===========

“Developing the mind is important but developing a conscience is the most precious gift parents can give their children.”

John Gray

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

I just finished an ‘education system and society’ project where I had some PTSD revisiting some of the same issues I encountered when discussing my 2009 online education initiative. I begin where I have always began – the objective of education has never changed. It is to create good effective citizens so essential thinking skills are embedded within their eventual professional focus; by developing minds. I have consistently said, and thought, the education system should stop chasing industrial predictions of what the professional world will look like in the future. I am not alone in that thought. Shit. Toffler warned us to not follow that in 1970. That said. That is almost heresy in an industrialized education system, and an increasingly professional skill reductionist societal mindset, where everything seemingly gets reduced to measurement against ‘useful skills that can be professionally applied.’ To be honest at this point it almost feels like schools from kindergarten through university are structured in ways that students end up less developed than they would be if they spent the equivalent amount of time doing something else. This is not a reflection of poor educational intent, but rather how capitalism theory has been dictated upon the theory of education within capitalist societies. Ultimately this is a reductive ‘human capital’ theory, rather than “mind development”, that has made educational systems just feeders of the economy not a civilized society. Simplistic pragmatism has stripped education of the belief that possibilities and potential is found in what many people deem ‘soft skills’ (thinking, situational awareness, ethical decision-making) rather than ‘hard skills’ (pragmatically doing something). I suggest that while it is not a binary discussion it is those thinking & awareness skills which creates higher value for when you have actually learned a specific skill.

Anyway.

Consistently, one of the biggest debates I have with traditional educators (and, frankly, some boomer type people who suggest we need to go back to some basics in education so that “they”, i.e., youth, can learn the things we learned) is the role of the web and whether it can educate properly. I find this all a bit ironic in that these same people focus less on developing thinking minds and focus more on pragmatic thinking minds where online pragmatic youtube skills channels are incredibly effective.

We need to ignore existing paradigms and focus on the best ideas.

Yes. That ‘ignoring existing paradigms’ philosophy sucks if you are in the existing education system but developing a new education model means working backwards from whom you are educating.

Which leads me to the people at The Fischler School of Education and Human Services at Nova Southeastern University.

1. According to a 2008 Pew report, 97% of American teens aged 12-17 play computer, console, or cell phone games, and three-fourths of these teens play them with others at least some of the time (Lenhart et al. 2008).

2. 93% use the Internet, 61% go online daily, and 51% create content that others can view online (Lenhart et al. 2007).

3. Eleven million students under the age of 18 use MySpace (Owyang 2008).

4. The site myYearbook, a social networking site created specifically for 12- to 17-year-olds, boasts 7 million members (Loten 2008). In short, many, perhaps even most, of the current generation of learners are enmeshed in connective technologies.

5. The environment and culture in which people grow up affect their thought processes and that cognitive processes are far more malleable than previously assumed. Evidence provided by magnetoencephalographic (MEG) imaging suggests that structural rewiring of the brain “can and does occur via experience” (O’Boyle and Gill 1998, 406). Interactive and interpersonal applications of digital technology shape the social and cognitive development of those who use them (Shumar and Renninger 2002). Oblinger (2004) claims that “constant exposure to the Internet and other digital media has shaped how [students] receive information and how they learn” (“Abstract,” 1). Some of these changes include “the development of a new type of multimedia or information literacy” which “parallels other shifts in how we approach learning such as of moving from an environment of being told or authority-based learning to one based on discovery or experiential learning” (“4. How People Learn,” 7).

6. Students “tend toward teamwork, experiential activities . . . and the use of technology. Their strengths include multitasking, goal orientation, . . . and a collaborative style” (“2. Changes in Students,” 1).

7. New societal patterns produce new educational paradigms that too frequently completely discard the old.

8. Students engage their social-connectedness schema in a set of behaviors that I describe as “link, lurk, and lunge”: Students link up with others who have the knowledge they need; they lurk, watching others who know how do to what they want to do; and they lunge, jumping in to try new things often without seeking guidance beforehand (Brown 2000).

9. Students’ social-connectedness schema underlies their ability to create and sustain physical, virtual, and hybrid social networks (Oblinger and Oblinger 2005).

10. Today’s students “do not just think about different things, they actually think differently” (Prensky 2001, 42).

11. Reigeluth (1999) argues, “when a human-activity system (or societal system) changes in significant ways, its subsystems must change in equally significant ways” (16).

12. Education theory must change to accommodate new developments in the way students learn and access information.

Source: This article was originally published in Innovate as: Sontag, M. 2009. A learning theory for 21st-century students. The article is a reprint of the original publisher, The Fischler School of Education and Human Services at Nova Southeastern University.

While the information is dated, it remains directionally true. So If we use this information and think about an education redesign what kind of outcome can we expect?

Well. Let me use something the Singapore Ministry of Education has written and created.

If you buy into all of this, well, you then begin leaning into the thought that knowledge and skills must be underpinned by values which help define a person’s character. They shape the beliefs, attitudes and actions of a person, and therefore form the core of the framework of competencies.

The middle ring signifies the Social and Emotional Competencies—skills necessary for children to recognize and manage their emotions, develop care and concern for others, make responsible decisions, establish positive relationships, as well as to handle challenging situations effectively.

The outer ring of the framework represents the 21st century skills necessary for the globalized world we live in. These are:

• Civic literacy, global awareness and cross-cultural skills
• Critical and inventive thinking
• Information and communication skills

Why do I think this matters?

Well. we are in this weird spot where we are being encourage do think that people who go to an Ivy League school, or an equivalent, are less worthy to not only talk to but listen to. Please note, that is nuts. I am not a huge fan of ‘elite schools’, yet, most of these elite schools are simply the highest forms of vocational training – not thinking. And that is where higher education gets caught between being beneficial and being not. Elite schools train practitioner-based leaders, not thinkers. They foster holders of power, not critics of power or even critics of existing systems that uphold power structures. They have a nasty habit of not encouraging an independent mind or an independent thinker (challenging the systems within which people work) or a mind independent of allegiances to the existing institutional power structure. That is where education’s outcomes get killed in the public perception mindset (and it should). An independent thinker thinks of exploring while the practitioner-trained leader seeks to harvest existing fields, i.e., simply squeezing more out of an existing system.

I believe if we want to change education we should let learning occur through individual pursuit, not always ‘from-the-top’ dictate. I also believe business should be designed this way so it all actually ends up in sinc with a larger ‘optimizing professional potential’ objective. That said. I would argue the biggest obstacle to attempting this youth education redesign is adult’s unhealthy love of symmetry & “well rounded education”. My view is to encourage asymmetrical learning. Why? Emergent learning begets exponential learning, not additive learning. That is my Tedtalk in a nutshell. I will note that in order to achieve this it will take a blend of online and face-to-face (as noted in my 2009 initiative – online supported by face to face – or this 2023 piece on blended learning).

Which leads me to we should stop talking about free college or even college at all.

College is a tactic in developing minds, let’s talk strategies. It was around 1900 that the United States made highly (essentially) universal. Industrialized education or not, it created an entire generation with a strong foundation of knowledge. I could argue this was ‘structural value creation’ for society and business. To me the key to the future of, well, everything, is not college education, but youth education. How do we reinvest our energies and focus on the young – equally – so that there is a foundation of critical thinking and knowledge from which the future can be leveraged from. And while I purposefully put ‘critical thinking’ I’d like to be clear that there needs to be a reemphasis on math and science. We need to ditch the ‘right brain/left brain myth’ <which, in my mind, is where things began to truly unravel at the youth education level because it applied some pseudoscience to an already industrialized education system> and grasp the fact that philosophers and ‘creative thinkers’ are better if they understand math and engineers and plumbers (who really are a version of an engineer) are better if they understand arts. To agree with me you almost have to agree that progress is nonlinear, in other words, ‘new work’ is often unplanned outgrowth of innovative thinking. And, if you do, then it behooves the working population to certainly learn a skill, but having reached that skill bringing to bear a broader scope of knowledge and learning to that skill then simply that skill’s particular knowledge stream. Well. That’s what I think. Ponder.

===

“You spend your whole life stuck in the labyrinth, thinking about how you’ll escape it one day, and how awesome it will be, and imagining that future keeps you going, but you never do it.

You just use the future to escape the present.”

Looking for Alaska; John Green

===

Let me see. What can I talk about today. Whole life stuck in the labyrinth of crappy work life? Constantly using future to escape the present crappy situation? Imagining a future but never really doing what is needed to do it? Shit. So many choices, so little time.

I begin there because anyone reading this should think about this quote for awhile (and try not to cry).

So let’s go with using the future to escape the present.

Using the phrase “using the future to escape the present” generally refers to the concept of focusing on or relying on future possibilities, outcomes, or plans as a way to cope with or avoid dealing with current challenges, responsibilities, or issues. It’s a mindset where a person may prioritize imagining a better future instead of addressing their current reality. That said. Let me begin with the positive shit. It might mean using the vision of a better future as a source of motivation and hope during challenging times. This can be a healthy way to cope with difficulties, as long as it doesn’t lead to neglecting the present entirely. It’s kind of a version of Churchill’s ‘if you are in hell, keep going.’ As long as your future horizon incorporates some planning to get there, well, that can be a proactive approach to getting out of where you are and to a more fulfilling place in your life.

The good stuff is easy to see and, well, that’s it for the good stuff. Most of us who use the future to escape the present do it for the wrong reasons. And business is fraught with this stuff. Most of the time we do it to ignore reality. It’s kind of like wishful thinking in order to ignore the difficult realities in the present. I call it living in fantasyland.

So let’s visit fantasyland.

Fantasyland is a minefield of potential dangers and negative consequences. In fantasyland we use future goals and possibilities to provide motivation and hope but then we use that motivation and hope to disregard the present reality. It leads to these common shitty rabbit holes.

• Neglecting Responsibilities: your current responsibilities, tasks, and commitments become less important than future ones. For some reason the future ‘opportunity’ takes on a higher value in our head than any missed present value opportunities. This is nuts.
• Escapism: we use the future to escape crappy work situations including a crappy work environment. Unfortunately, you cannot escape crap. Crap will hunt you down in the present while you are seeking escape in the future.
• Missed Opportunities: as noted in point one, opportunities in the present are the pragmatic traction points for growth and success. Period. No debate. Look ahead too far and you will never see what is right in front of you.
• Unresolved Issues: avoiding present challenges only allows them to snowball. Yeah. You may think you can outrun them by finding some future escape hatch, but you will not and cannot. Unresolved issue are faster than you and sneakier than you and anything left unresolved NEVER goes away all by itself. I believe that is a business postulate.

Look. If we are honest, we have to balance the focus between the future and the present. While having aspirations and goals for the future is healthy, it’s equally important to engage with reality. The good news is that acknowledging and embracing the present can lead to more meaningful experiences, personal growth, and a better overall quality of life. As a corollary, if you don’t embrace the present in some form or fashion you will inevitably feel disconnected. What’s worse, though, is that learning comes from actively engaging with the current circumstances. Ignoring the present can prevent you from learning from challenges and setbacks, hindering personal growth.

In summary, the phrase “using the future to escape the present” can encompass both positive and negative aspects, ranging from drawing motivation from future prospects to avoiding responsibilities or challenges in the present moment. But I would suggest in most situations it is a negative because we do it for the wrong reasons. Don’t believe me? Look around your business. Ponder.

======

“Whatever choice you make, The Devil gets his due eventually.”

Hugh McLeod

==

Life is neither balanced or proportional and neither is it, generally speaking, fair or unfair. Life just is what it is which is, well, indifferent. I sometimes believe its good to remind ourselves of that because we give both successes and failures just a bit more emphasis then they most likely deserve. What I mean by that is successes encourage us to believe more successes are on the horizon and failures encourage us to believe more failures are on the horizon. All, and none, of that is true.

What I do know to be true is that if you don’t keep moving, Life will run you over.

What I mean by that is you can make the greatest decision in the world and if you stop too long to enjoy the moment … well … the devil <who apparently never rests> will recognize that moment as an opportunity to fuck with you.

I imagine the bigger message the Devil offers is be prepared for “what’s next” as soon as you have finished whatever it is you just did.

I am not sure what that says about Hell.

Does that mean we live in Hell in that we can never rest? Does it mean Hell resides in some place which awaits your moment of stillness to step in front of you?

Hell. I don’t know. All I really know is there is hell to pay no matter what you do so you may as well do something and do something you want to do. Ponder.

===

“I lived according to the prevailing myth. Everyone lives by myths.

Prettied up they are called truths … basic truths, natural truths, self-evident truths. What I knew or thought a year ago is beside the point. The problem is today. Even if the past was a lie, what am I supposed to replace it with? Another lie? All that’s necessary is to pull the old one out and put a new one in like a circuit board?

Inspector O

=====

“The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.”

Robert Heinlein

===

“If no one knows anything, then why can’t I know something?”

Bruce McTague

===

Well. I am sure we have all experienced it. Sitting around with friends, maybe at the corner of the bar, bitching about the world and talking about what we would do to fix it. At that table and at that time we can solve everything that the experts, the leaders, the grand decision makers, seem to struggle solving.

Most of the time, if we are honest with ourselves, we dumb it down to some simplistic surface conclusion which sometimes is partially right.

Most of the time we apply a ‘common sense’ filter which, if we are honest with ourselves, does not really reflect the complexity of reality.

Most of the time, if we are honest with ourselves, more often than not we are wrong.

Its not that we aren’t smart, it just may be we are a little intellectually lazy. Ok. Maybe we just don’t know enough or have enough experience. But … whew … in the moment … in the discussion and debate and obvious commons sense, we could run the world, the country and the biggest business ventures out there. It is a fun moment. And we feel smart and, more importantly, we feel as if we could do whatever it is as well as the person who is doing it. For a moment we look around at all the Harvard MBAs and all the policy experts and all the high falutin’ experts and we are as good and as smart as they are.

Sigh.

But we are not.

It may seem like it. But we are not. Yet, when sitting at the corner of the bar, every Steve, Sarah, Sue and Sam thinks that they are.

I actually believe this belief is driven by a version of the 80/20 guide. Assuming you are fairly worldly, fairly well informed and fairly enlightened, you probably get 80% of it right. And, boy, that 80% feels good. It may even feel “right enough.” But, in general, its just 80% right, i.e., not good enough. And that is the difference between an amateur and a professional or an expert. That 20%.

Sure. Some would argue it is simply the nuance, but in most of the larger more grand problems and issues we face it is that 20% that makes something go incredibly right or incredibly wrong.

Most of us are not capable of that 20%.

Realistically the last time everyone possessed the same skills in a society to participate within a leadership role at 100% equal was maybe several millennia ago when humankind was in the hunter/gatherer era. Once we evolved into larger social groupings, inevitably creating cities and population clusters where some people had to make decisions for the greater good of the whole, some people naturally evolved into governors and governing <leadership> and the expertise needed to assume those responsibilities. And while we can bitch & moan about the ineptness of leadership, in general, leaders decide on the big shit and others decide on the little shit and the world is relatively navigable. But, yeah, that ‘navigable’ aspect is annoyingly more difficult than we want, believe it should be, and in being that way we everyday schmucks get confused and believe we would be smarter, if not as smart, as people in the positions of leadership.

Which leads me to suggest part of the problem is the problems themselves.

As we discuss country issues, we discuss natural contradictions within a complex world <both domestic & international is important> as well as the fact the American people often embrace contradictory goals <just wander through any PewResearch report to confirm that thought>. The reality is most of the things we discuss have multiple objectives and everything being done is an attempt to harness a complex mix of constantly moving parts and pieces to attain those objectives. And. Many of the parts and pieces may appear to contradictory. At the corner of the bar more often than not we ignore the contradictory challenges with more simplistic solutions for what would be great <under the guise of common-sense actions or ‘seems to make sense on the surface’ attitudes>. The solutions we tend to gravitate toward are, well, pretty useless. Patriotism, exceptionalism, nationalism, or all simplistic vague hat stands to place our hats on. And if you are not careful it can all take on a harsh insular ‘past driven’ edge to a much grander ‘future possibilities’ thought. But all of them do not really offer solutions, just an umbrella for everyone to stand under in the monsoon of contradictory issues. To be fair. We all want common sense to solve all problems and we all want to blame someone for the specific problems we see and institutions, government and experts are easy targets because its simpler to suggest they do not have common sense (like we do). Its simpler to blame than to acknowledge some of the problems we suggest are simple are actually just an unfortunate outcome of a very complex systemic issue far beyond any common sense solutioning.

Which leads me to suggest gravitating to the simple, and simplistic, is a natural human instinct.

Complexity brings out the emotional in us everyday schmucks, not the rational. Yeah. I just said that. At the corner of the bar, we more often than not rule our thoughts based on passion supported by some dubious reasoning. The experts reverse the equation ignoring/limiting passionate response <fear, individualism, anger> and basing ideas & solutions on solid reasoning and rational thought <and things called “laws”>. And while we at the corner of the bar sometimes shake our heads wondering what common sense <or lack thereof> created some laws, we accept they are laws (even Laws of Physics which are unfathomable to most of us). Experts tend to use laws as vague outlines within which nearing ‘the law boundary’ is actually a caution rather than a green light. At the corner of the bar most discussions dance on the superficial surface of “it is legal” or “it is not legal” (or its possible versus impossible). But let’s be honest. The neighborhood bar is in … well … the neighborhood. It is where we kibbitz over non neighborhood things. In general, we take a fairly ridiculously narrow view of how the world works. We have ridiculously simplistic and faulty view. If you open up some of your ‘strongly held loose opinions’ you not only realize that most of our social intellect, and the political rhetoric in general, is sadly lacking and even slightly embarrassing and that those of us sitting at the corner of the bar may not be stupid, but there are a shitload of really smart people discussing these topics. Basically, most of us struggle with globalization and nationalism. It’s not that we do not want either or reject one over the other, it is that we struggle to see, feel and understand the balance. One expert called this uneasiness we feel ‘casual collapse.’ It is the seemingly ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that define specific societies and us.   And we feel a little helpless in stopping this ‘casual collapse’ because of that darn thing called ‘the internet’ <the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge> and the ubiquity of globalization  Now.  All this is happening without causing any particular larger collapse of anything. It is just a casual collapse of things as they used to be. And it is happening despite any government edicts or programs designed to slow the change <collapse> or older generations tied to some past cultural aspects efforts. It is an inevitable collapse driven by the fact as everyone becomes more knowledgeable about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world and they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking where they are.

It becomes a blending of local cultural thinking and a more global perspective. To be honest. It can be equally exciting and uncomfortable. Someone can equally want to hold on tightly to one beloved ritual/thought and grab onto a new ritual/thought. And this is happening in 300 million someones and 8 billion someones simultaneously. As people are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions, rituals and experiences, their tolerance to alternative thinking and behavior grows – as does their interest & attitudes.

Generally speaking, the internet simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally.

I am certainly not suggesting this happens overnight. As trendwatching suggested: “compared to much trend thinking, casual collapse moves at a glacial pace.” That said. Whether we like it or not globalization has forced the world to be at odds with itself. We are not a world of countries and states living in solitude, but rather one in which we overlap, linked and delinked, by varying degrees of history, culture, religion, language, location, ideas and institutions.

This causes a natural reaction against a sense of uniformity.

And therein lies the greater conflict – while economic life takes place on a global platform; human identity remains national and local. Yeah. The identification of local <and nationalism> will always continue and will always create the same angst we feel at the corner of the bar as we watch the zillion TV’s typically sitting in the bar suggesting globalization is infringing upon our corner of the bar.

And even global economic growth infringes upon our national identification.

What do I mean? Economics depends on education and communication which leads directly to conflicts over language and comparisons over education levels. All the while a global economic view encourages everyone to believe the world is their oyster – anyone can aspire to any economic position. The reality is that everyone does not have an equal likelihood of upward economic mobility <locally, nationally or globally> even though each individual has different innate capabilities which SHOULD translate into equal opportunity.

I say that to follow it with at the corner of the bar, we need not worry nor address the balance … we focus on what we need and what we want – not necessarily the greater good. That doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge, and give a head nod, to other people’s anguish or some aspects of inequities, just that attempting to incorporate it into our bar wisdom is a level of complexity beyond the typical cocktail fed brain.

All that said. The one thing we common everyday schmucks can certainly do really well at the corner of the bar is to analyze the present and embrace some of the past. Unfortunately we suck at envisioning the future. In fact, I could argue that our optimal corner of the bar wisdom is directed toward critiques of past decisions and present issues (as we think they are). But none of our ‘wise solutions’ are likely to be effective in a future yet to be written, in a world that is anything but simple, in a world where society is often uneven, in a world where local societies and communities overlap with a global society, in a world burdened by public institutions seemingly incapable of navigating local and international needs. As a consequence of the overwhelming complexity the minds turn to the tried and true simplistic divide versus unite, us versus them, common sense versus expert sense, because it is easier to solve a part rather than a complex whole.

And that is where most of us at the corner of the bar truly fall short.

…. typical plan ….

The big country and global issues have similar objectives: enriching people, minds, bodies and attitudes. Yeah. A pretty difficult task.

It is a complex task.

It requires the best of everyone, the best of civilizations and the best of leadership & thinking … not emphasizing the differences, but reinforcing the common objective and leaning into the greater messy connectivity from which anything good emerges from.

Look.

A country, a culture, a society is a messy creature.

A country can be kind and generous as well as cruel and coldblooded as they pick their way through the naturally messy, dynamic, always shifting, chaotic world.

The United States clearly has the capacity to influence which future is most likely. However, for anyone to predict the future confidently, would be highly incautious or naïve if not just a simplistic fool.

Globalization is not a simplistic concept.

Nationalism is not a simplistic concept.

Being a president, or any leader of a significant organization, is not a simplistic concept.

All leadership positions demand navigating complexity. That said. Inevitably leading is not just about hope or promising something better, it is a pragmatic pushing of opportunity to the people who need it the most and want it the most <thereby maximizing what opportunities do exist> and removing obstacles to possibilities. The truth is that opportunities and possibilities abound. In fact. There may actually be more opportunity in the world than problems <but you would never know it by watching the TV at the corner of the bar>.

Which leads me to mainstream corner of the bar wisdom.

A hundred and fifty years ago, I could imagine looking up at the stars, knowing It was unknowable to me and I knew I wasn’t smart enough to figure it out. But in today’s world where I have no idea how my mobile phone or the internet work <or my car, television, or microwave, or … whatever> everything seems so unknowable and, yet, using them makes amateurish expert wisdom actually seem, uhm, attainable.

In other words. If no one knows anything, then why can’t I know something?

It is that thought which appears to have left the corner of the bar and has now appeared in coffee shops, kitchens, townhalls, school meetings and, well, everywhere. The corner of the bar discussions, which typically have devolved into the simplistic with solutions that skate on the superficial surface of reality, are now mainstream “intelligent common sense” thoughts.

That’s nuts.

And its crazy bad for society and the world.

We should not, and cannot, devolve into a world where there are no experts or believe that experts don’t know more than we do. We need to stop destroying the experts. Simply being an expert doesn’t mean ‘perfection’ – not making mistakes or being wrong <because that would predicate they could actually tell the future>, but they have an exponentially higher chance of solving the most complex issues than any of us everyday schmucks. But let’s be honest. We want people smarter than us – yahoos just sitting at the corner of the bar – making the really important decisions.

Well. I certainly do.

Ponder.

===

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct. Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something. You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.”

Brian Cox

–

“Not adding value is the same as taking it away.”

Seth Godin

–

“Truth has two main problems. Truth tends to be complicated and truth tends to be painful.”

==

• Opening note/warning: let me be clear that what I am suggesting today is simply representative of business as it exists today, not how business should exist. Soe part may be maddening to those who, like me, who believe in fostering emergent, dynamic, generalist-skewed, organizational behavior. Just imagine how maddening parts of this were just in typing.

Value-extracting creates nothing new: it simply moves money around. It does not grow the economy, it does not lead to innovation, and it contributes to greater inequality. Well. That is certainly one vein of wisdom. But let’s talk about an uncomfortable version of value extraction. Yeah. We talk in business about value creation all the time. Maybe we should talk about value extraction just a bit more. Why? Because a lot of business is extracting value and ideas and thoughts from semi-formed value, ideas and thoughts in the people around you. Oh. And to exploit those extractions. Yeah. I just said that. That sounds bad, doesn’t it”? Let me explain. The business world is, and has been, a specialized world for a while. Decades and decades of ‘specialize to optimize your career’ has wrought a world of, well, specialists. And because business is business, they have tripled down on that specialization encouraging people to invest their outside energy honing that specialization and honing their ‘productivity skills’ surrounding that specialization. As a consequence, that means the business world is strewn with specialists who really aren’t adept at offering value, and value creation, ideas beyond their constrained specialist zone. I am not suggesting that zone cannot be deep and valuable, just that it isn’t particularly broad and valuable in a larger scope. Given what I just said, a minority of good business people are good at plucking out the ideas, thoughts, skills from the people around them. Uhm. Extracting and exploiting.

Which leads me to best practices.

Best practices extract value. Yeah. I just said that. Let me slice this two ways. It extracts value potential in a creation standpoint (bad) and it extracts value from those involved in the process (semi-good). The latter is actually the real reason leaders love process. It extracts replicable value, not optimal value, from the organization. But let’s be clear, management loves to use best practices to extract value and exploit worker “time”. Once again, a significant portion of this comes back to that specialization thing. Business has this weird belief that if you reduce everything it will expand, well, something (I am unclear what). Anyway. I am not anti-process, but using process TO extract is wrongheaded. Process should be a baseline ‘way to work’ so that workers have an opportunity to think and create the shit that an ‘extractor’ will be scanning for.

Which leads me to technology.

Here is the weird thing. Much of what technology offers business, at least as implemented, extracts from value. Its weird because we should be seeking, relentlessly I may add, to use business as a value creator. Anyway. Technology gets you both coming and going. Coming in it extracts effectiveness because for the most part people are asked to fit to technology rather than technology augmenting people. Going technology gets you with technical debt which inevitably clogs up any chance of increasing value. That said. Let’s get back to the uncomfortable part. Technology, used well, can extract the value from the minds of people. Some people may suggest this is augmenting people. Shit. I am a proponent of technology crafted to augment people. But for today I am discussing pure and simple extraction. While much of digital transformation is useless in terms of expenditures and effectiveness, there are many technological tools available to isolate individual’s who have the knowledge, wisdom, skills and thoughts that can be extracted from the organizational machine and incorporated into the larger value creation machine. It may sound creepy to say that but, what the hell, if I am going to infringe n people’s privacy I may as well figure out how to do so in a way that permits the individual to contribute beyond their specific skill cage.

Which leads me to how technology could augment positive extraction.

Within the next decade we ought to develop tools that would allow us to interact not only with information, but also with simulations and predicted futures, concepts, that might emerge depending on the dynamic marketplace and the choices we might make to exploit the market opportunities. It would be silly to ignore the fact technology offers the best opportunity to do this. knowledge graphs, AI which analyzes computer usage, LLMs which pluck out individuals for the extractors to go seek out. There are a number of semi-creepy ways to extract and exploit – in the interest of generating business value.

Which leads me to ‘culture fit’.

Oddly, or maybe paradoxically, hiring for culture is counter to value extraction. Yeah. Culture fit extracts value potential from the organization which means if you are scanning about seeking to extract dormant value you will see less and less to extract. It becomes a reductionary universe in which ideas and thoughts inevitably get smaller and smaller and incremental value creation gets smaller and smaller. Circling back to the thought that part of today’s business world is actually figuring out how to extract valuable thoughts and ideas from an organization, culture fit makes that more difficult. Culture fit will tend to emphasize not only similar thinking but emphasize specialization. Uhm. Both reduce the possibilities for larger value creation thinking, thoughts and ideas.

In the end.

I know it sounds horrible to speak about extract and exploit in some semi-positive way, but it is kinda true in today’s business world. In order to maximize the potential in an organization you almost are forced to put people in a room that on the surface seem more a pain in the ass than a valuable contributor and, well, set out to extract from their strengths in order to exploit the knowledge to the benefit of the business. Ponder.

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

“The worst thing about falling to pieces is that humans can do it so quietly.”

inkskinned tumblr

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

“The loneliest moment in someone’s life is when they are watching their whole world fall apart, and all they can do is stare blankly.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

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

Well.

Stark.

That is what I felt when I put these two quotes together for the first time.

Starkly absent of cynicism, pessimism or optimism.

Just stark.

Stripped of any hues of Life.

That’s what I felt.

Shit.

I then sat back and said “whew, if I felt that … imagine how someone feels who actually writes these things.”

And maybe that is my point.

Most of us can only imagine how this starkness feels.

Most of us, at our worst, get only a glimpse of this starkness.

And, even then our stark is most likely not this stark.

Now, this kind of starkness doesn’t usually ‘just appear.’ In fact I would suggest this type of stark is an outcome of humans falling to pieces incredibly quietly.

I do know that starkness is difficult to express to someone who has never seen starkness.

I do know that there are most likely more people who, on the outside, are holding their shit together so well that most of us don’t even think to offer a ‘are you doing okay’ question.

I do know there are far more people who so quietly are falling apart than we believe.

So here’s the deal.

Falling apart is falling apart. What I mean by that is everything, and I mean everything, that falls apart makes some sound. You just have to listen closely enough to hear it.

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

No, now you’ve got me interested, I want to know

exactly what seems wrong to you, how something could

seem wrong to you. In what way do things get to be wrong?

John Ashbery

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

Yeah. But. You have to listen closely for the sound one makes when they fall to pieces quietly.

It may be just a whisper of a sound. You may even confuse it for the rustle of falling leaves.

But.

Quietly or not, as the pieces fall apart, they make a sound.

You just have to listen closely.

This gets even trickier. Let me go back to my ‘stark’ opening. If you have never truly experienced stark, it is difficult to see this kind of starkness.

Sure.

You may get a sense of ‘something wrong’, but far too often we skate along the superficial surface of ‘something wrong’ assuming lack of depth or “not any starker than we have ever seen” and … well … we miss the true starkness.

My point?

What may sound like the rustle of some dead leaves on the ground may actually be the sound of some starkness we cannot even imagine.

The recognition of the true sound demands you take an interest in what is happening in the people’s lives around you. I am not suggesting empathy or compassion, just interest. By the way, what differentiates humans from other species isn’t opposable thumbs or the size of our brains, but rather compassion and an interest in humans – interest as in doing better, being better and just having a better life <and helping people be better if they are not>.

While, of course, we want it to be better for ourselves, we also don’t want it to suck for others. And we certainly don’t want anyone to have such a stark existence that their Life retains no color or, worse, no hope.

The difficulty in fulfilling this inner innate characteristic of ‘interest in others’ is the outer irate characteristic of Life. The outer is always angrily demanding you to focus on it and not the other humans occupying Life. This may not be selfishness, but it is often more self interest in a zero sum game world <where you bolt on a belief everyone is accountable for themselves and how they think>.

Look.

I am not suggesting running around listening to everyone’s whispers looking to save everyone.

I would suggest that the two quotes I used reminded me that saving a human, even just one, can sometimes be enough.

Just listen closely. The world can be really, really, noisy and falling apart can be really, really, quiet.

Yeah.

Humans can fall to pieces so quietly. And no human, even someone we really do not like much, deserves to have such a stark existence that, well, they can only stare blankly at their Life falling apart.

Ponder.

===

“Being covertly spiteful with the intent of inflicting mental pain.”
Ashta-Deb

===

I get asked for my thoughts all the time.

Literally.

All.

The.

Time.

I would say about 75% of the time I’m asked in good faith. What I mean by that is these 75% genuinely looking to improve or augment what they already think that they know. I thought about this for two reasons. The first was a recent piece JP Castlin offered where he discussed giving second opinions in business. Basically, it came down to fundamentals and the fact somebody who is offering the second opinion should be asking about assumptions rather than giving an opinion on a decision. That’s a truth I believe overlooked by far too many people who are either asked for thoughts or just give thoughts without being asked. The second reason is that other 25%. Yeah. The 25% who asked for thoughts in a passive aggressive way. What do I mean by that? You get forwarded an article, a thought piece, an image, and the only thing that’s attached to it is either ‘what do you think?’ or just the word ‘thoughts?’. It’s a trap. Let me just tell everyone who’s reading this; it’s a trap. And worse it’s a passive aggressive trap. The asker does not really want your thoughts, what they want to do is to tell you their thoughts and what you are missing and where you are wrong. Let me be clear. I love to hear other people’s thoughts, I love to hear if I actually miss something, and I love to be wrong, because every time any one of those three things happens I’m learning something new. But that’s not what is happening here in the passive aggressive situation. You are purposefully being asked in a way because they know, in general, you are gonna offer an answer or offer some thoughts or offer an idea which is going to be counter in some significant way or ‘a way’ that they’re gonna be able to make their point from what they already believe. Its passive aggressive, it’s annoying. However. It is indicative of an unfortunately large swath of people.

Which leads me to the underpinning issue of passive aggressive questioning.

So, yeah, well it would be easy to just call that 25% assholes but the reality is that they are representative of a larger societal issue. To be clear my 25% will have an incredibly high likelihood of having a high level of business experience, a broad level of business experience, and college education. I say that in combination with the word representative because if this 25% has the characteristics of what I would consider a shallow intellectual depth, on a larger scale there will be more of them. The underpinning is far too many people have rejected the discipline of the mind, of critical thinking, and the ability to be able to reexamine their beliefs and opinions. But they are sneaky in their lack of discipline. Sneaky in that they absorb external information, so they appear to be assimilating it into morphing views and attitudes. but they sift through all this information plucking out the proof points for their existing beliefs AND highlighting the things that make opposing views seem “absurd”. **

• ** note: those things are typically (a) without context or (b) reflective of some random event).

So, while they view trends and developments in the external world -economy, technology, social, culture – and they state they are important to follow, they don’t really allow it to directly or indirectly impact their views. They are really only observers of knowledge and not participating thereby not experiencing the connections and correlations which would create the traction for wisdom.  While they may seem to have an open mindset they actually have a more traditional mindset where they “feel” beliefs and focus primarily on the things that support their views rather than spending the time that they are watching the external world using it to inform their views. This was actually outlined by Philip Tetlock:

“Regardless of what side of the social intellect scale you reside on what you think isn’t really based on the level of Education or even actual experience instead it comes down to the way someone thinks. The ones who typically do amazingly badly with regard to how they think about things were those who believed that there was a big idea which explained everything world was simple and could be understood simply and that they could just stamp their big idea unto every situation. The ones who do well thinking through things were those who had no such big idea, who regarded the world as complex took their information from many different sources and were willing to be self critical and learn from mistakes. The key inevitably comes down to checking whether you were right or wrong. And even that is tricky because the majority of people seek out proof for what they predicted or thought rather than broad based information to check against it.”

I believe it was Jonathan Haidt who said when we are presented with evidence for or against a hypothesis, we ask ourselves one of two questions.

• When we want to believe something, we ask ourselves “can I believe it?” Then we search for supporting evidence and if we find even a single piece of pseudo evidence we can stop thinking. We now have permission to believe.
• When we don’t want to believe something, we ask ourselves “must I believe it?” Then we search for contrary evidence and if we find a single reason to doubt the claim, we can dismiss it.

I believe this is called motivated credulity and motivated skepticism.

The incredibly sad thing is by rejecting the discipline of the mind people are corrupting the one tool which elevated us everyday schmucks to some intellectual rigor of thought. This rejection inevitably creates an almost purposeful disregard for common knowledge replacing it with the oft mis-placed and oft-misused common sense. If we are truly honest, a significant swath of society lacks the penetrating critical intellect needed to pierce some of the complex issues we face hiding behind “common sense.” A complex world increases a craving for a simplicity, for something to follow, and it chases anyone who feeds into the desire for simplicity with hollow simplistic rhetoric. The urge to chase is encouraged if there is an overall disenchantment with the culture of the country – decline of national spirit, disappointment in idealism defeated by some institutional realism and materialism in business. All only encourages people to double down on the accumulated burden of ideas and attitudes over a lifetime, and the growing up experience, which consequently very few people will ever get around even to questioning. We all grow up in the context of certain ideas, which create some attitudes and beliefs, and it is difficult for us to shake free of them. I admit all of that, I acknowledge all of that, but there are a shitload of people who do not. and, relevant to this piece, it seems like the more educated, and more experienced, the 25% passive aggressive asshats are, the less likely they are to see themselves in anything I have written. And that, my friends, is indicative of an unfortunately large swath of people in the world today. Ponder.

===

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

===

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

Margaret Mead

===

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

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

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

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

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

Which leads me to greatness.

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

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

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

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

Which leads me to the shifting baseline.

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

This phenomenon, known as “shifting baseline syndrome.”

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

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

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

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

Which leads me to renormalizing norms.

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

===

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

James Gleick

===

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

Henry Miller

—-

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

Yup.

I just said that.

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

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

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

===

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

Mary Shelley

===

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

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

Shit. Efficiency is not the holy grail.

The holy grail is ideas, experiences, and thoughts.

Efficiency tends to grind those three things down to dust.

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

Maybe that’s it.

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

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

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

Which leads me to end with Jevon’s Paradox.

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

===

“the ends justifies the means”.

motto of the Illuminati

===

“Money decides how it wants to live.”

Ryan Gravel, City Designer

===

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

John Maynard Keynes

===

perfectibilist

<The Century Dictionary>

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

===

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

But then there is the small group gathering underbelly.

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

Which leads me to the Illuminati.

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

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

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

Which leads me to perfectibilist.

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

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

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

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

Harold Laski

====

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

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

Josh Tetrick

===

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

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

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

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

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

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

“winning”

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

“money”

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

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

William James

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

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

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