title of this piece is a play on Kevin Kelly’s book “What Technology Wants.” The alternative title to this piece was I thought a lot of wrong good things.

When technology first arrived on the scene, particularly in terms of ubiquitous networks, social media, emails, anything internet based, I felt like many problems would be solved, civilization would just get smarter, we would make better societal decisions, and the world would just become a better place. I never believed that everything would be solved and we would attain some utopia, but like many of us, I was envisioning a better world because of this ubiquitous technology. And while many things have improved, and certainly foundationally, we still have the opportunity to significantly improve globally and societally, some things have certainly gone wrong. In many cases very wrong. I’m not sure I got the following things wrong, but I certainly overlooked what could affect the arc of the goodness. So, to paraphrase Marshall Mcluhan, let’s now take a quick tour of the walls knocked over by technology.

The first thing I can point to is money. Somehow, I seem to forget that, well, ideas are usually beneficiary agnostic and typically created with a specific benefit in mind that the people who use them will seek to make money from those ideas. So, inevitably what happens is the sincerely good ideas for society that cannot make somebody significant wealth may not completely go away, but they certainly do not end up at the forefront. Therefore, the other ideas, regardless of whether they’re good for society or not, are wielded as tools of gaining wealth. And as we all know wealth is amoral. It does not care how you attain it. I’m not sure that I’m naïve, or was naïve, I think I felt like technology itself, and maybe even ideas, had more power than humans. I think this point alone should remind all of us that the future really is not about technology, the future is in the heads and the minds of humans.

The second thing I got wrong was most likely driven by the fact that I am not a technology person despite the fact I talk about how technology affects society, humans, progress, and economics. I did know the technology would be subverted into economic endeavors. It made sense to me mostly because I felt like many of the tools that were being developed could navigate the efficacy path and actually improve communication, work and information flow. But, as I pointed out in the first thing, as soon as technology enters into the economic sphere money subverts its use towards, well, money. But that’s not the point of the second thing I was wrong about. I thought that the knowledge evenly distributed, and information evenly distributed, would make the intellectual tide rise higher. And as intellectual tide rose we would, generally speaking, have better sensemaking skills, we would make better choices, and some of the better things for society would just become more obvious to more people. I’m not suggesting that I felt or believed that technology would make democracy ubiquitous across the globe, but I did feel regardless of an individual country’s ideology, within those constructs, better decisions and better choices would be made. The world would not be perfect, but it would certainly be better. My lack of understanding of technology itself and algorithms and what we now call artificial intelligence bit me in the ass on this one. Information was never evenly distributed and, in fact, incorrect information tended to be more amplified and distributed. And, worse, I didn’t recognize incorrect information absorbed would become an attractor for technology to actually feed more incorrect information to anyone who initially absorbed the former. And while I’m a student of Alvin Toffler, and I clearly understood his point of view with regard to cognitive overstimulation, I imagine I did not see his point with true clarity until reality struck. The reality that the ubiquitous information machine was just simply too overwhelming for almost everyone’s brains to cognitively to assimilate in any useful way in addition to the fact technology wasn’t going to help us along the way. I never envisioned technology would step in and amplify a significant number of incredibly crazy stuff which created the cloud over the incredibly non crazy smarter stuff which would have made a better society.

The third thing I missed was how innovation relentlessly pursued incremental consumer quasi-improvements and wants instead of actual needs. Yeah. At the core of this is of course making money. That said. I imagine I focused too much on the potential good things rather than the sheer quantity of the less-than-useful versus not-the-best-but-good. Technology innovations tended to be incremental, asymmetrical, and relentless. Their work was not done in giant leaps, but in relentless, small, almost unnoticeable, increments. Platforms were developed to absorb the onslaught of new technological widgets, but even the platforms became overwhelmed. Maybe that is one of my points. If the technologists were incapable of figuring out how to manage technological innovations, what chance did the everyday human have? As a subset in this was how I didn’t envision the speed of obsolescence. What I mean by that is in the race to get things to market even the really good things technology did and offered became obsolete in the blink of an eye. Because most of the technology was actually incremental it became incredibly easy to make them obsolete with other incremental improvements. This had cascading consequences on both business and people. Business, once they had made a financial commitment, their commitment was for the most part unmoving. Their commitments, for the most part, couldn’t easily absorb the new innovations so they simply, pragmatically, accepted where they were as an improvement from where they had been. They had to accept better, but not the best, all the while wallowing in the anxiety that someone, somewhere, was better. As for people, once they learned something, there was something else they had to learn – at speed. There was no time to develop an integrated routine. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out all of this is good things happening, i.e., truly better technology – with some bad consequences. Asymmetrical adoption, inconsistent application, shifting foundational knowledge, it was almost like quicksand of general cognitive stress and anxiety that we were always behind. My point is while technology has wrought a lot of wrong, the underpinnings are still good, i.e., there is a lot of wheat amongst the chaff.

Still. But. I thought a lot wrong about good things happening.

Still. But. I am actually suggesting my thinking wasn’t wrong about technology, it was more about size and speed. What I mean by that is small things are different than when they are large. A tribe is, well, a tribe, but a mega-city is a mega-city – made up of multiple tribes interacting, cultures within cultures and communities within communities. I forgot social dynamics. This isn’t about complexity, or complicated, or even chaos, this is simple social dynamics. Platforms started for small, like-minded groups. They had some set of shared expectations, but when the ‘small community’ grew past their original audiences into wider audiences, and often at exponential pace, money took over some of the internal ‘scale’ aspects and expectations were subverted and no one had any time to say “hold on a second.” Regardless. Any smaller community will be affected by interaction with the larger community – especially if that larger community spans the globe. Any smaller community will be affected even if they rage against the larger machine because, well, the machine has learned to feed off that rage (Liv Boeree).

===

“The universe has no single secret. It does not even hold a single nest of secrets to which some one study holds the key.”

Mary Midgley

===

Which leads me to what I want from technology (and, hopefully, what we all want).

The only way for “us” to bring about a better future is through some sort of technological humanism.

To make that case — ultimately a case for restraint and more considered progress – we should build an optimistic story of how humanity would use technology to solve problems and thrive and that it can be integral in bringing in about visions of a fairer, more equitable future. I don’t believe technology is “the savior”, but I still believe technology can be integral to a better future.

“Survival now would seem to depend upon the extension of consciousness itself as environment.” Marshall McLuhan 1972

Yeah. I’m writing this and I’m not a technologist, but certainly of a generation that was technological optimistic, curious and ready to implement, with best intentions and some pretty good tactical objectives, some amazing things.

I tend to believe, at that time, most people thought technology was created to solve problems and in solving those problems society and the world would just become better. That didn’t exactly happen and I would argue that somewhere along the way society’s natural inclination for dystopian thinking overcame any quasi-utopian futuristic objectives, i.e., we focused on the bad consequences rather than the good consequences, so that all technology was seen as having a negative effect. As usual, a healthy future is found somewhere in between.

To be clear (part 1). I always, unequivocally, thought move fast and break things was only the harbinger of some unforeseen, but inevitable, doom. To be clear (part 2). I don’t think we are residing in a world of doom, but we certainly haven’t attained the drastically improved society of people living in harmony that many of us envisioned would occur. Part of the issue, as I have noted a number of times in the past, is that many of us were confident a better society would simply emerge. We were wrong. Not that the good parts of society do not exist, but maybe because technology had a nasty habit of over-empowering the more nasty parts of society. Or maybe we never really defined what we thought a better society was nor even offer up a vision to everyone, so that (1) technology overtly created things that would nudge us toward it and (b) show a scenario to society at large that they would incrementally nudge themselves toward somewhere within the 30000 decisions they make daily. This mistake was we treated everything as positively emergent. And in that space, I was wrong. Horribly wrong (a pragmatic business lesson lurks within there).

All that said. I imagine one of my larger points would be that rather than dwelling in the despair and the dystopian view of technology, maybe more of us should take a step back and remember the technology can offer all the positive benefits that we dreamed of at the very very beginning. Technology has never lost its ability to create a better society. Technology has never lost its ability to ensure a smarter, more intelligent, more critical thinking, public. Technology remains an incredibly useful and powerful tool to enable a better society. I say all that despite all the negative things that technology has wrought.

Let’s be clear though. The future does not really reside in technology. The future resides in humans. Decide what we want society to be, what we want civilization to be, how to be able to make people better thinkers, better sensemakers, better choicemakers, is a human choice. I am not suggesting a one worldview. I am not suggesting some global government. All I’m suggesting is that humans can decide what a good human should be. And then we design technology to enable that.

Even with all I have said today, while some technology has created some problems, we clearly are very dependent on the advantages and benefits it has provided. I imagine tucked in all the issues is a truth that the solutions technology provides outweigh the problems it has created. That doesn’t mean we should only focus on the benefits nor does it mean we should focus only on the problems, just that we should maintain some perspective.

Personally, I believe we society people and technology are in the liminal space – possibly the space defined by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock. What I mean by that is all the shock aspects that he outlined are exploding in this time in space that we live in. Or as Czech president Vaclav Havel said:

“It is as if something were crumbling, decaying and exhausting itself – while something else still indistinct were rising from the rubble.”

With that I will end with Marshall McLuhan.

“Perhaps the terrifying thing about the new media for most of us is their inevitable evocation of irrational response. The irrational has become the major dimension of experience in our world. And yet this is a mere byproduct of the instantaneous character in communication. It can be broad under rational control. It is the perfection of the means which has so far defeated the end, and removed the time necessary for assimilation and reflection. We are now compelled to develop new techniques of perception and judgment, new ways of reading the languages of our environment with its multiplicity of cultures and disciplines. In these needs are not just desperate remedies but roads to unimagined cultural enrichment.”

Ah. “Roads to unimagined cultural enrichment.”

I imagine I purposefully end on an optimistic note because in the end I believe technology has the means to offer more good than bad. Ponder.

===

“When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is.”

Oscar Wilde

—-

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Milton Friedman

===

I’ve been meaning to write about the American debt, balancing the budget, taxes and the asshat politicians who screw up the entire conversation. Let me begin by saying government finances are dynamic amorphous beings that live, eat, and breathe and, yet, we essentially simplify (dumb down) everything into some spreadsheet as if there are no humans involved. Suffice it to say effective government finance is most successful when using a combination of austerity and investment. I will discuss both.

Which leads me to say discussing money on a personal level is uncomfortable at best.

Discussing money, and deficits and debt, on a country or government level isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s often absurd. It becomes absurd mostly because the easiest way for everyday schmucks like me to try and understand governmental finances is to conceptually think about it on a household level, i.e., thinking of a government budget & expenditures at kind of a micro level assuming that it translates to the macro level. This conceptual thinking is not only fraught with peril; it is flawed. Because it is flawed the larger dialogue <mostly driven by politicians> becomes useless and more often misdirected. Economists try and explain the complex dynamics within a framework where there are few absolutes. Politicians try and explain it, okay, they don’t. They simply do whatever is needed to gain and stay in power and trot out the simplistic garbage believing that using the household finance analogy will help overcome the vast difference between a country’s finances and the ordinary voter’s household. Let me just say this. while its more complex then kitchen table budgets, the main problem is what people want – lower taxes, lower debt/deficits, more services/growth – is mathematically impossible; and no one will tell the people that.

Its not simple. Complex dynamic systems need complex dynamic solutions. We may seek simplicity. We may suggest we need simplicity. And the reality is only complexity will maintain progress. Solutions will reside in cuts AND spending, cutting government AND adding government**, public investment AND private investment.

• ** note: I believe it was Noah Smith who noted that in order to facilitate infrastructure building and public/private investments so that things get done efficiently with an effective use of funds, specific government expertise is needed.

Which leads me to say the current debt is unsustainable.

We have to do something. This has become exponentially more difficult with the fact there’s been an incredible decline in what I would consider integrative awareness and thinking, which has led to a focus on specific tactics rather than overarching strategies, Combined with a general attitude that enabling business to do whatever they want to make money. That last attitude leans into a slightly absurd or at least misguided belief that business growth and its increased wealth always translates into a fair distribution of that growth and wealth so that it is shared in some form or fashion. Exacerbating all of that is that we don’t have a central vision for what could unify Any tactics which would possibly lower debt and structurally increase the likelihood of shared growth and wealth.

So let me offer up an idea. My idea objective is not to balance the budget, but to actually decrease dependency upon debt and make deficits manageable enough to optimize available resources toward what is best for the United States. With that said:

1. I would adopt some budget reductionary aspects. I hesitate to call this austerity I would prefer to just call it budgetary responsibility. Without knowing all the details one of the first things that the government could do is to access all unspent funds and funding, i.e., claw back money from existing programs. Not truly committed funds, but the ones that have been allocated and are just lying dormant waiting to be spent. Currently several sources suggest there is about $1 trillion of uncommitted funds (please note this # is estimated and there is no solid one source for a number). For example, the recent border wall appropriated funds could have been, as the Biden administration requested, diverted to other priorities or even just cut because they hadn’t been used yet. Or. There is approximately $56billion of COVID funds unused. Or, well, the list is fairly extensive as you would imagine. So existing programs would maintain their current funding budgets and balance sheet surpluses would be defaulted back to the government. In addition to that I would cut some budgets. The easiest way to do that would be to actually run an audit of all programs and just cut waste. My guess would be is that budgets would decrease, but the programs would not. I would begin there and then adjust with the objective to maintain as many of the social support programs as possible.
2. I would I would get rid of the tax cuts that were implemented during the Trump Administration. Just go back to the old tax structure. That would increase some revenue, but would not involve a complete overhaul of the tax system. That said if there was a way to be able to incrementally change the tax system in order to increase revenue without disproportionately affecting lower income and middle-class income; I would do that. Maybe we do need to increase taxes (although I am willing to suggest this is simply by eliminating loopholes so this is really just saying “tax revenue will increase because we will now have those who should be paying taxes pay taxes”), But I believe there are steps to take before deciding to do that.
3. I would do a one time, one year only, tax on the entire population to correct the budget’s original sin. The original sin was not having tax dollars pay for the Iraq War. The upfront cost was $75billion-ish and the total cost was $1.9trillion-ish. Let’s call the one-time tax objective as $950 billion and call it a day. I’m not an economist so I have not run the numbers, but I would imagine something slightly less than 1%, remember, only one year, additional tax on all income tax returns would most likely be sufficient to pay for the costs of the Iraq War therefore lowering debt and deficit I believe.
4. I would do a two year “tax the wealthy” (some economist identify the %) and those funds would not go into the general revenue pot for the government, but rather a specific fund for infrastructure programs (industrial policy items). This two-year tax would be to fund something specific from which the entire nation would benefit – like essential manufacturing for technology and defense – thereby actually benefiting this wealthy class in the long run. But I would have a sunset date, a specific tax, and I would aggressively tax that percentage against all possible participants in this subgroup AND I would permit anyone taxed to be able to monitor/review how funds were being invested.
5. I would also add a line item on tax returns with a small menu of additional tax options which taxpayers could if they elect to opt in to pay additional taxes. I would do this attached to very small percentages possibly even fractions of percentages tied to very specific things and funding. I’ve always believed the majority of philanthropic organizations are at worst scams in a dust inefficient use of money. So, I am suggesting that we make government compete against some of those choices and donations. Do I know if many people would actually choose to increase their taxes? Nope. Do I believe it increases the likelihood some people do if I tie it to a specific funding for a particular thing? Yes do I care that this could decrease funding and donations to some philanthropic like organizations? No. On this last idea I see no downside. We try it and see if it works.

These are ideas to lower debt, but I imagine my intent is to reset the budget rather than try to have a long-term correction. Generally speaking, I do believe America needs to come to grips with a variety of issues which ultimately affect our economic standing, budget spending and allocation. A downsizing, or right sizing, of the government, eliminate some bureaucracy, streamline some of the regulations, and consolidate some different departments. We need to agree that not all debt is created equal and that debt incurred to build is actually debt with an ROI. We need to agree on what the social contract between business, society, and workers is. Certainly, we need to figure out regulation and oversight of the technological world. we need to enable restructuring of corporations (and their balance sheets) so they can become more dynamic, more globally resilient, and set up to collaborate emerge and dissolve and reconfigure continuously according to the flows of value creation that not only benefit the business, but benefit the security of the United States. I imagine in the end I have a slightly utopian hope that a new society, a new government, and a new nation view emerges which develops from new relationships between production, power, humanity, the social contract, and the overall experience of being the United States citizen.

I do believe we need to get a grip on manufacturing. By that I do not mean ‘re-shoring,’ or even cutting all ties with China and certainly do not mean bringing back’ all manufacturing, being isolationist, or disconnect from the transnational, interconnected, global business world. But we do need to insure we have enough manufacturing capability to (a) ensure defense needs in times of supply chain turmoil and (b) enough domestic manufacturing of key items to insure resilience in the midst of global supply chain turmoil. That is suggesting some version of governmental industrial policy, not just invisible hand, free market, wishful thinking for industrial growth due to ‘American exceptionalism’ and entrepreneurship. To make this all work AND to lower debt, we need to actively shape the future we want.

In the end we need all these things.

We do need to spend.

We do need to cut spending.

We need to reduce overall debt.

We need to incur some debt.

We need to cut back on government involvement.

We need to increase government involvement.

We need all of those things.

To be clear, our situation is a confluence of factors and as such the solution will take a combination of factors. And that combination will include some things a lot of people will be really unhappy with. But. Everyone will find something to be unhappy about. That’s the gig, live with it. Ponder.