=====

Pro Humanitate

“For Humanity”

====

“Pro Humanitate calls us to consider what we are as human beings and what constitutes genuine human flourishing.”

James Powell, Wake Forest University

====

This is about the interconnectedness between intentionality and existential issues. By existential issues I mean the nuanced relationship between the individual, the community (public and in business) and society. I don’t believe it is hyperbole to suggest we, humanity, is facing an existential moment <not a crisis> on a number of issues at exactly the same time. Now, this may feel like a crisis, but I’d suggest its more that it’s a number of issues, many of which feel unsolvable or unstoppable, all occurring at once. This leads me to intentionality. In order to meet the moment, we need to shed the thinking that (a) we need to deal with one at a time, (b) they are unsolvable, (c) I can do nothing that will have any real impact, and, well, implement some intentionality at an individual level, a community (collective) level and societal level. Yeah. I’m suggesting intentionality can bend the arc of existential issues away from stagnancy (or regressive behavior) and actually toward progress.

Now. That said. Let me begin by suggesting intentions begin with perception. Neither the individual, the community (a public one or a business one) nor society can begin to shape intentions without perceiving something of interest. This interest can be shaped or it can be reactive or it can be the natural arc of events. But all demand some attentiveness to be able to not only shape intentions, but also to invest the energy to bring intentions to bear. These are the forces that affect the future of the individual, the community and the society. It is within this battle of, well, intentional wills in which the present and future is shaped and any existential issues are addressed.

Which leads me to progress and people.

Progress always occurs faster than we imagined and slower than we want. What I mean by that is progress is not one single solid mass moving in one direction. It is more a bunch of different pieces of confetti getting blown around with some falling, some rising and some seemingly lost in circular motion floating aimlessly in the air. All this movement is crafted by the clashing of intentions and intentional actions. I imagine the point I am going to try and make today is it is within that clash progress is found – within the battles of skepticism, criticism, pessimism and, yes, optimism, intentional resilience forges ahead. But maybe I should begin with people because that clash is more often people pitted against people. And while I believe that has always been so I also believe it has sharpened in recent history and the present.

The easiest place for me to begin is hypocrisy – possibly the most misused word and idea slowing down progress. A fundamental cause of any disaffection with regard to intentions is the contradictions between what one says and what one does. These confusions can be real <which reflect disingenuous intentions> or parsed reality <less than helpful criticism of real progress>. This split reality is actually real contextually. We say we believe in integrity – except in business. We preach morality – except if you have money. We encourage hard work as the path to happiness – except we see empty of meaning success and dubious economically rewards. All of these things have elevated skepticism so that even when one genuinely has good intentions there will always be another person to point out where the intentions fall short. Yeah. Person versus person. It’s as if someone is always lurking to point out isolated events as failures of intent. This is a false or certainly poor use of ‘hypocrisy.’ I can claim intent, make progress, and still never be able to meet everyone’s judgement against those intentions. This is even worse if you are in the public eye. What I would suggest is that the ones with the best of intentions, and the most resilience, ignore the false hypocrisy claims. But. The larger damage is done to societal and community progress. The constant attack on good well intended intentionality blurs not only the good versus bad, but progress in general. What I mean by that is the objective-making gets so diffused that any progress attempts seem hypocritical and progress itself becomes a joke <skepticism reigns>.

Yeah. From all sides intentionality is barraged by skepticism, desire for real progress and actual disdain for what is perceived as unhealthy/unneeded progress. There has always been a rebellion against progress, but in today’s world that rebellion is fought in an asymmetrical fashion. What this means is that mindset and attitudes can be completely unraveled by one instance of behavior amplified by one person against another.

Which leads me to the existential unraveling.

A central belief, expectation, of every middle class is that no matter where, and how, you grew up you could become president <not that it is such a desirable objective these days but you get the point>- ‘poverty to president’ is kind of the ultimate vivid metaphor. Simultaneously, there was another belief that if a wealthy family made the same mistakes that one in poverty makes they, similarly, would not not prosper. There was a belief in some equity mostly grounded in fairness, hard work and education. Even aspirations were grounded in fairness.

These beliefs are challenged not only by the realities of the existing system, but by skepticism and skeptical people. Yet. Some protect the ideas by highlighting the few who exhibit the beliefs. And then some attack the ideas by highlighting the many the system has failed. Within the wretched hollow in-between are people with good intentions and ill-guided intentions. The ill-intended are intent on protecting that ‘expectation belief mindset’ for fear that if the mindset is challenged people will inherently stop doing the things that nudge luck out of the way on occasion and actually help someone intentionally craft their own fate <this wretched hollow is embodied McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y>. The well-intended seek to fix the system or improve it. This dissonance makes society dissonant. I would argue this is an existential issue.

And within this dissonance individual intentionality crashes into community intentionalities and chafes against some societal intentions. Intentionality falls apart. Doubt seeps in and skepticism overwhelms optimism. The smelly underbelly of this is ‘lack of responsibility.’ If intentionality has no or little reward than responsibility shifts only to ‘zero-sum’ individuality, no collective greater good <or smallish head nods to collective good>. This, in turn, feeds a sense of accumulation as an objective. Let me be clear. Intentionality of accumulation as a sense of success is hollow, soulless, meaning. Anyway. The complaints against someone’s intentionality can seem endless, because they are. They are because mindsets don’t appear to have a sense of commonality which means sensemaking has no shared ground.

And while we talk about how the internet and social media creates an existential issue, let’s take a moment and reflect upon how television has affected intentional mindsets. I would argue that if television reflects our values, principled behavior and what we stand for, the whole system is rotten. And if that system is rotten, we need to think about how we are bound to a system. That is most likely the greatest existential issue, yet, we never seem to discuss it nor discuss it existential nor discuss the intentionality one must take to ‘unbound’ a system and from a system. Systems are bound by mindsets. Oh. We may talk about fairmindedness or equality (or equitable), or meritocracy or any other cage we have built that is a system within which we do and think, but existential systems are sneaky bastards. They establish a foundational mindset which colors everything else in hues that are always a derivative of that mindset. Suffice it to say, I believe we are in the midst of an existential unraveling with regard to societal expectations and aspirations.

Which makes me circle back to television.

I don’t buy into the belief we are now a ‘video/visual’ world, that said, what we see day-in and day-out is so banal, so cheap, so shallow, all it can really do is drag down perceptions. Oh. Yeah. Remember I said upfront, intentions are tied to perceptions <as well as mindsets, attitudes, expectations and aspirations>. If we seek a world of public intelligence, one of the greatest communications tools ever invented is doing nothing constructive to further intelligence. I say that because anyone with genuine good intentions has to be intentional within that context. In a world of empty platitudes real depth of intentions faces a gauntlet of emptiness. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that gauntlet has different dimensions. The television dimension is one of establishing mindsets and attitudes while the social media dimension is one of verbal harpoons and harpooning.  Intentional behavior ignores any and all at its own risk.

Anyway. One not need be a futurist to have a sense there is, and will continue to be, a continuous destabilizing grinding down of the social structure. It will demand intentionality to slow the grinding down and reverse it to building up to what we believe we could, and should, be.

Which, finally, leads me to technology.

The battle between technology, algorithms in particular, and humans is quickly becoming an existential crisis. This existential crisis will demand some intentionality – from tech people and people in general. Now. Some people will suggest this is an ‘accountability issue’ and focus solely on people. I can’t. I can’t because I think that’s wrong (but still part of the equation). A number of really smart people like Daniel Schmachtenberger, Mike Walsh and Jaron Lanier have all pointed out algorithms are smarter than us. I would add that not only are they smarter (an ability to tweak our dopamine and engagement vulnerabilities), but they are relentless.

I, personally, didn’t fully grasp the existential aspect of this until the 2016 USA presidential election. It was the first time I felt (a) the onslaught of algorithm driven messaging and (b) the dogmatic view of a large group of people that they could never have been influenced from an algorithm driven message. The combination gave me pause. I knew from my experience in the advertising world that people generally believe only other people are susceptible to advertising. But advertising is often fairly subtle in its attempt to veer you toward thinking some stupid shit to buy their stupid shit. But 2015/2016 was such an onslaught of obvious lack-of-discernable-reality I thought people would never be duped by it. They were. In fact. I knew it was existential when I actually had an advertising professional suggest there was no way people would be duped by “7000 Facebook ads.’ Someone who should know better, did not.

Anyway.

This isn’t about the 2016 election; this is about existential issues and the intentionality that is necessary to address them.

Social constructivism, the art of constructing our collective fate, demands intentionality at all levels – individual, community and society. It demands a coherence of resilient intentions because diffusion in environment – all these existential issues – quadruples the challenge for any intentionality. One must assume the mantle of responsibility and responsibility requires intentionality. Inevitably this intentionality is the weapon against disorientation. Intentionality gives is a ‘sense of agency’ in which we no longer simply get buffeted by asynchronous waves of skepticism and obstacles to progress but rather we become ships on a sea of progress. We become responsible and accountable and gain at least some semblance of control. But that is just your part. Communities must work together, the collective needs to accept both individual and society as part of the grander narrative and society needs some common sensemaking. I would argue the trick is to mix and match strategies in response to the nature of the opportunity and the behavior, actual and desired, of the population. We need to stop attacking genuine good intentions and intentionality with false cries of “Hypocrisy!!” toward all moments where someone’s intentions fall short of some dubious judgement of someone else’s behavior.

“Usually, one doesn’t not even know the dynamics of the system that one wants to control well enough to program a computer to simulate them, let alone how to control the system in the presences of perturbations.”

Seth Lloyd

The truth is that all the systemic issues I highlighted earlier are human-made and, therefore, can be unmade. But the larger trouble with parsing intentions and having people versus people with regard to existential attacks is that any semblance of control of our current systems, or even just navigation, requires insightful awareness – of self, community and society. This means the capacity to know what to pay attention to as well as what to selectively ignore becomes of significant value. And maybe that is my larger point, we should not ignore existential issues, but selectively ignore some individual asymmetrical behavior tied to symmetrical objectives – i.e., genuinely good intent toward objectives (symmetrical intent) ignoring ill-intended criticism on any asymmetricity found in effort.

In the end.

If we seek humanity to flourish, on a meta or mesa level, at some point you stop feeling sorry for being powerless among a variety of existential issues and begin to understand you are here for some purpose and that humanity needs to be actively engaged and intentional. You learn the powers/skills you have must, or should, be intentionally used to inspire and activate progress. You learn whatever your skills may be are simply keys and no matter how useless you may feel, or the world attempts to make you feel, or even other individuals in your community make you feel <the pessimistic, skeptical and critical>, sometimes the biggest difference you can make for the world is to figure out the right door to open with your key. I would argue that last line and thought can only be achieved if you are intentional.

All that said. As I began, coherence between individual, community and society is what enables progress and even if you open the right door with your intentional key, that doesn’t guarantee that another door needs to be opened. I remain optimistic with regard to people, humanity and society. I believe if we increase our competence with regard to, well, everything, the demand for competent people will always remain and will always be needed to enable progress. Now. I am not speaking of technical competence. Doctors, engineers, software designers, etc., are fairly easy to train to competent levels. I am speaking of competence in moral leadership, ethical thinking and integrity in actions which are a bit more difficult train for. And maybe that is my point. We need to intentionally train for critical thinking competence, moral competence and ethical competence if we are to ever meet the existential issues at hand.

Look.

Amidst this clash of existential issues, it becomes just as easy to tune everything out as it is to obsess over a splinter of a skeptical criticism. It is the diffusion of ‘what matters.’ What this, in turn, elicits is a general rejection of the underpinnings not just of values, but what is valued. A good education gets valued less because it seems to pragmatically mean less. Doing the right thing gets valued less because it seems to pragmatically get less. Being honest, kind and fair gets valued less because it seems to pragmatically mean little. All of this belittles the idea of happiness and assaults our sense of what true meaning is beyond, well, some simplistic pragmatic view centered on “winning” or wealth. All of this suggests societal hierarchy is not something to be climbed, but something inevitable as it currently exists. There are no common values, simply shared false values which are only selectively valued. That means the tug of war between progress and stagnancy tilts toward stagnancy, if not regression.

Ponder.

===========

Authors note:

This piece had a couple of key inspirations. The first is David Amerland and his book, Intentional, for making me think about being intentional and intentionality more than I have ever before. The second is just television itself. I don’t have a lot of free time and do not watch a lot of television. The other day I had a bit of time and scanned the programming available to me, Netflix and HBOMax included, only to find with few exceptions, the most vapid choices. It made me realize that unless you were quite intentional with your TV viewing the mindset TV portrays with regard to our system in totality suggests everything is pretty rotten.

=======

“On the loftiest throne in the world we are still sitting only on our own rump.” 

Michel de Montaigne from “Of Experience,” The Essays

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

Well. We all park our ass in some seat. Sometimes it comes with some lofty title, sometimes its just a seat in the room, sometimes its really cushy & comfortable and sometimes its really uncomfortable.

But here’s the deal. Each seat, throne as it were, cannot tell who and what you are. An ass is an ass.

Now. Montaigne hung out with kings & queens and dukes & duchesses. Most of my friends are normal schmucks.

Doesn’t matter.

His words are relevant to any and all and I wish more people would remember these words <and the thought>. Some people may want to talk about ‘humility’ here. I will not. I will mention “awareness.” Awareness of situation and how you fit into the larger picture and larger narrative. 

Look. Thrones are tricky things. Not only can you get really comfortable in them, but they also tend to be placed on pedestals. Pedestals on which you are higher than others and can view things from a greater height.

Because of that you may begin thinking your ass is better than someone else’s.

Because of that you may begin thinking your throne’s greater height & its grander view means you  actually have an ability to see better than someone else.

Because of that you may begin confusing what you offer versus what the throne itself ‘offers.’

Because of that you may lose some self awareness.

Yeah.

Thrones are clever little shits. They seem to suck awareness right out of your ass as you sit there and, well, you become an ass.

To be clear. Your lofty throne may simply be one moment in the spotlight or a lifetime in the spotlight. And on occasion you may even gain a glimpse of true greatness. You may even deserve to be on such a lofty throne <even if but for a moment>.

My point? None of that really matters.

Even the highest of thrones simply is a comfortable seat for a simple, common, every day rump. Think about that every time you have a seat in the room.

====

“… ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct.

It persists even in the face of the meritorious efforts that are being made to go beyond presenting information and to teach the use of it by means of lectures, classes, discussion groups. Results are not zero. But they are small. People cannot be carried up the ladder.

Thus, the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance.”

Joseph Schumpeter on Democracy

====

I talk about emergence and agility a lot. In fact, I sometimes believe I talk about it so much people think I don’t believe in any replication and standardization. Today I’d like to resolve any misunderstandings. If we are honest, all of us, successful business is in the replicating business. Replication is the foundation upon which all profitability and execution effectiveness resides upon and it isn’t the place where the typical employee drops down to a lower level of mental performance.

That said. Let me begin with what I believe is obvious. I think we often forget to acknowledge much of what business experiences happen serendipitously <or as a consequence of some unseen action in the past> and temporarily <albeit that temporariness could span just a moment or some longer finite timeframe>.

Sometimes these timeframes don’t have clear-cut beginnings and endings.

Sometimes they run parallel.

Sometimes they overlap.

Sometimes they randomly interconnect.

Sometimes we plan for them, sometimes we develop plans to address them and sometimes they develop sight unseen by factors outside our control <and we have no plan>.

I often believe it is useful to think of a business, and its systems, as an accumulation of different timeframe events/happenings. I believe if we did so we would be a little less rigid, a little less linear in thinking <about execution and alignment>, a bit less certain of system resilience and, consequently, have a bit more agility.

That may sound like an odd way to discussing replication, but this is the context in which replication thrives.

Replication often gets spoken of as ‘standardization’ or some version of rote behavior or even best practice, solid immoveable things, instead I believe we should speak of replication as coherent activity continuously in use. Kind of the steady pulse of organizational productivity showing up not just in repeatable actions, but seen in repeatable patterns of system usage of resources <often driven by consistent execution>.

Which leads me to replication of data.

While some gurus would suggest data is the oil that makes this non-machine work, I will not. I will broaden data to information and I will also suggest replicating information is the key to not only ongoing success, productivity, improvement as well as agility.

But let me talk about data for a minute.

Big data, small data, right sized data, we have always had more information than we have known what to do with in business. That’s I find most ‘big data’ discussions annoying.

Yes. I buy the fact that with today’s technology I can get better, more granular information <and sweeping trend like information at the same time> than ever before.

No. I don’t think we are significantly better at using whatever data, and information, than we were in the past.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know there are TedTalks and presentations from very articulate dynamic speakers espousing the coming generation of ‘big data.’ I would ask everyone to note a couple of things when these people stand up and pontificate about the potential of ‘big data’ and showcase how it has actually been used:

—

Their examples are often <most often> anomalies to everyday business.

—

The information is brilliant, the usefulness is less than pragmatic

—

Don’t get me wrong, data used well is valuable. I am simply suggesting we love the concept of data so much we are bedazzled with gathering it, but more often have no clue what to do with the data <or misuse it>.

This is where replication comes in. I encourage everyone to think about data a little differently. Think of the fact that Data is actually the result of someone doing things over and over again through connections with other people. Maybe think of it as a massive research program of ‘one-on-one interviews’ <not just of people but with resources, machines, etc., i.e., the system itself can be interviewed> that provides some quantitative and qualitative pattern/coherence information to think about. And, as with any research, when you compile the interviews, you can very easily lose sight of the fact that each data point represents real people who dedicated their real attention at some particular identifiable moment. But if you look at data that way, well, you realize that opportunities can be seen as clusters of people acting in a coherent/connected fashion over a period of time. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out everything I just said is replication.

That said. Most importantly <and possibly what all those ‘big data experts’ fail to see> is that all these data points reflect WHAT SOMEONE HAS CHOSEN TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

—————–

“Attention is the most important currency that anybody can give you, it’s worth more than money, possessions or things.”

Steve Rubel

———–

Replicated information describes the ability to see what people pay attention to on an ongoing basis.

** note: this can be both good and bad, but what it does suggest is if you want to understand why something happens, you seek where people pay attention. Conversely, if you want to change behavior, or effect it, find out how to have attention <not mandated> directed toward something.

Yeah. My point is do not disregard data as a means to examine connections and what people pay attention to. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out that the ‘data’ I just highlighted is simply one part of ‘information’ that decisions makers and business has access to.

Which leads me to information.

Information is the lifeblood of business. Possibly the most infamous legend supporting this is Rothschild and Waterloo and a carrier pigeon. Basically, Rothschild knew Wellington won at Waterloo faster than competition and took advantage in the market. The details of the legend are clearly not true, but the lesson is certainly true. Information used wisely benefits the user of that information. There is another part of this lesson – patterns. The entire Rothschild family, as they traveled, took meticulous notes with regard to what they observed and shared – persistently and consistently. I bring that latter point up to note ‘dimensionality’ <situational awareness spans entire compass> matters.

So let me talk about information, not data, and ‘replicating information.’

Let me explain. Business are persistent patterns of things – behavior, attitude and creation. all of which are undergirded by information. In order to maintain its ‘persistency’ it must maintain a steady flow of information, i.e., replicate flows of information. Now. This does not mean ‘the same information’, it simply means replicating whatever information is necessary, within the given time horizon and context, to enable the persistent pattern of things. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that this information enables people to make decisions and do things in the service, or in relationship to, other groups of people. Information elevates the value of interactions and connectivity. In a nutshell that’s the business of replicating business and that’s the value of replicating information.

Organizations will only grow, or progress, if information is constantly injected (and learned from) within employees (and, yes, machine learning is not ‘of people’ but conceptually the same idea runs true).

Which leads to what information shows – patterns.

Patterns are a reflection of process or systems or behavior. They are codes for something you need to pay attention to. They sometimes narrow our view, and attention, away from whole systems view which, pragmatically speaking, may often help in decision-making <and often it’s okay because the value of the business is embedded within patterns.

In fact, it’s quite possible a business should manage to the Patterns and not the People

Managers manage what they can see. Connection decision makers make decisions on what they can see.

Better information, and data, certainly gives a business a chance to leverage connections. However, ‘seeing’, in good decision making, needs to expand beyond the moment itself and incorporate some larger patterns and consequence recognition (not just causal).

One of the key challenges to this thought is many managers are hesitant to accept how little information/knowledge is needed before someone can actually make a useful decision in the moment.

** note: this is a reflection that early decision-making experiences errs toward seeking too much certainty but experience drives decisionmakers to lean in on probabilities rather than certainty (I call this optimal certainty).

That said. Pattern recognition offers a couple of key benefits:

• Faster Reflexes: As a more agile organization culture, the company has an ability to blend into the marketplace (versus rigid institutions unable to flex). Technology has changed the way organizations should act because it has changed how the world interacts – the way we shop and consume. It creates new opportunities and destroys businesses that are unable to adapt to a sudden discontinuity with our past.
• Decision maker confidence. Face the fact that while everyone says they want to make decisions, a decision, in & of itself, can create some anxiety to a less practiced decision maker. Patterns offer some certainty, more so than a specific data point or ‘rule’, to a connection decision maker.

————–

“The Internet aggregates the actual brand experience, it discloses and amplifies the mismatch between companies and their customers, which can be seriously disrupted.”

Susan Baker, Cranfield School of Management

———————

While everything I have noted is under the meta ‘organizational benefit of pattern recognition’ umbrella, at a mesa level the benefit resides in how quickly a business can apply the appropriate replicable skills against or toward the patterns. The point here is replication, well applied, i.e., right time/right place, increases business velocity of pattern opportunities.

Anyway. We should treat data, and patterns, like mirrors, in which a decision maker gets not just information they need when they need it, but rather the pattern in order to assign the best decision to the connection need.

What this permits is not a causal problem-solution response, but instead a grander future-fit response in which consequences, some foreseen and some unforeseen, cascade away from each decision. This is sometimes called ‘knowledge management.’ Toffler referred to “knowledge management,” as becoming clear that viewing a company’s knowledge as something separate from its employees is impossible. Our growing understanding of social networks and organization network value creation should make us think more about patterns within patterns. What I mean by that is an organization itself has patterns (pacing, teams, informal hierarchies, etc.) which an organization should seek to nest within an external pattern if it would like to sinc up and optimize the opportunities.  I would argue that establishing a pattern recognition system maximizes the information as a living breathing thing altered by its use. In addition, not only does it maximize individual opportunities, but it also helps leverage real employee/people’s interactions to spot larger trends AND also helps identify internal experts throughout an organization so that you can better merge skills/strengths against future needs. All that said, the ability to replicate information and data undergirds not only the usefulness of data/information, but makes it easier to use.

Look. Replication is actually a dance, not marching. And even then, the natural order of replicable things is that it can fit a lot <that’s what makes it useful>, but not perfectly. It’s not optimal, but can be quite useful. It’s the core of organizational efficacy.

To make my point mass production of data, any information in fact, is less than optimal let’s go to mass retail. It’s like buying clothes at a chain retail store versus a tailor. Any large clothing retail chain store will give you something that looks nice, but likely will not fit you perfectly <its crafted for the average> while the tailor will fit you perfectly.

Similarly, data efficacy gets effected by algorithms <in a sneaky way>. Data compilation algorithms are designed inside-out. What I mean by that is they are shaped to scan information, craft that information into useful data and then is told to shape it in ‘useable ways.’ That is mass production of information. It will fit okay, often look good, but its lack of preciseness to the individual ‘buying it’ gives some room for poor buying choices. And maybe that is my big ask to the technology people, the software/AI designers, to start shaping things that work best for us and do not enable the worst of us (worst can simply be ‘default to simplistic’ to make a decision).

** note: I should also point out AI, designed with efficiency as an objective, will naturally skew data shaping away from efficacy, or even effectiveness, and toward efficiency.

All of this to say that consistent, and coherent, information that can be provided in a consistent fashion is the lifeblood of useful replication. Why do I say that? Information is tools. Period. All these tools create a landscape upon which we navigate our decisions, choices, selves and business. and while its easy to say having a hammer when you need a screwdriver is the flaw of replication, I would suggest there is a reason a hammer is in every toolbox.

In the end.

While its easy to suggest innovation is the lifeblood of a business, its really not. innovation, or continuous improvement, certainly enhances the likelihood of future survival, but it is its replication strengths & abilities that makes sure a business survives and is survivable <if not thriveable> through chaotic dynamic situations, and offers the pathway to consistent profitability <which, looping back, funds innovations and people>. In other words, success is often found in the business of replicating business.

=====

“It is the predicament of mankind that man can perceive the problematique, yet, despite his considerable knowledge and skills, he does not understand the origins, significance, and interrelationships of its many components and thus is unable

to devise effective responses. This failure occurs in large part because we continue to examine single items in the problemarique without understanding that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, that change in one element means change in the others.”

Limits of Growth, Meadows

=====

euphemism treadmill

Frequently, over time, euphemisms themselves become taboo words, through the linguistic process of semantic change known as pejoration, which University of Oregon linguist Sharon Henderson Taylor dubbed the “euphemism cycle” in 1974, also frequently referred to as the “euphemism treadmill”.

——–

Linguistic renaissance

Every generation, even decade, finds their own words and definitions

<about 1,000 words get added to dictionary every year and less get deleted every year>

=====

Other then ‘cancel culture’, ‘woke’ is possibly the most annoying idea bantered about these days. And while ‘woke’ comes to life in so many ways during some incredibly vapid discussions that your head will spin, the majority of the time it revolves around words and the use of words.

Now.

Think about this: It is estimated that there are over 500,000 words in the English language, but the average person’s vocabulary is only between 2000 and 6000 words. This means we use less than 2% of our language.

And while I would guess that within that 2%, in general, we under use the really good words, do not use enough inspiring words, and hold on to the 2% we do use with ragged claws. This is where the euphemistic treadmill rears its ugly head. A word caught on the euphemistic treadmill is one that replaced an offensive or pejorative term, but has itself become unfavorable.

“The more exposure you have to the written word the more literate you become and we tend to get better at things that we do for fun.”

Dr Beverley Plester,  Coventry University on texting

‘Woke’ fucks with people’s 2% – either directly or indirectly. Let me explain. Directly is exactly what it is. You use that word, it has been deemed offensive, and you like that word, so someone is fucking with how you talk <and how you think about things I imagine>. Indirectly is grounded in fear. You don’t use that word but it creates a fear that someday someone is coming for one of your 2%. To be clear. There is an entire industry of people invested in creating fear on “where does it stop.”

** note: ‘where does it stop’ is one of the silliest, stupidest, most banal arguments in existence. It stops when and where you choose to make it stop. Doing the right thing demands both doing and stopping.

Here is where I think the 2%’ers have lost the plot.

Maybe think of ‘woke’ terminology this way.

Yes. Teens use words <sometimes lots used in a nonstop fashion>.

Yes. Sometimes we old folk don’t recognize them as words <albeit we are infamous for making up our own buzzwords>.

Yes. If you get a bunch of older people together they will agree that today’s kids do not understand English, know how to write, are poor communicators and, in general, don’t know shit about grammar.

Yes. This is a silly petty discussion <hence my point on “woke’ words>.

pettiness, which, as the Oxford English dictionary explains, is “an undue concern with trivial matters, especially of a small-minded or spiteful nature.” Psychologists say that this behaviour from people who make mountains out of molehills stems from some unrelated insecurity or unhappiness.

I purposefully use petty because that describes the general attitude over woke words. When it comes to ‘woke’ I can almost guarantee you at some time, in some place, someone is, sometimes quite convincingly <or connivingly>, attempting to show that a real mountain is simply a molehill and a real molehill is actually a mountain. It almost seems like after a good, solid 500-year run, we have evolved from a society of readers to a society of stupid. The printing press launched the first intellectual revolution; the second one was launched by YouTube, twitter and 24-hour cable TV. Given the choice, people would rather view a 1-minute video, showing something out of context, than read for 2 minutes. What this revolution will spawn is lots of bad video, lots of useless content, and much much more idiotic battles over what is simply euphemistic treadmill activity, i.e., the natural evolution of words and meanings.

Personally I can tell you the reason why I don’t participate in a lot of Ted discussions anymore is because there tend to be a bunch of older people <supposedly the sharpest knives in the drawer because they were part of TED> that constantly bitch and moan about how young people are becoming increasing illiterate, we have become ‘too sensitive’ with regard to words, and in order to solve this crisis the solution is we need to go back to the basics <that is code for “the way we learned”>.

Suffice it to say I’d like to tell everyone that the treadmill goes on, euphemistic or any treadmill, and you better get on it.

Today’s youth is not illiterate nor are they destroying the English language nor are they devolving into some nondescript group of blithering nonthinking irresponsible idiots.

So, what’s happening? Maybe the problem is with us older folk.

“Many people have this black-and-white view of language, that some things are always right and wrong, that’s not how it works.”

Katherine Barber, editor in chief Canadian Oxford Dictionary

I feel a need to point out that research says that ‘text speak’ <young people communicating in texts & shortened euphemisms>, rather than harming literacy, could have a positive effect on the way children interact with language. Researchers from Coventry University <published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology> studied children aged between 10 and 12 to understand the impact of text messaging on their language skills. They found that the use of so-called “textisms” could be having a positive impact on reading development.

Bottom line.

The study found no evidence of a detrimental effect of text speak on conventional spelling.

“What we think of as misspellings, don’t really break the rules of language and children have a sophisticated understanding of the appropriate use of words.”

Coventry Researcher

Other reports have produced similar results. Research from the University of Toronto <researching how teenagers use instant messaging> found that instant messaging had a positive effect on their command of language. Two University of Toronto researchers who studied teen text messaging say that not only is the medium not wrecking the English language, but may actually be encouraging what some people refer to as a ‘linguistic renaissance’ as teens re-learn and reshape the meaning of words.

“They demonstrate very clearly that their grammatical skills are intact, and they very effectively mix it with other types of language.”

Regardless. Young people are not destroying the English language and ‘wokeness’ is simply destroying that which every generation destroys – words that lose meaning.

Which circles me back to that euphemism treadmill.

Each generation puts their indelible stamp on the everyday language.

If we believe for one moment that someone in Shakespearean time wouldn’t look at us today after listening to two 50somethings talk, looking at us like we were crazy <possibly unsophisticated>, maybe even from a different planet, and ‘unwoke’ to their generation, we just haven’t thought about it well enough.

I would argue words aren’t getting destroyed but rather we are simply creating a new way of talking <for the better for the most part>.

Which leads me to technology.

A major purpose of social networking sites, and you have to imagine one of the reasons why it is all so popular, is that in many ways they fill our need for external validation.

The web can even make validation grow to levels we couldn’t even imagine 15 years ago … especially in the internet generation where fame <lets maybe call it ‘become more well-known than ever before’> is more achievable than ever.

*** note: I will note that this external validation thought can be used for good … or for bad>

Regardless. Language and words are part of that external validation.

The web has opened up a world in which instead of lurking in a shell wondering if we would ever find a greater self-validation than a close circle of acquaintances, we can now seek external validation among likeminded souls. And just as close face-to- face friends have them; external likeminded people have a similar language. Sometimes it is almost a code speak for an inner circle. And here is where words get shaped, reshaped, created and destroyed; and so the euphemism treadmill churns on and on.

This is where we reshape, and find, a new vocabulary to discuss the world within which we live.

Anyway.

While this is about words, in my own head there are 3 aspects. The thought. The articulation. The proof.

I imagine several really smart insightful people in every generation of every civilization have the smarts to have the thought <that reshapes our mindsets>.

At any time in history the thought is challenged or forwarded by how it is articulated <change words to match the new mindset narrative>.

And then proof varies depends on us, people, and how different segments react.

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that time is brutal on all past articulations and words. They get destroyed or re-translated by future generations. I say all that to suggest that there is no “woke” and there really isn’t any ‘cancel culture’ when it comes to words. We are just on the ever-present euphemism treadmill and maybe, just maybe, something in your 2% will end up on the treadmill. Ponder.

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

“Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”

e.e. cummings

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

“I’m a slave to my hatred of boredom.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

——————-

There is a difference between smart and smarter. That may sound obvious but I think it is important in this discussion.

In most of the world progress, or being smart, is defined by some outcome or achievement, i.e., what did you do today. In other words, output.  Smarter, on the other hand, is an input progress. What did I learn today that made me just a bit smarter? Input. Smarter often doesn’t have any immediate ‘output’ consequence just a nice intrinsic consequence, i.e., I am a bit smarter. My point is lots of smart people do smart stuff and produce a lot of smart things, but generally speaking, their output can only either (a) offer stable consistent value or (b) diminishing value. In other words, there is little lift in future value. They have specialized their craft <hence, ‘smart’>, tied it to output <execution well done> and will pound that particular smart nail into whatever wood you put in front of them. to be clear, once again, this has value.

Smarter is more focused on ‘better today than I was yesterday and better tomorrow than I am today.” It has less emphasis on doing and execution and more emphasis on learning.

That said. Smarter is actually about hard work. Smarter requires more than a surface ‘this is what I think’ tweet popular vote. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize meaning, we have to hunker down and work hard. Work hard in that we need to reassemble the present (knowledge) & rethink things by using all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past … all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction.

And, yes, that is hard work. But it is the kind of work that hones the smarter insightfulness we need.

Instead of dumbing things down we need to be raising the level of general understanding to the level of complexity of a business which inevitably will lead a business to a higher level of ‘smartness’ which leads to a higher level of organizational efficacy <internally and externally>.

And while you may balk at something like ‘smarter’ as too far reaching, suffice it to say, we just need to be smarter, less ignorant, more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification of business impact <and objectives> beyond profit and revenue and, well, just plain rethinking shit <and, yes, this can include doing and executional excellence>.

• Simply talking about world-changing ideas will not simply make the world change. Changing the world takes work, really really hard work.

• Simply having a positive attitude ain’t gonna work. Hard work will work. And in this case I mean hard thinking

• Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing, thinking is a blue collar job. It’s about work.

Circling back to one of my opening quotes, ‘smarter’ makes work less boring and more engaging which, well, is certainly the pathway to more meaningful.

Which leads me to more specificity on meaning, smart and smarter.

As I stated earlier, smart has value. What that value means is that meaning is attached more tightly to output. And while that may sound mundane or every transactional, it can also offer a lot of tangible, easy to see, meaning to an individual. Their ‘transactions’ with their productivity <what they put into their work> simply needs to be extended to an external impact to tighten it to ‘meaning.’ I guess I would call this a more linear definition of meaning and a less esoteric version. And if I am correct on that, even of its value, it also makes it more fragile – extrinsic in its ‘survivable nature.’

‘smarter’ meaning is a bit different. It has some dimensions and is less linear in its nature. It makes it a tad bit squishier and has some intrinsic aspects. I would suggest it is a more robust meaning.

All of this matters. I would note that on both smart and smarter I have referred to ‘impact.’

Research shows a 400% increase in employee productivity after meeting just one person impacted by their work.  That’s one way <and an effective way>, but the point is you are seeking to not inject confidence or belief <some gamification of motivation to ‘push’>, but rather to encourage belief to emerge naturally <i.e., ‘pull’ motivation>. This is emergent motivation or intrinsic energy. It is believing in oneself and when you align it in believing in what you are doing AND aligning that with belief in the business vision and who and what the business is achieving, well, you have maximized the believing business.

I would also note a couple other things Zach Mercurio has stated about meaning:

• 83% of people say meaning in work is a priority
• Regularly show people how their work helps others
• Connect people to the beneficiary of the work
• Show people how they matter
• Place contribution over achievement.

————

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Emerson

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

Look. I have purposefully used smart & smarter today because I worry the world, and business, is getting stupider on a daily basis. Ok. Not really. I imagine we are actually getting smarter every day, yet, the overarching public narrative just seems stupider every day. It’s just that it sometimes feels like smartness is whispering and dumbness <or ‘simplification’> is shouting. All of this dumbing down seems to center around complexity and simplicity. It just feels like because we increasingly understand the world is complex, we have increasingly become convinced simplicity is the key to, well, everything. The truth is almost all hope, and possibilities, and even meaning, resides in managing complexity (if not the complicated) and fear (including lack of risk) thrives on simplicity. I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out meaning, itself, becomes quite brittle in a simplicity world.

Smart isn’t an absolute. Smart is not simple. Smart, and smarter, resides on a sliding scale of which there is no mean, medina or average. There are few 10’s and few 1’s and you can be an 8 on one topic and a 2 on another and ‘smart’ is not an average of them nor can you add or subtract them. I know I have said it before but the people who make it look easy, make it look easy because they invested a lot of hard work to make you think so. Smart, and smarter, is exactly the same.

Smartness demands you to work to gather knowledge and skills, sift thru it and understand it and apply it. but be aware. In today’s world smarter is harder than one would think. The world, in its quest to increasingly create more frictionless ways of circumventing thought and separating us from any random knowledge that could possibly prompt becoming smarter in combination with its relentless religion of ‘simplicity’ will fight ‘being smarter’ every step of the way. And maybe that is the grander point. Navigating that gauntlet enhances meaning.

In the end I believe smarter is worth the work and worth the meaning it offers. I believe we should be seeking ‘smart’ as a minimum. That is actually the solid foundation for higher value for a business and higher value meaning for an individual. But I also believe, whenever possible, we should be maximizing ‘smarter’. It more naturally ties to progress, learning organizations, continuous improvement and a more robust, less fragile, meaning. Ponder.

—–

The heights by great men reached and kept

Were not obtained by sudden flight,

But they, while their companions slept,

Were toiling upward in the night.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

—-

—–

“It is essential to understand that the success of cities is born from their tolerance, which fosters collaboration; from their infrastructure and cultural resources, which are the results of investment; and from their compactness and diversity, which spark chance encounters and lead to artistic and entrepreneurial innovation.”

Ryan Gravel, Urban Planner

—–

Every organization is a network of people, individuals, who interact with each other. In order to survive, and thrive, the organization will, at its core, be at the mercy of how well they interact with each other. That said, forcing interactions <forced collaboration or even ‘social events’> tends to be counterproductive because relationships are inherently emergent (connections create). at their core these human connections are mini-learning systems in that each interaction forges the interactions, and connections, to come. What this demands, though, is some fluidity within the organization. Without fluidity the connections remain stagnant, or worse, cocooned, and the organization stops learning. There is a lack of exchanges.

Which leads me to cities.

I am not suggesting a business is a city, or any ecosystem/organism/etc. type tripe, but rather the infrastructure of a business demands connectivity in order to prosper, just as a thriving city does. A city, at its core, is an environment of exchange – economic and social. Conceptually that means an infrastructure, even a technology one, should seek to better the human condition and conditions for thrivability and navigating ordinary complexity.

Businesses, like cities, decline in quality through discrimination and segregation. The presence of those create an environment in which there is not only an inequitable distribution of opportunity, but also a complete lack of exchange of ideas. Hierarchies in business can also naturally encourage both of those negatives – they discriminate by titles, perceptions of skills and assumptions of knowledge contribution and segregate by department (if not also by evaluation files in the HR dept). Sociological studies show that integration reduces discrimination, therefore, the business structure should be one in which anyone can go anywhere and contribute.

This brings up a tricky topic – leadership led versus people led. I’d argue the composition of this structure cannot be left alone to leadership because they have failed, to date, to create or construct a healthy structure. I would take that responsibility out of their hands and let the infrastructure itself assume the main responsibility. This, in turn, would demand the infrastructure itself is constructed to encourage free exchange throughout. This does not absolve leadership of responsibility, in fact, it puts a different type of demand upon them in that they must set aside:

• A bias that they know better than the people

• A bias that the system will decay to the lowest common good if left to its own devices

• A bias that technology may be better assessors of potential than they

• A bias that living, and thriving, only through hierarchy has created in them mentally.

“Nothing is more destructive to a community, to creativity, than the desire to be seen as a good person and the deceptions that are mobilized to make that happen.”
Stephen Berg

Which leads me to design.

The way we choose to organize our space – parks, cities, streets, buildings, etc. – says a lot about the society we live in. This organization defines not only our perception of real-world environments, but also our imagination of. Simplistically, if a city is constructed with walls, physical or metaphorical, it diverts traffic and exchange from what may occur naturally. I bring this up because this is also true of internet/tech design. Our lives revolve around what has been designed. This doesn’t mean we are sheep, but rather we assume the larger design narratives have been designed in ways that we can easily (or easy enough) navigate. That becomes good enough for us. I bring that up because, conversely, this is why designer ethics is important. They are the organizers of ‘our space.’ They design the world we walk, and think, in.

This is where I turn to what I continue to suggest are Drucker’s most important thoughts – a ‘human imperative’ as outlined within The New Realities. It is not where he stated business is “in and of society” (albeit that is the ultimate human imperative), but it is there he highlights salvation by society versus economic imperatives. His concept is that in today’s world, with today’s challenges, it is quite possible we should be focused on business’s role in a community and a city design and as part of the fabric of society (and cascading consequences, i.e, how we ask people to think and act in a business impact what they say and do at the kitchen table when they go home and impacts how they view the workings of the community they reside in) rather than simple economic imperatives. I imagine at the core of what Drucker suggested was that organizational design is actually societal design. As a corollary, city design is actually societal design. Is that not the greatest human imperative intersecting economics and community?

Which leads me to technology.

Conceptually, technology does not care about anything other than supplying knowledge stimulus <information> to everyone, regardless of skill or title, and assembling people with the best potential to address emergent issues regardless of their ‘identified’ skill or title. As a corollary to this idea, the intent of business model design should be, similar to urban city planning, to maximize pedestrian movement and ensure the environment enhances easy movement and rewards the act of movement <movement need not just be people but information and ideas and resources>. I am not suggesting that every business have the same design, but that every business design with similar working objectives. I would note that this design need not remain static. I mention that because in business it seems like people do not speak often enough about what algorithms can create (crowd or tribe cultural), it can ‘unmake’. It’s possible to take apart larger ideologue, or beliefs, so that new ideologies or ways of thinking, can actually be constructed. Algorithms can be used in a variety of ways and if we elected to create an effective design, we could. All the objectives I have wandered through up to this point should be reviewed constantly and the infrastructure should be re-designed to optimize against those objectives.

In the end.

The subtleties of a community and a city defy any real definitions and, yet, even within its abstractness there remains the concrete. Personally, I hope we never get too close to finding a concrete definition because once people can easily grasp it, they will attempt to copy it, replicate it and scale it. What a shame that would be. For communities and cities and, yes, businesses may truly be the opposite and be the ultimate example of the emergent and unique to their own needs and desires.

===

“There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.”

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

“It is not that a person makes meaning, as much as that the activity of being a person is the activity of meaning-making … the most fundamental thing we do with what happens to us is organize it. We literally make sense.”

Developmental psychologist Robert Kegan

======

ideas that are the most difficult to validate can feel like the most important ones

=====

Complexity, in business, is in the midst of a weird time. In the attempt to translate complexity-in-theory to complexity-in-practice, a whole bunch of people are turning themselves into pretzels to simplify, uhm, complexity. The intent is to make it understandable and manageable (ability to navigate or as Donella Meadows suggests “dance with the system”), but in doing so there have been a variety of quadrants, some delightful descriptors (see: ‘wicked problems’) and, in general, a bunch of things which actually make complexity even more complex in the minds of people in business as well as in practice.

I continue to believe the rough-ish diagram Stacey placed in “Managing the Unknown” is one of the more practical views of complexity for business.

One of the things I like about it, and have liked, is that it has its own version of an OODA loop. This seems important to me because navigating complexity is less about the decision and more about observing decisions and decide what to do with the effect, or effects, which exist as a consequence of the initial stimulus <other past decisions>. In the past I have called this ‘situational awareness.’ That said. OODA loops WITHIN complex dynamics is how to iteratively navigate complexity without simply reacting. You do something and then manage against that decision because it is not a linear directional world in which a problem leads to an action that leads to a solution. Instead, we live in an infinite looped dynamic world. Each action is based on current conditions, such actions affect future conditions, and changed conditions become the basis for later action.  The system, and systems nested within, are reflections of ceaseless connections and feedback loops (even if they are nonlinear). This makes complexity tricky because you can do something with good intentions, say to resolve a problem, and actually alleviate that problem and, yet, be causing another unseen snowballing problem. By applying pressure <or a resolution> in one place tends to create some equal opposing pressure (or pressures) in another place.

Regardless. While that, generally, sounds complex – because it is – the simple truth is everything is connected and nothing is ever really stagnant. But the complexity folk just don’t seem satisfied with that. We need labels and words and definitions. To that I say we don’t need to be brilliant; we need to find ways of doing useful things.

“If you keep certain creative people in too tight a box, they blow up the box.”

Liz Phair

Anyway.

One of the most interesting books I have read about complexity was not actually about complexity. it was about people and society – The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht. Ok. Hanzi Freinacht is a complex guy, complex thinker, and talks about the future of society and humankind (kind of a complex topic).  The reason why I believe Listening Society is about complexity and business is because it is about people. And while we like to talk about systems, algorithms, digital infrastructure, culture, and, well, anything but people, inevitably if you want to navigate complexity you need to get people’s heads screwed on right and get everyone thinking about the right things.  I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out, pragmatically, business is a lot like living life in that for the most part you are just trying to get shit done the best you possibly can. It sounds like a grind and aspects of it really are – but can be a thinking grind. So, despite the fact we speak of the rise of the ‘knowledge worker’ the truth is if a business wants to have some agility it needs thinker/doers (or doer/thinkers) or at least have teams in which there is some equilibrium between needed thinking and needed doing and the grind it out mentality needed to navigate complexity and a complex world.

Which leads me back to Hanzi.

He suggests that each person is a cross section of the self – the depths & dimensions – and the conflict and potential inherent in the interactions with social, economic and cultural fabric – all amped up in a technological world. Freinacht calls this ‘a transpersonal perspective.’ Its not just that we are each a billiard ball that interacts with other people. We co-emerge or ‘intra-act.’  He suggests we have a lived experience as well as a creational experience. We experience and absorb from all experiences and in doing so we, systemically, change. What this means is that society is present within each individual as well as within the relationships one forges with what we call ‘self.’ Here is the uncomfortable suggestion — there is no true individual nor is there any true collective there is simply an evolving interlinked emergent set of ‘transviduals.’ This makes each of us inseparable, in a complete sense, rather than some simplistic unique separate life story. This means each person should be viewed as an open and social process, a “whirlwind of participation and cocreation of society.” Society, or social dynamics (which is relevant to the business world), as a whole is then viewed as a self organizing system which creates each of us (transviduals) who, in turn, recreate society. We are all social constructions. We are all, in fact, parts & pieces of one another and affect one another. We consist of many different influences (which makes the idea of individual a constraining idea), roles and perspectives WITHIN a multitude of contexts. In other words, we are complex.

Which leads me to what Ralph Stacy called “bounded instability.” People are inherently unstable <I call them uneven> and forcing consistency, rather than coherence, actually limits possibilities (stability comes at a cost). His thought is to relax the inhibitors and optimize (in a situational equilibrium, not balance) what he calls ‘fit & split’ and what I call coherence.

But lurking within what I just shared is that people systems inherently are driven by stable laws of behavior (boundaries) which actually CREATE specific kinds of instability, yet, this creates some aspect of patterns. It sounds crazy but stick with me here. The tighter the boundaries the broader the instability (fragility). But stable, not constrictive, boundaries create patterns.

“Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds, not believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks – those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.”

Zarathustra (Hanzi Freinacht)

Patterns? Reality is made up of inner landscapes rubbing up against each other. This means reality is emergent and we are not successful by slavishly following ‘laws of’ protocol, but rather our ability to sense make reality and navigate emergent patterns. What this means from a complexity standpoint is that Life, business, any environment, is best felt, not organized (or controlled).

That thought is kinda important because complexity, to the everyday worker, isn’t about chaos or stability or any management guru word, its about competing demands and the tension between meeting status quo demands and opportunistic demands WITHIN time demands.  Reconciling this is tough because most people make it a binary choice and the natural arc of business behavior is status quo because of a pressure to produce consistent and reliable outcomes. I believe it was Dewey who suggested people, in general, tend to formulate our beliefs in terms of “either–or”, between which alternatives we recognize no intermediate possibilities. Just like algorithms, which choose only in X or Y choicemaking, we tend to strive for clarity to such an extent we will make things simplistic, i.e., a highly probable assessment becomes a 100% choice and 100% invested <when probability and choice or not equal in truth>. Circling back to sensing or feeling patterns, this means we need to avoid either/or binary choicemaking so that we can ride patterns rather than control patterns.

 

structure influences behavior is a central principle underlying systems thinking

complex systems resist behavior change

the active energy in an organization is people

a process is only good, and efficient, as the market is built to serve. if the market changes, the process may still generate positive results, but it will no longer be efficient and will continue to decay in its effectiveness.

Anyway. I am not a big believer in social system design, more in trying to understand systems dynamics, but ignoring the fact that all systems, including social, HAVE a design and therefore can be ‘re-designed’ (in some form or fashion) would be naïve. Systems exist everywhere. Systems influence everything we do.  The idea of a social system implies that relationships between its parts strongly influence human behavior. To put the matter more bluntly, a social system implies that people act partially as cogs in a social and economic machine. In other words, people play roles demanded by pressures of the whole system. This idea is a bit uncomfortable because at its core it suggests people aren’t totally free to make their own decisions. That said. Suffice it to say all social systems have some ‘design’ features (or have actually been designed) which, tying back to Hanzi, means people, as social constructs, are designed by social systems.

Yup. The structure of the system will define behaviors. I say that because one cannot blame individuals for most failures, but rather the system itself. Yet. We tend to highlight the accountability of ‘the individual’ in some fairly unhealthy ways within business. Circling back to Freinacht, the entire idea of individual or collective is outdated in today’s world. Cluetrain Manifesto called it ‘the hyperlinked organization’ and the reality is “I am parts of you, you are parts of me, and the whole is a malleable mix of parts of all of us – even those we interact with outside the internal system within the business.” Business and our little personal circles of existence are simply a system within a system, or of the system, and people are systems in and of themselves. That’s today’s world. I imagine I make that point to suggest gamification (which I dislike anyway) of business tends to seek out ‘individual motivations’ when in reality all gamification does is create less than unifying aspects within an organization (when business, in general, while not seeking unity, should seek unifying systems). Gamification, or many of the silly leadership tactics, are attempts to untangle complexity into manageable units. That’s a less-than-useful approach. The intertwined nature of complexity means one shouldn’t be seeking untangle anything, but rather seek to get them to develop TOGETHER to create new evolutions of the system. It isn’t about shedding things, but rather creating things. My point, I imagine, is complexity does not exist to be solved, but rather developed. That thought, in particular, is counter to what society encourages us to do.

Lastly.

We need to deal with this. Remember earlier I suggested we are social constructs. If we do not deal with it, we, well, stop constructing <and that is bad>. This isn’t some theoretical mumbo jumbo issue I am sharing. We need to deal with it because people will be increasingly squeezed in a complex world. Squeezed? What I mean by that is the world is not going to become any less demanding with regard to ‘results’ or outcomes and the world is not going to become any less complex and overwhelming. In fact. They will both likely become more. Under the pressure of time and demand for ‘do something/decide something’ our behaviors will inevitably arc toward the simplistic on our bad, most overwhelmed, days (and simplicity on a good day). In our inability to navigate the multidimensional abstraction of each moment/situation/event/decision/etc., we will lean in on what we believe is our true ability – intuitive behavior. Uh oh. “Believe” as an ability is a misnomer. In a complex world 99% of us suck at intuitive behavior <heck, most of the time all of our intuition is dubious at best> and actually simply grasp the closest key we can find to unlock the door to get the hell out of the complex hallway we seem stuck in. The truth, the reality, is that even the most time-constrained decisions demand some mental grind. If we don’t, then even at our best, we will always remain a step or two behind not only the world but behind any semblance of a sane world. But here is where it gets, well, bad. As the world becomes increasingly complex and we become increasingly overwhelmed and under increasing pressure to ‘do something’, there will always be someone peddling ‘simplicity’ or some tool/tactic to ease us through that situation. Uhm. Easy does not equal what is best for us <see the endless apps claiming to streamline our interactions with the world only to divert our attention from some pretty important things>. Streamlining is more likely to strip away the important than to strip away the unimportant. We need to expand our abilities in order to expand the space we need to navigate as well as to simply expand space so we stop getting squeezed. And maybe that is the most important point. Look. Complexity has a nasty habit of making us feel like we are being squeezed – even when we are not. Gaining the ability to expand space is actually improving reality and, well, an improved reality is a reality more readily navigated. This can be done and we need to shed the defeatist attitude which arcs our mindsets into the space of being ‘overwhelmed’ versus ‘whelmed’. It is within that space in which we may not completely shed the constraints of complexity, but we can certainly push out on the boundaries to give us some space to breathe a bit. And, well, I imagine that’s the key to navigating complexity – space to breathe. No quadrant, no theory, no management guru, will give you any tool better than space to breathe. Complexity CAN be suffocating so the simple action of breathing is the path to navigation. Ponder.

=====

“Digital freedom stops where that of users begins… Nowadays, digital evolution must no longer be offered to a customer in trade-off between privacy and security. Privacy is not for sale, it’s a valuable asset to protect.”
Stephane Nappo

=====

“Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.”

Edward Snowden

=====

Data privacy is a hot issue for a couple of reasons both based on the foundational thought we, the people, keep getting fucked by our own data. Basically, other people make money off our data by them using our data to get us to spend money. How fucked up is that? Beyond that there are some real pragmatic issues that with all of our data floating out there beyond our control it can be used in some quite nefarious ways. All that said. Some people with integrity are attempting to change it all. The majority of this discussion is focused on regulation, i.e., regulating how companies gather and use our data.

Here is the problem. While most of us care, we don’t <and, more importantly, a bunch of the big tech boys who gather & use the data, don’t actually care>. For a variety of reasons any time people are offered opportunities to try and manage their data, they don’t (or certainly don’t to the extent that would enable some larger structural changes to how much data is accumulated and used).

I speculate this mostly happens because our personal data is one big black box of shit that most of us feel like we have zero control over, sense we may actually benefit from sharing it – on occasion gaining some convenience – and the penalties for sharing don’t seem to be so bad.

Basically, we’ve given up believing we can control, not clear on benefits of limiting, or even understand, pragmatically, what occurs when we tighten our data privacy. That trifecta encourages most of us to just do what we are doing and just sit around and bitch that evil technology companies don’t have any ethics.

To be honest. Even I, who knows enough to be dangerous about privacy and data, when I see the terms and conditions I very rarely accept because I don’t know what it will cost me. What I mean by that is by limiting something I assume it will limit something else. Its kind of like limiting cookies or certain website features, you get less popups (sometimes), but ease of website use seems to get a little wonky. Just to be clear. It is quite possible I am either conflating causation and correlation or even that because I actually took an action, my mind is creating an expected response (which isn’t really there). But. Maybe that makes my larger point. Because I don’t exactly know the consequences my mind will create them, they will most likely be negative, and that doesn’t exactly encourage me to do it more often in the future.

So.  How do we get people to care? How do we get people to think it will matter what they accept or reject will deter the powerful unseen “tech” from doing whatever they want in the blackbox?

===

“Here in your mind you have complete privacy. Here there’s no difference between what is and what could be.”
Chuck Palahniuk

===

Let’s think about an indirect approach.

People have to see the value, before caring, before doing anything. So, I have some thoughts on how to nudge the mindset.  I believe there are two indirect things that could affect people’s mindsets.

1. Origin ID.

Its not flashy nor does it appear to be directly related to communicating the importance of data privacy, but in my mind, it begins to establish some validity to one’s own data within the black box. In other words, if all of a sudden, I know for sure the data that I am receiving (information is data) is valid and not some bot, well, then all of a sudden I start thinking “hey, mine has been evaluated and is valid too.” Its an indirect way of establishing some value proposition. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that, collectively, it also begins establishing some shared sense of truth (or truthiness) and that is an excellent foundation for establishing my personal value within that shared sense of truth.

The internet world needs to clean up its validation origin act and this seems like a good place to start the data privacy ballgame.

To be clear. I am relatively sure the moment we validate origin ID (proof everyone is human and verified ID) someone with less than good intentions will subvert the system, but anything has to be better than the current anarchist system. In fact. Maybe that is my last point in this idea. Creating a system that doesn’t feel like anarchy, alone, furthers the concept of data privacy by suggesting it could possibly be controllable. I think this idea is attainable in a reasonable amount of time. The trick to this one is who is trustworthy enough to not only validate but have some records of everyone’s origin ID. My gut tells me blockchain technology offers a viable solution, but someone smarter than I would have to noodle that.

2. Business use (with employees).

This one is trickier than Origin ID but, in my mind, if businesses can show an employee that their data has actual value in their own personal progress/growth within a business it becomes a platform for understanding how their data has value in a grander narrative. Maybe think about this as ‘if I can show on a smaller more personal case study than communicating a larger case study is the logical next step.’ Personally, I think its nuts that a business does nothing with data of their employees to better understand, better develop and better assess each employee’s potential growth opportunities. I think its even nuttier that it doesn’t happen in organizations talking about “digital transformation.” I mean if you are going to create a digital infrastructure wouldn’t you want to connect it with, uhm, the digital imprints of the people/humans who will be optimizing that infrastructure? And, yet, while I think its nuts, I also think this particular idea is years away from being implemented.

** note: I actually have outlined a Knowledge Distribution business model where AI-driven information flow is customized and tied to personal data of each employee suggesting it is something like a Human Nanofactory and offered something called ‘technology-distributed information’.

In the end.

While the world desperately needs a globally coherent plan of action for data privacy, it will not happen until the people of the world actually care and want it and will actually do something when given an opportunity. Along that point, I bet if you asked 100 random people they would (a) probably think data privacy is a good thing and, simultaneously, (b) have it number 101 on their list of 100 things they need to be thinking about.

I say it that way to make the point that this is actually a good equation for the future of data privacy. The ability to make something more important to someone increases exponentially if their existing mindset is that something is most likely a good idea. All we have to do is to make them care and, in my mind, it should begin by making their own data more tangible to them. Like, origin ID and the business they work at showing how their data can be used. Look. I am sure there are hundreds of better ideas than the ones I offered but I feel relatively confident my ideas would go a long way to getting people to care. So just think about it.

================= 

“Authenticity will be the buzzword of the twenty-first century. And what is authentic? Anything that is not devised and structured to make a profit. Anything that is not controlled by corporations. Anything that exists for its own sake, that assumes its own shape. But of course nothing in the modern world is allowed to assume its own shape. The modern world is the corporate equivalent of a formal garden, where everything is planted and arranged for effect. Where nothing is untouched, where nothing is authentic. 

“Where, then, will people turn for the rare and desirable experience of authenticity? They will turn to the past.

“The past is unarguably authentic. The past is a world that already existed before all the other shapers of the present day shaped today’s world. The past was here before they were. The past rose and fell before their intrusion and molding and selling. The past is real. It’s authentic. And this will make the past unbelievably attractive.”

Michael Crichton

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

Well.

I am not a past guy and I believe “authentic” is one of those words that is currently being abused in a variety of definition-type ways, but, I would offer a reminder to everyone that if you want something authentic it is actually the past <I will expound on that in a minute>.

Let’s just say that it always surprises me a little when people start bitching about the other people who seem to be yearning for the past. While I am certainly not a past-yearner lets’ see what a past yearner sees:

Everything is uncertain in today’s world.

You have no idea who to trust.

There is a struggle to trust anything.

Facts seem to no longer be black & white

Truth now has an alternative version.

Common sense doesn’t seem common.

Opinions look much like facts & facts get confused with opinions.

Simple, or simplification, doesn’t seem that simple anymore.

Add in that all of those things are occurring in a world in which we are increasingly encouraging people to think of everything as “all or nothing” <a zero-sum world>.

This all drives a lot of people to find any fucking semi-solid lily pad to stand on that they can find. And what seems solid, seems certain, and seems authentic, well, is the past.

Ok. That said. On to my ‘expounding’ comment.

No. We may not remember the past well or correctly. In fact <research> we typically do not remember it correctly <choosing to remember the things we like & discarding the things we don’t want to remember>. Yet, in our minds, how we do remember it is as certain as anything can be in this world.

*** note: Daniel Kahneman discusses this in “the riddle of experience versus memory.”

And, yeah, aspects of this can be skewed into a generational/age thing if you wanted. In a world of increasing uncertainty the young, who have less to hold on to with ragged claws & look forward to ditching a lot of the existing shit so they can develop their own shit, leave the past behind <sometimes flippantly> .

In a world of increasing uncertainty the old, well, they hang on with ragged claws to the only thing they know to be true, certain & authentic. i.e., the past.

But, suffice it to say, how we view the past goes beyond age <although age can exacerbate the issue>.

There is seeing and … well … seeing. And there is a vast difference between the two. Frederick Franck in “Zen Seeing/Zen Drawing” argues:

“The glaring contrast between seeing and looking-at the world around us is immense; it is fateful. Everything in our society seems to conspire against our inborn human gift of seeing. We have become addicted to merely looking-at things and beings. The more we regress from seeing to looking at the world — through the ever-more-perfected machinery of viewfinders, TV tubes, VCRs, microscopes, spectroscopes — the less we see. The less we see, the more numbed we become to the joy and the pain of being alive, and the further estranged we become from ourselves and all others.”

Well.

That is a discouraging thought. He is basically suggesting that once we get on the slippery slope of ‘not seeing’ we very quickly enter, and stay, in this miserable abyss of blindness.

He may be right. But I would rather believe he is not. I would prefer to believe seeing, really seeing, is a discriminating decision made by you and not the world around you. I would like to believe if we chose we could see the past with open eyes, open mind, open heart, with open to unapologetic attention.

This is about not really looking for something in particular just being ready and receptive to whatever happens around you and in front of you. And by not seeking anything in particular <because that inhibits true seeing> you end up, as someone wrote somewhere ‘… by your own eyes you will see, and there will be a conclusion.’ What that means is you don’t see based on your own ideas <or belief system>, but rather you see based on … well … what you see.

Hey. I am not suggesting this is easy. I am simply suggesting that you can do it if you elect to. If it helps, we partially have evolution to blame on why I can say what I am saying to you:

…. evolution’s problem-solving left us modern humans with two kinds of attention: vigilance, which allows us to have a quick and life-saving fight-or-flight response to an immediate threat, be it a leaping lion or a deranged boss, and selective attention, which unconsciously curates the few stimuli to attend to amidst the flurry bombarding us, enabling us to block out everything except what we’re interested in ingesting. (Selective attention, of course, can mutate to dangerous degrees, producing such cultural atrocities as the filter bubble.)

Ah. The ‘filter bubble.’

the filter bubble — by definition, it’s populated by the things that most compel you to click. But it’s also a real problem: the set of things we’re likely to click on (sex, gossip, things that are highly personally relevant) isn’t the same as the set of things we need to know. – Eli Pariser

Evolution and Life experience has created this filter bubble for each of us. And, by the way, each of our filter bubbles are different <because our Life experiences have been different in creating it>.

This filter bubble idea also suggests that you can manage, if not actually change your filter bubble.

Yup. You can change the way you see things.

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

“To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

I love that one thought: ‘allow things to come to it.’ Allow what you see to come to your eye and ultimately your mind. In other words, seeing is in the mind; not in the eyes. Mentally we need to stop focusing on a specific destination, but rather watch during the journey.

All that said.

While the past may be authentic it may not be truthful <or a reflection of truth>. There are certainly some problems with the past ‘truth.’  We are really sure about how we remember the past “… to some extent he is saying all the correct things. But he is not correct.”

 And maybe that is the most important is lesson that lies within.

We say all the correct things … but aren’t really correct. Context and perspective is needed to share “real & absolute truth” and Truth, with regard to the past, is the sum of accurate information; not just some of the accurate information.

Now.

More research.

Just to make everyone feel better, beyond evolution, there is a real reason we do this. It is called ‘adaptive ignorance.’ This is no excuse and this ‘adaptive ignorance’ gets driven by an out of whack barometer of what is important <kind of> to us crazy people, but at least there is a psychological reason:

This adaptive ignorance is there for a reason — we celebrate it as “concentration” and welcome its way of easing our cognitive overload by allowing us to conserve our precious mental resources only for the stimuli of immediate and vital importance, and to dismiss or entirely miss all else.

Attention is an intentional, unapologetic discriminator. It asks what is relevant right now, and gears us up to notice only that. But while this might make us more efficient in our goal-oriented day-to-day, it also makes us inhabit a largely unlived — and unremembered — life, day in and day out.

Not only does Life make ‘seeing’ difficult, our minds do. Our minds adapt more and more <which ultimately constrains seeing> because of a couple of things:

• • productivity <just getting shit done or out of the way or solved>

  • the ways we learn to see the world

All this adaptation <or I imagine we can call it ‘coping’> creates something researchers call ‘search images.’ These are things all of us employ when we need to narrow our attention in a goal-oriented task. Unfortunately, this is only helpful or even possible if we know what to look for.

And that, my friends, is ultimately the point about seeing — and really seeing.

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

“… more is missed by not looking than not knowing.”

Thomas McCrae

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

We don’t see because we don’t “look.” What a shame. Because by not looking … really looking … we miss seeing some really valuable things, like, what is authentic.

We all need truth goggles. Because we all want to hear what we all want to hear & see what we want to see & remember what we want to remember.

But all truth, even “the past,” takes a discerning mind.

Because what happens when the past says all the correct things, but is not correct? <i.e., you have a misguided view of what is true>

Truth takes work.

Shit.

Seeing things as they truly are takes work.

And that which appears authentic is often not what it appears to be. Just think about this whenever someone seems to be longing for the past. They are partially correct and partially not correct. Be careful with what you believe you see.

===

“Change does not take place by trying coercion, or persuasion, or by insight, interpretation, or any other such means. Rather, change can occur when the patient [or client] abandons, at least for the moment, what he [or she] would like to become and attempts to be what he [or she] is.”

Arnold Bessier

===

This is a companion piece to my thinking on “we are all a bit purposefully ignorant.” That said. Let’s be clear. For the majority of things, no person ever gets to know the whole of a truth. If you don’t believe me, just think about how time has effected many of the ‘truths’ you have held throughout your lifetime. Shit. Even experiences you had, things you knew to be ‘true’, can often take on a different narrative once you know everything that occurred before, who was involved, what was involved, and the consequences that followed. Things that seemed self-evident take a back seat to things you thought were trivial at that time. Shit. This is even true about honesty (and lying). You may discover you have become a liar not because of you intentionally lied, but rather because of things you did not know that become known.  I say all of this to suggest history, and beliefs, are not truly fixed but defined, and redefined, as time breaks down their construct. Well. That is true if you let it be true.

Which leads me to beliefs, and history, can be pretty resilient.

We have a tendency to have a self-sealing logic <Chris Argyris> with regard to our beliefs. Self sealing is when we find information that confirms our beliefs and ignore some ‘truths’ which could challenge our beliefs. In other words, once we settle in on a belief, especially if we view it as a ‘governing belief’, we seal it off from additional information.

To be fair. Most people like stability with regard to their beliefs. And this means beliefs kind of seem to gain some strength the longer they are perceived to have lasted. In addition. The more uncertain the world becomes, or we believe it becomes, the more likely we will latch onto even some conspiracy theories (or dubiously grounded theories) to moor our belief world. These ‘governing beliefs’ become kind of like the color filter which hues everything you see from that point on. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out superficial beliefs are relatively easy to change, but governing beliefs can be stubborn motherfuckers. They gain some emotional “I care about this belief” aspects and caring is not only the engine to do something, but also the glue to hold on to something.

Obviously, the problem with self-sealing beliefs is new information should shed some of the boundaries around existing beliefs.

“Once you see the boundaries of your environment, they are no longer the boundaries of your environment.”

Marshall McLuhan

Now. We have access to new information all the time, but the truth is that the brain is an inherently limited storage unit <and computer>. We rarely know as much about a given topic as everyone else in a room put together, and even if we do, our perspective is partial and biased in a variety of ways. That ‘room together’ thought is important because research has shown that human connectivity <dialogue and interaction> is the most powerful tool in shaping, and reshaping, our beliefs. It is within interaction, exposure to new ideas and thinking as well as the discussion of new ideas and thinking, which can reshape what we have in our brain. Alternatively, as Jaron Lanier has pointed out, more people can make us more stupid. Depending on who your ‘connectivity’ is with, you can easily fall into pack behavior, identity signaling and a variety of ‘I have found my tribe’ characteristics. It is a version of “group sealing beliefs” which only feed into conformation bias for ‘self sealing logic’ and ‘self-sealing beliefs’. It’s a vicious loop to get trapped in if you are not careful. Oh. And most people are not careful. Why? Well. Its easier to wander around the world with self-sealing beliefs, find other with similar beliefs, and scratch your head <or get irritated> when someone doesn’t see what is obvious to you.

All that said. I imagine my point is almost everyone’s belief systems do some shapeshifting within a contextual environment wherein we get influenced by other mindsets, i.e., beliefs, attitudes which effect ours at times in our Life.

“Defensive routines are thoughts and actions used to protect individuals’, groups’, and organizations’ usual way of dealing with reality.”

Chris Argyris

Look. We all need beliefs. They shape who we are, how we think and even what we do. We couldn’t really survive without any beliefs. At the same time, beliefs are constraints <constraints can be good and bad>. Those constraints can make us both more efficient and effective while, at exactly the same time, make us less efficient and less effective. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that beliefs wielded like a dull axe guarantees a dull person. That said. The interesting thing I don’t believe people think about enough is that governing beliefs are typically grounded in some ‘needs.’ What I mean by that is as we need things, not just want, we craft a belief system around how to get them and filter ‘stories’ as we get them. Our beliefs assess reality in terms of filing away reality and assessing the ‘non-knowable’ stuff as it moves into reality. This is partially why governing beliefs can be so damn stubborn – they shape the reality we ‘see’.

Which leads me back to ‘obvious.’

Earlier I mentioned something about ‘obvious to you, but they don’t see it.’ I cannot remember where I read this, but, “the obvious is not obvious.” What I believe they meant by that is your belief system crafts your ‘obvious’. That means someone else is using their own belief system to craft their own ‘obvious.’ Uhm. The probability that your obvious perfectly matches someone else’s is fairly low. Obvious has shiftable dimensions and yet we tend to think of it as a whole concrete thing.

Shit. We think of stories as concrete things and the truth is most stories we accept as simply constructs of things we believe. Our belief structure is, well, constructed. It’s a narrative constructed of a tapestry of stories. I mention stories because that means self-sealing beliefs are constructed by stories we tell ourselves. Now. We may claim these stories are real and these stories are truth, but, well, for the most part they are stories OF stories which we like to tell ourselves so we can justify our ‘self-sealing beliefs.’ Ponder that for a moment or two.

I think I’ll end there to state – “you set a thief to catch a thief.” You tell a story to kill a story. In today’s world far too many of the self-sealing beliefs are unhealthy and I think we need to become better ‘healthy storytellers’ to help reshape some of the more unhealthy ‘self-sealed belief stories’ in existence. To be honest, I am not sure self sealed logic or beliefs is a good thing. I know why we do it, I am not sure we should do it. My sense is self-sealing beliefs can quickly become dogmatic thinking and in a dynamic world in which the world itself reshapes almost on a minute-by-minute basis, it would seem like our belief systems should be a bit more malleable. But, hey, that’s me.