“Anyone could see that the wind was a special wind this night, and the darkness took on a special feel because it was All Hallows’ Eve.”

Ray Bradbury

===

Happy Halloween.

I have a love – hate relationship with Halloween.

Love. Love the chocolate and the ‘pomp and circumstance’ of one of the goofiest nights in the world as ghosts and spirits of loved ones <and I assume some not-so-loved ones> wander the world being as persnickety <I just wanted to type that word> and aggravating as they were when they stood near you in their flesh & blood, and children can wander the neighborhood unattended dressed up as whatever they want trick-or-treating <begging/demanding as much sugar as they can possibly consume> or, in general, simply wreaking havoc as young people do <just not in cars – that comes later in the teen years>.

Hate? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … the cats.

Cats are probably the most useless animals and pets in the world. I am sure they have some redeeming value it is just that I have yet to find any <if but one>.

Oh. Please note here … I am a dog guy.

Anyway.

Cats. Halloween has too strong an association with cats for my liking.

We seem to be able to blame this association on European pagan religions which were tightly associated with the animals of nature, including the cat, in the good ole <dark ages> days.

Then Christianity put the kibosh on all that pagan stuff — kind of decided that witchcraft was a bad thing — and since everyone associated cats with witches, well, there you go. Cats were deemed evil by association.

Aside from the old Popes <who apparently were dog lovers too> there are a bunch of old myths that attribute bad luck to cats:

–          King Charles I of England owned a black cat and the day it died he was arrested.

–          An old sailor’s legend said that meeting cats in the shipyard meant an unpleasant voyage of storms or other bad luck.

–          In Babylonian folklore a curled up cat on the hearth is seen as similar to evil serpent.

There you go.

Hopefully I have covered my butt with all the crazy cat ladies who want to throw used kitty litter at me for saying I hate cats by noting that my cat concerns are rooted in some historical, if not mythical, thoughts.

Regardless.

Some things you should be aware of that you may not know <albeit I doubt is very useful> about Halloween:

–          There’s a $1,000 fine for using or selling Silly String in Hollywood on Halloween.

The prank product has been banned in Hollywood since 2004 after thousands of bored people would buy it on the streets of Hollywood from illegal vendors and “vandalize” the streets. The city ordinance calls for a maximum $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail for “use, possession, sale or distribution of Silly String in Hollywood from 12:01 AM on October 31 to 12:00 PM on November 1.”

–          Dressing up on Halloween comes from the Celts <no, not the Boston Celtics, the Celts in great Britain history>.

Celts believed their version of a Halloween date was a time when the wall between our world and the paranormal world was porous and spirits could get through. Because of this belief, it was common for the Celts to wear costumes and masks during the festival to ward off or befuddle any evil spirits.

–          Ah. Celts were pagans, but the name “Halloween” comes from the Catholics.

Hallowmas is a three-day Catholic holiday where saints are honored and people pray for the recently deceased. At the start of the 11th century, it was decreed by the pope that it would last from Oct. 31 (All Hallow’s Eve) until Nov. 2,

<speculation on my part: we should note that the dog loving Popes were smart enough to place this holiday at this time most likely because that was when the cat loving pagans celebrated and the church was trying to convert them – into dog lovers>.

“All Hallow’s Eve” then evolved into “All Hallow’s Even” and by the 18th century it was commonly referred to as “Hallowe’en.”

–          Turnips

Pumpkins are a fraud. We should probably blame Hallmark, but instead we can just blame America for this too. Halloween originally had nothing to do with pumpkins … it was turnips.

The origin of Jack-O-Lanterns comes from a Celtic folk tale of a stingy farmer named Jack who would constantly play tricks on the devil. The devil responded by forcing him to wander purgatory with only a burning lump of coal from hell. Jack took the coal and made a lantern from a turnip using it to guide his lost soul. The myth was brought over by Irish families fleeing the potato famine in the 1800s, and since turnips were hard to come by in the U.S., America’s pumpkins were used as a substitute to guide lost souls and keep evil spirits like “Jack of the Lantern” away.

–          Media is part of the horror story of Halloween.

Media is made up of witches and warlocks. Well. They must be. Because fears of poisoned Halloween candy are unfounded but a constant story on media.

One of our biggest fears is a child’s Halloween candy is poisoned or contains razor blades.

The truth?

This fear is almost entirely unfounded.

There are only two known cases of poisoning, and both involved relatives, according to LiveScience. In 1970, a boy died of a heroin overdose. The investigators found it on his candy, but in a twist they later discovered the boy had accidentally consumed some of his uncle’s heroin stash, and the family had sprinkled some on the candy to cover up the incident. Even worse, in 1974 Timothy O’Bryan died after eating a Pixy Stix his father had laced with cyanide to collect on the insurance money <according to Smithsonian Magazine>.

Besides that the razor blade in apple story is a myth <unproven or simply staged>.

The real point of sharing this is that your kid has less to fear from some unknown random neighbor than he/she does from someone they already know <that is an extremely unfortunate  Life truth in general … sigh>.

–          I hate Candy Corn. Oh. And it was originally known as chicken feed.

Invented by some guy at the Wunderle Candy Company in Philadelphia in the 1880s, Candy Corn was originally called “butter cream candies” and “chicken feed.” Ah. There was a reason. Back then corn was commonly used as food for livestock <they even had a rooster on the candy boxes>.

At that time candy corn had no association with Halloween or fall and was sold seasonally from March to November.

After World War II, advertisers began marketing it as a special Halloween treat due to its colors and ties to the fall harvest <the bastards … who the heck actually eats that stuff?>.

–          A full moon on Halloween is extremely rare.

Although almost every Halloween decoration seen is with witches flying across the full moon … just another marketing lie. The next full moon on Halloween won’t occur until 2020. The last was in 2001. Before that it was in 1955. Brilliant marketing … but it is just another lie <sigh>.

–          Trick-or-treating has been around for a long time <so America or capitalism cannot be blamed for this greedy little maneuver>.

Versions of trick-or-treating have existed since medieval times.

It was known as ‘guising’ where children and poor adults went around in costumes during this time begging for food and money in exchange for songs or prayers. It was also called “souling.”

–          thank you Great Pumpkin and Charlie Brown.

Trick-or-treating as we know it was re-popularized by cartoons.

Trick-or-treating was brought to America by the Irish and became popular during the early 20th century, but died out during WWII when sugar was rationed. After the rationing ended in 1947, children’s magazine “Jack and Jill,” radio program “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet,” and the “Peanuts” comic strip all helped to re-popularize the tradition of dressing up in costumes and asking for candy from door-to-door. By 1952, trick-or-treating was hugely popular again <thank you Charlie Brown and Linus and the Great Pumpkin>.

There you go.

Today in America we will share or consume something like 90 million pounds of chocolate.

Awesome <and we wonder about a national obesity issue … sorry … different post, by the way, I blame cats for that too by the way>.

Americans will also spend about $6 billion on Halloween including candy, costumes, and decorations <note: that does not include the wacky cat costumes crazy cat people make their cats wear>.

Happy Halloween.

=====

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

—-

===

“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.

====

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

Albert Einstein.

====

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become prey to the active. The conditions upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.”

John Philpot Curran

====

On page 5 of The Cluetrain Manifesto tucked down at the bottom of the page you will see these words written by Christopher Locke: “As would soon become obvious, the Net was a powerful multiplier for intellectual capital.” Not long after he follows it with its uncomfortable partner, “voice”, in that the other thing the Net did was give voice to anyone, intellectual or not.

And therein lies the wretched hollow we live in within this world of 24/7 internet access.

And therein lies our eternal vigilance – our vigilant pursuit of information.

I suggest vigilance because no matter how siloed your ‘tribe’ is there is no way that you will ever know everything that everyone knows even in your tribe/group/connections/etc. Just think about that for a second. And I choose a second because if everyone in your circle googles something they will get over a million responses in one second and the odds they will choose different things than you to read has an extremely high probability. You cannot chase all the information available and even if you have some excellent parameters on how you filter your intake you will not know as much about any individual topic as someone you are talking with.

To maintain some sanity, we are all a bit purposefully ignorant.

Technically, purposeful ignorance occurs when a person knows the truth, but chooses to ignore it, or the person refuses to abandon false beliefs and pursue the development of further knowledge.

According to the Urban Dictionary willful ignorance is: “the practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs.”

But, to me, there are four levels of purposeful ignorance:

• accepted ignorance: I have an attitude, perception or belief and I go about my life doing nothing to engage my thinking and expand what I know <unlearning avoidance is what I call this>

• confirmed ignorance: with the intent to show everyone that I am not ignorant I actually proactively engage in news & opinion offerors … uhm … but I only do so with those who have the same attitudes, perceptions and beliefs that I do <learning how to better articulate what I already think is what I call this>.

• ignorant ignorance: I actively engage with people who have different views and maybe even have some discussions and give the impression I am open minded, but even while nodding my head sagely I am simply building additional walls around what I already believe and think <listening without listening is what I call this>

• selective ignorance: I only have so much time in a day and so much brain space and I will actively attempt to be smart on some things at the expense of being ignorant on others

The third of those three is the most heinous type of ignorance. You actually have the opportunity to learn and you choose to not learn diddleysquat. It is heinous to me because there are gobs of well-intended people who are smart, but just don’t actively engage in learning new shit because, well, they prioritize other shit. In other words, they have time, but don’t learn. Useless dangerous people.

So. Let me get to the ‘selective ignorant.’

The truth is almost every single one of us have moments of purposeful ignorance. At its worst it is a conscious choice to be ignorant rather than challenge our own thinking and acknowledge a truth about reality. At its best we have simply bucketed some things in our minds as ‘decided’ in order to short cut some things and invest energy in others <and we all do the latter>.

And I even give some people a break on this topic.

Psychological research tells us that some people are cognitively complex while others prefer cognitive simplicity, in other words, some people are open to experience while other are closed minded.  Some people are cognitively flexible while others are cognitively rigid.

I could suggest that those who are cognitively simple, closed minded and/or rigid are much more likely to engage in the ‘accepted ignorance’ level of purposeful ignorance that I noted earlier, but they are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. They most certainly have the ability to be ‘smart’ <or broader in thinking>, they are simply people who would rather be comfortably ignorant rather than ‘intellectually smart’.

In addition, Urban Dictionary suggests that some people are “cognitive misers”, i.e., they do not to examine things intellectually if they don’t feel they have to. Let’s call them lazy.

And another valid reason is, well, conformity. While this sounds ‘sheeplike’, it is not always. We all engage in some aspects of conformity because it helps us not only fit in, but provide us with some daily stability which permits us to engage our energy elsewhere. That is why a shitload of people tend to believe what those around them believe because questioning those beliefs would lead to conflict, possibly rejection and, well, energy investment.

And, look, there are some nice benefits to conforming. Conformists have the greater potential to find a mate, or mates, to climb the social ladder of “success,” to have others speak well of them and to enjoy the benefits of a social support system.

And, with all that said, you know what? I can live with that.

As much as a curious, always seeking truth, person like me finds purposeful ignorance to be an egregious and utter lack of responsibility to living Life to its fullest and being engaged in Life, in general, I accept that there are some acceptable versions of purposeful ignorance <and, yet, I will do anything I can to break thru to these people and engage in some thoughtful thinking>.

I absolutely believe that learning and unlearning, is a lifelong process and ultimately leads to a fuller, richer Life <and society> I will participate in learning/unlearning through my own discussions and I will engage with anyone, anywhere, on any topic, at any time. But I am clearly in the fourth group, albeit grudgingly so.

Let me end by saying I am an “anti-ignorance optimist.” I understand that deeply ingrained purposeful ignorance is incredibly difficult to change, but I also never, ever, underestimate people’s capacity for change. I will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where I disagree with them, and I will always be interested in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.

I think this is a healthy way to approach things because, to me, this is the ultimate negotiation of ‘what will be.’ In other words, how we, as people, achieve the best possible outcomes for ourselves and society. Yeah. 99% of the time better thinking will lead to better doing.

“The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest until it has gained a hearing. Ultimately, after endlessly repeated rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points in which it may be optimistic about the future of mankind, but in itself it signifies not a little.”

Sigmund Freud

Anyway. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that anyone can change the world – even if it is only the small part of the big world that you can control. And maybe the point of this rambling post isn’t that anyone can change the world just by thinking and speaking the truth, they need to be able to close the deal. While we are all a bit purposefully ignorant that’s no excuse for not attempting to change whatever ignorance exists. Maybe it is within our vigilance we can make a dent in ignorance and nudge the world toward a better place.  What I do know is one who seeks vitality against decay, one who struggles against indolence with relentless energy, one who understands the journey to enlightenment is one that never ends, is the one who never has stagnant ignorance. And maybe that is what we should all purposefully attempt – a lack of stagnant ignorance. Ponder.

“Life is a struggle between vitality and decay, energy and indolence”

Winston Churchill

===

“Sliding down the slippery slope of mediocrity.”

David Ogilvy

====

Turn on television on any given weekend in the United States and you have a very high probability of finding the movie The Replacements at some point. While the movie, at its core, is about taking for granted what you have versus taking advantage of opportunities, tucked within the movie is what I call “the quicksand moment.”

This is the scene where the coach asks the players their greatest fear and the quarterback says “quicksand.”

Businesses get stuck in quicksand all the time. Shit. People do too. What makes it worse is that most times you know how to play the game well, in fact, you may have actually been playing it well at the time so the first thing that goes wrong is just a blip.

“Just one thing” is what you say.

Then another thing happens.

Then another.

You fight back alone and sink.

Or.

Someone notices (usually management) and they help you fight back.

How?

The first response almost every business has to a problem is “more resources”. Oh. That is the first sign you have fallen into quicksand. As Brooks pointed out in the Mythical Man Month, even on projects, our first instinct is to add more people. This only makes everything even slower and more dysfunctional.

If that fails, the second response is usually even more resources.

You sink deeper.

Faster.

On a personal level this comes to fruition in “I’ll stay later or get in early.” You are on the edge of quicksand. You see added resources as “more time.” So, you put in more time. And more time. And this is where fear enters. You know you are trying hard; you know you are doing right things and, yet, it still keeps going wrong.

You are sinking despite all the effort.

And then you can’t breathe.

Organizational quicksand.

Now.

Quicksand and slippery slopes share some similar characteristics.

The first is that you don’t know you are in, or on, them until its too late.

The second is what I call “just this once” behavior.

It is absolutely easy to compromise – in business and in life. “Just this once.” An exception. And then another.

And before you know it you are on that slippery slope.

Regardless. This is a Life and business lesson. So, let’s just call it “truth.” It’s a truth about work, effort, decisions, compromise, lies (or “half-truths”) and almost anything else I can think of.

Slippery slopes are incredibly easy to step onto AND get stuck on. What do I mean?

“Just this once” you say to yourself when you are tired. Whatever the decision or action we are discussing, to you, in the moment … it is mentally “an exception”.

“Just this once” when you are asked a question and you ponder your answer and maybe you embellish a bit.

“Just this once” you say to yourself when you put off that thing you wanted to do. A workout. A chore. A book. A project. A diet. A decision.

“Just this once” you say to yourself when it is a silly rule or what you are doing isn’t really unethical, but its not 100% ethical, it’s just in the margins of “okay to do.”

Before you know it <after some “just this onces“> you have edged on to that slippery slope. Once has become many and, well, many becomes the standard.

Business is funny that way. Its sneaky. It permits you to look at things in a mutually exclusive way so that you don’t really see the accumulation of events and decisions until you have sunk.

Oh.

Quicksand.

Ponder.

“Each moment is a place you’ve never been.”

Mark Strand

====

Innovation can embody some seemingly innocuous inspirations. This is also true of social behavior and social dynamics. What I am referring to is that a nonlinear “exaptation” occurs.

In biology ‘exaptation’ are variations on the usual variations of natural selection. Unlike adaptations, which are changes to an organism that respond to environmental conditions, exaptations are novel, unexpected applications of these new traits. For example, wings evolved as an extension of reptile’s webbed forelimbs wherein evolution was in search of a stronger limb, yet, somewhere along the way the ‘newly winged’ discovered its capacity for flight.

“An organ initially constructed for one purpose may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose.”

Charles Darwin

I say all of that to talk about technology. And I don’t mean anything specifically within technology, just technology itself. I read somewhere years ago that the most profound change brought about by technology will not be some new program, AI or even involve some whizbang software, the most profound change will reside in our generic expectations of technology itself. Through its ubiquity the broader shifts will occur in corollary effects that trickle in, and out, and throughout, everyone – the subtle gradual changes that shift the foundation upon what we know and what we think (about Life and ourselves). Living in our technology-created-“memory palaces” (or information spaces always nudging us) will inevitably engineer a social transformation which, in turn, inevitably cascades into the pragmatic functions of life itself – education, healthcare, business, etc. In other words, maybe technology will offer us ‘exaptations’ of which we cannot envision. And maybe worse is that some of these exaptations we cannot envision, will make our lives easier, but worse.

Norbert Weiner, Alvin Toffler and Marshall McLuhan all invested a lot of energy and brain power thinking about this and even telling us in the 1960’s and 1970’s – but I am not sure we actually listened. We fell in love with all the technology things and widgets and embraced, for the most part, how we adapted. But. What they were warning us about were of exaptation.

Which leads me to effectuation.

A causation approach focuses on a predefined goal and then goes about finding the means to attains the goal. An effectuation approach focuses on the means at hand and then have them coalesce with the intent to achieve some outcomes which inevitably achieve some goals (not all predefined).

Effectuation is most often discussed within business and how entrepreneurs shape performance. I bring it up because I fear someone truly thinking about what I am bringing up will jump to designing a goal and pursuing it (causation). I fear it because in a dynamic environment like technology and society, by the time we attain that goal, the goalposts will have moved – most likely dramatically. The truth is that this technology-society battle we are fighting is currently asymmetrical and technology has the leverage. I am not a fan of the word ‘scale’, but the reality is technology is scaling exponentially AND with velocity, faster than human brains can scale, and attempting to address it solely with causation approaches is doomed to fail. The real conclusion anyone should take is to embrace effectuation. Take what exists and use it, and the skills that developed all those things, to materialize real progress in real time and outcomes occur making predefined goals irrelevant. Its kind of like nudging at scale.

Anyway.

As the saying goes, ‘the street always finds new uses for things,’ and with technological ubiquity in most lives, we should be paying attention to ‘the street always finds exaptation while we are not looking and maybe technology will encourage people to fly when they have no wings and, well, we will crash’.

Yeah. There is a lesson lurking in that bad metaphor I just shared.

Ponder.

So. This past week was the anniversary of my grandfather’s passing away. I normally don’t think about it often but it was also in this past week someone posted something on LinkedIn about their grandfather passing away.

Let me say that I have been very fortunate in my life in the great people I have “glanced off” throughout my life and career. My parents were interesting people and put me in a variety of situations where I met or was in the same room with a variety of semi famous some well known smart great people. Then my career has permitted me to meet many others and, well, I am a nomad and my friends are strewn across the world so I have had many opportunities to meet some amazing ‘great’ people.

Kofi Anan, Muhammad Ali, Victor Yuschenko, James Patterson, Jean Marie Dru, John McEnroe, Jimmy Johnson, Stevie Nicks, Stephen Tyler, Tom Seaver, Elton John, Spike Lee, several authors, couple of presidents … well … whatever … and a variety of additional celebrity like people.

And the list of CEO-like and insightful business people who are business icons, but not household names is even longer. Then I have friends who work in US Embassies, are deans in colleges and are incredibly successful in just living life (being mothers, fathers and serving the public).

But.

The greatest person I have ever met was my grandfather. Gilbert Kane.

Hands down.

No debate.

No discussion.

And I am sure of one thing, probably surer of anything else in this life; any of these people I listed above would have been better people for having met my grandfather.

100th birthday party

He was the kindest, strongest, focused, virtuous, ethical most honest and patient man I have ever met. He had a heart of gold.

And I honestly struggle to find any meaningful moment or amount of time he was unhappy.

And I cannot think of a single time he was ever mean. He taught me patience and kindness.

He was an “encourager.”

He was proud of you in the attempt.

As long as you stepped up and did your best he had a word of encouragement.

And if you actually succeeded he treated it as a natural conclusion to the attempt. I am not sure we ever over celebrated any success.

But he never missed sharing his pride in any attempt made (and his pride was an unestimable prize). He taught me to try. And he taught me that failing was okay.

It was the attempt that mattered.

He taught me to play baseball. I think he put a glove in my crib. He was tireless in playing catch and hitting grounders and fly balls until my grandmother would have to drag him back inside. Until the last day we played catch he always wore the glove he played with when he played. One of those old original leather gloves with no basket and almost no padding.

As I grew older he would take one of his handkerchiefs and slide it into the palm of the glove so his hand wouldn’t bruise. He made me the baseball player and athlete I became. Every ounce of my ability came through his patience.

A self taught draftsman he worked for the same company for over 50 years. I am not sure he ever did NOT do what he said he was going to do.

He didn’t invent anything.

He didn’t run a company.

But he may have been one of the most successful men I know. He taught me that success wasn’t measured by a title, but by pride in what you do.

He was an adventurer (in his own way). He and my grandmother drove my mother everywhere and anywhere to see the United States. He loved to explore.

He loved to see new things. He was tireless in his pursuit to experience.

And when he actually got on a plane for the first time in his life to move to California (maybe 90 years old) while we (the family) worried he took to it like duck to water. He loved it. And I will never forget the phone call we had afterward when he said to me “now I know why you like to fly Bruce. It is nice that all those beautiful women pay so much attention to you … and they have free food.”

He taught me that age never stops adventure. You are never too old to try something new.

He was a man of few words. He was stoic, but would cry leaving people he loved, yet, didn’t cry when leaving his home on Long Island after 50+ years.

He taught me to measure words carefully and caring didn’t always need words.

He taught me people were more important than things.

He was the most polite man I knew. Maybe ever.

So let’s say ‘know’ instead of knew.

He always wore a hat (not a baseball hat) and tipped it to woman as he passed.

Opened doors for women. Held chairs in the dining room. Let’s just say he was a gentleman. He taught me to respect. And truly respect women. He taught me to be a gentleman.

He loved jelly beans.

Ok.

Anything sweet.

I am not sure he had more than 2 cavities in his entire mouth.

My mother and I had to have a “talk” when he was about 91 or so when I was giving him pounds of jelly beans as birthday gifts and she discussed that maybe it wasn’t the best for him. I suggested the man had lived until his 90’s and maybe we could let him live a little for whatever he had left (almost another decade or so).  This man never turned down a dessert. Ever.

And he lived to be 101+ and up until the last 4 months or so he was “the iron man.” He was indestructible. When he passed it was only a surprise because, well, I don’t think I ever believed his battery would ever stop running.

He made me a better person.

I wouldn’t be half the man I am today without him. I can only wish that everyone has the opportunity to have this kind of greatness glance off of their life.

So.

This post is dedicated to the greatest man I knew. And, sadly, I don’t think I ever told him.

But, in the end, I am not sure he would have felt comfortable hearing it. He just did what he thought he should do. A lesson we could all learn.

---

---

===== Author’s Note =====

This was originally my 300th post written back on May 2010.

I wasn’t sure what my 300^th post was going to be (the 100’s seem like milestones so I like to treat them that way) and then I knew what I wanted to write about to answer someone’s suggestion for “so, who is the greatest person you have ever met?” and it became crystal clear this should be my 300^th.

—

“I could say that her eyes were as blue as the sea, but that would be an understatement.

Her eyes were more like mirrors to a raging ocean of melancholy and despair, and for some reason, all I wanted to do was go for a swim. “

Noah Geffroyd

==

“A grey curtain unfolded from the clouds and came galloping towards them like a herd of horses.”

Cicada by Moira McKinnon

==

Ok. Colors and black & white. Or. Maybe colors versus black & white.

What do I mean? Try thinking about this.

Who doesn’t like black & white things in their lives?

Who doesn’t like color in their lives?

Yikes. We like them both, but, colors and black & white seem to have an adversarial role in today’s world.
We put an extremely high value on ‘black & white’ things and thoughts <when most things actually reside in the gray> and … uh oh … we also put an extremely high value on ‘color’ — being colorful, having a colorful personality or even standing out in some colored way in a metaphorically dreary gray world.

This clashing can be quite uncomfortable.

– Be too black & white and you are stubborn & uncompromising and possibly a little difficult to be around.

– Be too colorful and you are overbearing & unstable and possibly a little difficult to be around.

– Be too on either end of the spectrum and you will always be too much of something for someone: too big, too loud, too soft, too edgy.

But here’s the deal <part 1>.

If you are gray, there is no edge.

<note: and edges define shit>

But here’s the deal <part 2>.

Black, white or color … choose one or all … in doing so you will always be too much of something for someone.

 <note: yikes … what if you want to be just the right amount?>

Suffice it to say that Life doesn’t make it easy for you with this whole color & black & white thing..

Shit.

We don’t make it easy on ourselves.

We seek both black & white and color.

We naturally want some things to be clear cut – black & white. We naturally dislike ambiguity. We naturally like certainty. We naturally are uncomfortable with certainty.

And yet we enjoy colors.

Uhm. And yet each of us has a different ‘liked’ color palette. There are those who love fire engine red, those who love pink and those who love scarlet. And those are only the ones who like versions of red for god’s sake.

I imagine we sense we just cannot win.

I imagine we covet both and in coveting both, and having everyone covet both, we end up owning not enough black & white OR color.

Well. How maddening does that make life?

In fact, conversely, how brave does that make someone who chooses black & white … versus choosing some color?

Shit.

I don’t know.

What I do know is we are in a tug of war daily between black & white and color. And I do know that when faced with a tug a war of choice, it ain’t no place for a coward.

That may sound harsh.

—–

“I am not a place for cowards.”

Caitlyn Siehl

—

But it also sounds … well … true.

Facing some version of a Life harsh truth I sense.

Facing some version of a character choice and standing by that choice.

Yikes. That’s the hard choice isn’t it? A character choice. Because it is not really an accomplishment, well, at least in a tangible way.

Do we stand with black & white or do we stand with color?

The outcome of the choice is obvious — standing there is more a reflection of character.

Ok. Let me make a point on black & white and color and character and the fact it really has nothing to do with smarts <or intelligence>, but rather resiliency. I could have called it ‘conviction of self’ but instead I think I’ll focus on resiliency.

There is a book <“How Children Succeed — Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character” by Paul Tough > that argues what actually matters most with success is character: skills like perseverance, curiosity, optimism and self-control. In David Amerland’s book, Intentional, he speaks of grit.

I bring up both of those because that means success may not be dictated by just intelligence <or ‘learning’>.

Yikes. So this may mean that ability to cognitively learn and intelligence, which has been the prize and what we measure the most, doesn’t cultivate the most productive person. Instead it appears that molding, early on, a generation with a backbone, with dedication, with tenacity, with resilience, with grit, forms a person who is more likely to keep working, keep pushing, keep failing, and learning to get back up again and just keep moving <not quitting>.

Well. That certainly sounds like someone who is more likely to be successful in and with Life. And it certainly sounds like someone who can not only choose between black & white and color, but have the fortitude to stand by it and adapt when appropriate.

Look. The reality in life is we are always choosing between black & white things and color things — while we covet both. We covet the “and”.

*** note: it was Donella Meadows who suggested in “Thinking in Systems” that understanding the ‘and’ is more important than knowing what ‘one’ means. She suggests that if you understand the ‘and’ it is possible 1 and 1 could equal more than 2. Uhm. And isn’t that what colors and black & white is all about?

I imagine that is one of the fortunate, and unfortunate, aspects of life.

And reality is also that in an ever-changing world and continuously evolving world what was black & white may become a color, conversely, some color becomes black & white.

And, yet, while we covet both we would be amazingly frickin’ happy if that which was black & white remained black and white … and color stayed color.

But, shit, that’s not the way the world works.

—

“Color can do anything that black-and-white can.”

Vincente Minnelli

—

I don’t really have a point today other than to point out:

<a> we all covet black & white things – and value them

<b> we all covet color things – and value them

<c> we are rarely aligned on either what is black & white, or appropriate colored, nor aligned on the appropriate value.

—

And, while this drives us all nuts, we are resilient enough to not only to continue to covet both, value both and hold on to both as tight as we can when we find one pleasing to our mind’s eye. Ponder.

========

“The most successful businessman is the man who holds onto the old just as long as it is good, and grabs the new just as soon as it is better.”

Lee Iacocca

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

“I have found that hollow, which even I had relied on for solid.”

Henry David Thoreau

==========

Ok. Let’s get the harsh truth out upfront. I am a 60something and I believe the older generation, mostly old white men, hollowed out business to the shithole soul-less point we face today. I also believe we are facing the dying rattle of these old white men’s grasp on how business is conducted.

That said. Let me spend a minute on old white men <my generation> to explain why I believe this.

While a generalization, because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost”, “efficiency”, and maximize “converting that win-to-cash <making $>” ratio. These men hollowed out business primarily thru extraction and exploitation <of value, values, and resources>. These men have guided business to a level of so-called, self proclaimed, “greatness” through a variety of ‘great’ business acumen thoughts & business culture attitudes which, in reality, were non-great hollow attitudes, were wins which in reality a reflection of hollow behaviors & techniques, and, ultimately, created fantastic looking hollow outcomes and achievements.

In doing so they successfully hollowed out business. I could argue, and will, “hollowing” has been the guiding light into this dark world of money grubbers with questionable moral compasses who deemed resources as infinite and people as finite machines they could plug ‘n play into their money creating machines. You want some specifics? Here you go. This is how they have hollowed out business:

Capitalism

Capitalism is not inherently bad. In fact it is an incredible engine for growth, innovation and increased wealth & standard of living for any and all.

But old white men hollowed capitalism. They took out all the good and added all the greed. I could partially defend old white men and suggest that they were simply participants in the arc of business history, but I will not. Peter Drucker pointed out the beginning of the arc in 1989, as I noted in Salvation by Society, and we old white men could have eyed the arc and, well, stopped it. Instead old white men viewed the arc as an opportunity to not be burdened by morality & soul, but rather an opportunity to build personal wealth.

     Humans

Humans are amazing things. Irrational, unexpected, inconsistent, bundles of untapped potential. Old white men hollowed humans as well as humanity in their total embrace of people as machines of productivity – scientific management was their religion. We cannot blame Frederick Taylor for this because it was these men who made Taylorism into a cult of business. they were creative in their scientific management slotting their little people productivity machines into thinkers and doers, stars and worker bees, right brain versus left brainers. They first wielded carrots & sticks to manipulate desired results and then fully embraced gamification. The intent was always to squeeze out productivity rather than let people potential emerge. It is within that last point in which old white men propagated their most insidious myth – humans are lazy and left to their own devices will do nothing. This became the underpinning to everything with regard to their treatment of humans as machines. Needless to say, business without humans and humanity is simply a machine. Old white men got exactly what they wanted to the detriment of business and humans, hollow widgets producing exactly what they are told to produce.

Branding

Brands are fabulous creatures and not inherently bad. They offer us every day schmucks a nice heuristic way to make decisions and isolate differentiation in which we can make true choices.

Old white men hollowed brands. The easiest way to point this out is that we stopped talking about brands and started talking about branding. Old white men started looking at brands as vehicles of wealth and not vehicles of differentiation. Brands should evolve and not be constructed or built like some building of cold steel and cheap Styrofoam ceiling tiles. Focusing on brands permitted old white men to hollow out the substantive work of creating products & services of substance. The whole concept of ‘building a brand’ is one of the most insidious concepts to infiltrate good and meaningful marketing and communications.

Profit

Profit is not inherently bad. Used wisely it contributes not only to personal, or individual wealth, but spurs on business growth in terms of innovation and employee development AND social involvement. But old white men hollowed the soul out of each dollar as they squeezed every cent of profit it of it. Profit is good only if it is not tainted by <a> greed or  <b> created at the expense of giving back <in terms of true societal salvation type things>. Businesses represent an important weave in the fabric of society and the moment a business ignores that weave and focuses solely on the profits of the entity itself the opportunity arises to let the soul of each dollar made bleed out into the ether. And, yes, dollars can have a soul. Making money shouldn’t feed stock holders, it should a business that feeds society.

Wealth dispersion

Making money and creating wealth is inherently a double positive: proof of the value for your efforts and increased standard of living <not just in materialistic comforts but in real living>. This is a good thing for individuals, society and the world.

Old white men hollowed out the middle and carved out the good aspects.. This is more a byproduct of their business acumen more than anything else because I cannot really point out any specific behavior they consciously took to do this, but, suffice it to say that more went to the old white men and less to the ones who actually made the money for them. Possibly worse is that crafty old white men crafted a tier of wealth creation in which they had to do nothing, but use other people’s wealth to, exponentially, create their own wealth. Basically, they hollowed out the value in wealth.

Communication

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated. Effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication, inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by also hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than a quick sharp stab of “here is all you need to know” <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”> Heinously, they hollowed out the value of words all the while replacing them with bullshit buzzwords <hollow shells of words> all under the guise of “simplicity.”

ROI

ROI <return on investment> is a fabulous tool. It offers us every day unimaginative pragmatic schmucks an almost heuristic way to judge some fairly complex and complicated things in business.

Old white men hollowed ROI of anything intangible and along the way scraped away some of the most meaningful things associated with investment in their desire for simplistic “this led to that.” Certainly some investments have linear outcomes and results. But not all. And these hollow men in their black & white pursuit of profit, efficiency and outcomes became color blind.  Old white men started looking at people as equal to numbers & dollars and not organic organisms of less than linear productivity <in terms of Life actualization as well as business actualization>. These hollow men fell in love with cause & effect, numbers and began diminishing the value of humanity and complexity <dynamics of business & Life>. They saw people as investments, like manufacturing robots, rather than, well, people.

Racism

Racism in the workplace is a stealthy virus invading the organism in ways that can create an unhealthy organism which sometimes seems to never attain its full potential despite producing results.

Old white men enable this virus to exist by hollowing out the meaning in any racism discussion, and real substantive actions, in business.

These old white men rose through the ranks of business surrounded by other white people, & few minorities, simply believing it was so because it was a reflection of those “who deserved to be here” (assuming everyone COULD be here if they worked hard enough). When in leadership positions & told about racism issues they didn’t really believe it, reluctantly doing things they were told they should do all the while thinking “it’s just political correctness”. The times old white men got trapped in diversity meetings & shared 5 things they did & were told were racist, in their heads they said “they can’t handle truth, they are too sensitive.” What this all led to was hollow efforts at addressing racism. They grudgingly implemented some initiatives, while publicly espousing their enlightenment, but privately thinking it was a waste of time, energy & monies. Underlying this purposeful ignorance was an ongoing belief white people never got any more breaks than anyone else or that there was never any inherent ‘privileges’ bestowed upon white skinned people.

What the business world ended up with was a generation of old white men who are the worst of racism ,and some real racists> – racism convinced it isn’t racism and racists convinced they are not racist. Ultimately, any substantive efforts to address racism in business were hollowed out by old white men who didn’t really believe in them.

Behavior

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic. When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore, a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved. In other words, a hollow mindset affected expectations of attitudes and behaviors.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’  Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness, they simply propagated it.

Pretty damning evidence of their hollowing, no?

All that said. These old white men, in their heart of hearts, inherently do not care about a ‘better world’ or even “a better way of conducting business” from a soul perspective nor do they care about any aspect of ‘being a better person’. Despite the fact we read headlines about business people embracing “Purpose” or creating panels to create a better business, it’s all words, no actions. Or maybe better said, there are actions but they are hollow actions. The truth is that for the most part they are indifferent to the bigger, more important, issues and solely attach ‘better’ with wealth, importance and wins and their own interests.

I get angry. I get angry because I do not believe ‘hollowness’ is the path to a better business world and society <let alone the world>. It certainly has not helped us reach greatness up to this point. And I am angry because I have believed this, and known this, for decades.

Look. This can be solved. And it can be solved by, well, old guys/people like me.

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

“At any other time it’s better. You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals. When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough. And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

Dexter Palmer

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

Old white men created the problems and as so well said in the movie The Return of the Pink Panther: “you set a thief to catch a thief.”

Older people can reverse the hollowness problem in one fell swoop. I could do it with a small merry band of contrarian older people (women & men), who have chafed in this hollow existence, and could bring some good healthy substance back into this wretched hollowness. To be clear, to fix this it isn’t about attacking one of these issues and working on it, it is coming up with a business model, and a way of doing business, that resolves all these issues. In systems thinking vernacular, the system in its entirety needs to regain robustness and substance because a substantive non-hollow part, alone, will not improve the system.

This is a unique time in history in which business, country and politics have intersected. This is a unique time for older business people to right the wrongs of all they have wrought up to this point. I certainly hope this happens, as an old white man myself, simply for the sake of redemption for all of us old white men. Ponder.