===

“It’s not what you actually do in life that you regret just the opportunities that pass you by. It’s even in what you choose to do the opportunities you do not let pass by. In those moments it is sometimes only that you are not courageous or brave but rather you have simply exchanged one fear for another. Afraid for what we were about to do and how you will do versus the fear of what we might not do.”

Craig Johnson

===

“The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek.”

Joseph Campbell

————-

Polycrisis in now the word of the moment. But here’s the thing. I would argue polycrisis is not a reflection of the present, but rather a culmination of compounding fears over the past decade. Let’s call it the price demanded by our continual fear. Just think back on every year since about 2014 and it has been a ‘year of fear.’ And with that reflection it is not difficult to sit back and think “that much fear mongering is just not sustainable.”  Its not. And it shapes how one views the present in some incredibly unhealthy ways as in “we are in a poloycrisis.”

Its nuts (but understandable after years of fear).

By any objective measure the current US administration is one of the most boringly competent administrations in US history. Yet, in certain media ecosystems one could feel like the US is simply careening from one crisis to another. And one, in that case, would rightfully feel buffeted by anger and fear and accept the polycrisis narrative. That said. We have had our mental etch-a-sketches shaken so often we have lost the plot. Terrorist attacks become potential wars, Ebola made millions of people work themselves into a panic over a disease that has claimed the lives of fewer Americans that year than some random exploding air bag, a bank failing because of poor management becomes potential financial crisis (there is not one), higher inflation gets conflated with a failing economy (the economy is in really good shape), Isis (which really was the JV team) was never an existential threat to not only the US but no one ever really envisioned an ISIS flag over a country let alone embassies around the world, China is taking over the world one Tiktok video at a time (they aren’t), and every conspiracy has moved from possible to probable. The United States has lost its collective mind with fear of shadows. I am not suggesting some things do not deserve concern and some attention, but we seem to be addicted to fearing something if not anything.

This fear is exacerbated by the perceived unpredictability of things (which are actually a small minority of things but the fearmongers liked to heighten the “exogenous” events as indications of typical and not exceptions). To be clear. Exogenous events are events impossible to predict. That said. Most events are unpredictable and, yet, there is no lack of people predicting shit.

Its bullshit. Everyone who ‘predicted’ either:

• <a> has a resume filled with predictions that never came to fruition therefore their one successful prediction is an anomaly, or
• <b> their ‘prediction’ or hindsight brilliance has some other prediction attached to it <a consequence> which is false.

The people who claim to predict Armageddon are asshats who thrive on feeding the perceptions of polycrisis. The truth is the world is strewn with exogenous events which are simply an emergent property of a dynamic system, i.e., they will naturally pop up on occasion. But the world is also strewn with assholes with access to media <who loves to put these assholes onscreen> who love to treat exogenous events as rational predictable events <and therefore someone can be blamed>. And the world is strewn with everyday schmucks <people> who love to believe exogenous events are anything but exogenous. And, as a consequence, the world is strewn with everyday people fearing what is predicted as well as what is not predicted. Yeah. We are in polycrisis mindset now.

Regardless. All that really matters is that things that are impossible to predict create fear among normal everyday people. We like to think the world is predictable <despite the fact everyone knows that their own lives include a strong thread of unpredictability> and get absurdly indignant when uncovering rational reasons <something to blame> for seemingly irrational events.

Which leads me to what someone wrote somewhere about news:

…. a group of kids playing soccer: there is no strategy, just a raw, run, get it response. All running after all of those balls, irrespective of origin, and just trying to shoot.

 Plays happen in bursts, with no resolution.

But we, the people, jump into this game almost happily. It is a weird continuous doom loop of predictable behavior fueled by dubious ‘unpredictable’ events, or, less-than-consequential random events that the system naturally spits out on occasion. This culminates into a confluence of stagnancy, despite the fact it feels like things working at the speed of light, within a perception of increased complex world (its not really any more than before), perception of lack of control (control has always been a fallacy) and a perception of, well, polycrisis.

In this doom-loop reality we are trapped in a fear-driven world of inertia convinced things are moving too fast. That said. It seems like the news network’s, and politician’s, purpose is to let you know that things are moving too fast to manage and something is on fire (some event) and that we need to burn someone at the stake for starting the fire (but there was no arsonist, it was just lightning, i.e., the system just creates these things on occasion). Pick your ‘crisis du jour,’ immigration, crime, gun violence, domestic terrorism, moral decay, sharia law, urban issues of crime/homelessness/lack of safety, China/Russia/Iran/North Korea/some socialist country, the list is almost endless and is certainly recyclable. What I mean by ‘recyclable’ is that it is a constant churn of choices simply to make stomachs churn with constant fear of something. And it is within that constant churn that polycrisis thrives. None of these things are really a crisis, just concerns that need appropriate attention, but they create a perception of ongoing polycrisis.

I would like to blame media. I would like to blame politicians. But. It is us: the people.

Sure.  The media and politicians are surely bound to have a role in exaggerating common misperceptions, but we can’t lay the blame entirely with the media; it’s a much broader, attitudinal ‘people’ global issue. The issue is us, the people, and how we remember information, how vivid demonstrations/metaphors are retained in our heads, regardless of whether they are describing something that is an exception rather than the rule.

We also suffer from what psychologists call ‘emotional innumeracy.’ This is where we focus more on what is worrying us more than trying to get the right answers, i.e., concern leading to our misperceptions as much as our misperceptions creating our concern.

a Commenter on online Ignorance article:

We may be ignorant on proportions and statistics but we know and can trust what our eyes see

Example we don’t have to be told immigration is out of control and all the rest of it

This comment reflects how most people respond to facts & information and proves the point I am making. People cannot trust what they see with their own eyes because they filter what they see through what they think. For example, immigration is not out of control and they actually don’t trust images that support that only the images that their “eyes see”.

Look. There are two accepted approaches in the quest for knowledge – the deductive and the inductive.

The danger of inductive method is that we can be led to a false conclusion even if we begin with the correct assumptions. It actually makes more sense to deduce — challenge and modify any assumption repeatedly until you find truth. Unfortunately in everyday life most people do the opposite — develop a set of rules based on personal experience <and beliefs> and then apply them to other experiences.

In addition. We tend to view events, even global events in which we have no set of experiences nor have any dimensionalized real perspective, through rules of our own personal experience. Let’s add in an uncomfortable truth that most times we don’t care unless we believe it will affect us.

Let’s go back into the way back machine as an example. In August 2014 ISIS became a household word striking fear into Americans that with their long reach global organization they would terrorize America.

Why? Despite the fact Isis gained a foothold in January the world wasn’t interested until they beheaded an American journalist in August. All the while ISIS went ahead killing other Muslims.

Ultimately this is about personalized “micro” fear which leads to a sense of macro crisis. Because in our fear we want to assess blame or seek to have someone destroy what we do not understand. And here we are in 2023 with a laundry list of fears, crisis and things to destroy. In other words, a polycrisis.

Let’s be clear. While USA has issues, 99% of the 340million people wake up, are relatively healthy, a shitload of them go to work , are productive, interact with people around them in a courteous way, go home a little tired but to a home they are relatively happy with, talk with some friends and, in general, have not much to fear. And, yet, we are hounded by a sense of fear and polycrisis.

Which leads me to when can we get out of this doom loop.

I believe we are getting closer to a time of reckoning. We are getting exhausted and getting a bit closer to recognizing the fears we have had over all these years, well, never came to anything. I believe it’s actually the moment where more people stop acting like ignorant scaredy cats and focus more on rational thinking than emotional thinking and ideological tribes.

I am not suggesting it will happen easily because sticking to your personal attitudes & beliefs is better than uncertainty and compromise. And It certainly has become easier and easier for a person to find some media outlet <television, radio, or Internet> they agree with. And it is a natural human tendency to find ‘your people’ <people who share the same philosophical view>.

And, yes, we are fairly simple as people in what we want and like:

• want to feel a sense of certainty on whether something’s right or wrong, and
• tend to follow or bond with those who agree with our ideas, and
• through confirmation bias, ignore or attack things that contradict our personal beliefs <or experiences>.

These are normal human reactions. We all do it.

In addition. When overwhelmed in a ‘polycrisis world’ we naturally tap into emotions and emotional responses faster than intellectual ones.  And traditionally once we let emotions take total control we lose the ability to think rationally. But I think in a time of reckoning, even in the face of loudmouthed predictors of fear & doom, people are so emotionally exhausted that the ‘time of rational’ is nearing us.

In the time of reckoning I believe a lot of people will just shut out the loud asshats as we seek out rational explanations and rational narratives and rational solutions for the future.

Which leads me to my finishing thought and my message to people:

“Nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems.”

• Nothing is ever as good as it seems.

This may sound pessimistic and while there are certainly lots of good things in life & in the world it’s important to remember that if something seems too good to be true; it usually is.

This is the insidious side of fear. Fear that it will not stay ‘good.’ and constantly seeking out things & people to blame for it ‘not being as good as it used to be.’

Stop. Just fucking stop it. It most likely wasn’t as good as you thought it was <particularly because when we look at things in the rear view mirror they always seem to look better than they really were>.  We shouldn’t be dictated by a fear of ‘losing good.’ Just be careful and maintain some perspective.

• Nothing is ever as bad as it seems

When it seems bad it is incredibly easy to exaggerate the severity of the situation <in our own perceptions as well as by asshats trying to influence our thinking>. Most times it is not as bad as it seems and it will not become as bad as you imagine.  Sure. There are ‘we are in deep shit’ moments and events. But most of the time it is just not as serious as we think. And most times it will not have as serious repercussions as you imagine.

Both of these are about perspective. Fear makes us lose perspective.  Lose the fear; gain perspective.

Look. 2014 thru the present was not as bad as we feared. In fact. Most of what we feared never happened.

What a waste of energy.

And who is to blame?

Us. The people. No one else.

Not the government. Not the media. Not a president. Not some incompetent greedy business leader.

Not anyone but us. The people.

Fear can only happen if we allow it to happen.

I believe it is a time for rational words, thinking and thoughts stepped to the forefront. I know a shitload of people will shove this up my ass – “rational doesn’t get people excited” or “emotional engages.” You know what? Context matters. For a decade we have constantly been told to fear something. We have been convinced the world is just an onslaught of crises and we are stuck in a polycrisis world. Shake the fucking etch a sketch. Snip the doom loop. Let’s get some shit done. I believe if we share some rational thinking in an engaging way, I am willing to bet a lot of money a lot of people are in the market for something other than fear. And, for god’s sake, can we stop talking about a polycrisis.

Ponder.

===

“All things are hidden in their opposites – gain in loss, gifts in refusal, honour in humiliation, wealth in poverty, strength in weakness … life in death, victory in defeat, power in powerlessness, and so on. Therefore, if a man wish to find, let him be content to lose.”

Mulay Al ‘Arabi Ad-Drqawi

===

“The most dangerous creation in the world, in any society, is the man with nothing to lose. “

Al Freeman Jr.

“the second most dangerous creation in the world, in any society, is the man who feels like he is going to lose what he has.”

Me

===

There are gobs of articles about how much people strive to avoid loss even incorporating an aversion to loss into decision making. But I also opened with a piece of research to point out this isn’t really true, scientifically, to make a point that we create loss avoidance narratives in some unhealthy ways.
Which leads me to social proof. In today’s I am leaning more into identity rather than any real “win versus loss” decision. In other words, I am discussing the wacky world of expectations and the absurd levels people go through to maintain wealth status. Yeah. I am discussing money and wealthy people. Dealing with the wealthy people can often be like dealing with paranoid schizophrenics. On one aspect they flaunt their wealth with absurd confidence and on another aspect they are constantly looking over their shoulder for someone or something that will take it all away. They end up with all this money, but it’s almost as if as soon as they’ve got it, they start worrying about losing it. Or somebody taking it away from them. And it scares the shit out of them (despite their confident façade). It’s almost like even though they act like they are deserving of their status, they don’t really think they would get THIS high so once they do achieve such great heights all they start thinking about is what the fall would be like. For them that feeling is like a background program running on your computer that never stops running and constantly drains the battery even when the computer is not in use. It reminds me of something that Gabriel Garcia Marquez said: “we all have public lives, and private lives, and secret lives.” True or not, all wealthy people have a secret life. That said. I believe what most wealthy people are scared shitless about is that their own wealth demise, which they seem to constantly be looking for, will come out of their secret lives. The weird thing is that their obsessive confidence and status identity stances almost encourage everyone to think the wealth bluster is covering up some secret. Anyway. Inevitably the fear of loss is both defining and a consuming thing.

Which leads me to bitterness.

Most of the wealthy people I have glanced off of have a thread of bitterness and cynicism about the world despite the fact they are not only living the good life they are clearly living life better than the majority of people. They struggle to envision a happy ending. Within that thought, tucked somewhere below the fear of losing, is a simmering blend of outrage and hurt at the state of the world relentlessly pursuing their wealth. At that point you can feel a bit of bitterness and sadness, a sense of ill fate lodged in these people. In an interesting twist of irony, they have simultaneously accepted the ‘die had been cast’ with regard to their success and feel like the die are constantly being rigged against them by others seeking to ‘win away’ their cast in life.

Which leads me to the consequences of fear of losing.

Wealth often translates into a fundamental belief in some fundamental rights – which are typically grounded in some extreme ‘self ownership’ ideals. This also means a constant belief that everyone is always trying to take their money and give it to someone else. This includes the government, but cascades down to the ‘lazy’, welfare queen, socialism grabbers.

In their minds they see the ‘grabbers’ espousing the marketplace is unfair while they see the marketplace as fair with winners who deserve all the winnings and losers who deserve all of their losing. That said. While I don’t believe that the world, nor the marketplace, is fair, the wealthy people HAVE to believe it is fair to attach to their fear of losing something. Why? Because then the only way they lose is by being a victim not of their own circumstances, but of others efforts. This begets a winner-take-all competitiveness and within that concept resides a constant fear of losing. This gets a bit worse. What I mean by that is the nefarious mental jujitsu of “if this, then that” inevitability. If I lose this, what’s next? This means a wealthy person treats every slight loss as a potential precursor to losing it all. To be clear. Most things that start, stop. There is no “slippery slope.” But that gets in the way of the internal narrative so the wealthy walk around increasingly paranoid of losing, well, anything. This constant paranoia makes them douchebags to be around and generally unhelpful in creating positive solutions for a better society. I would be remiss if I didn’t end this with pointing out that losing anything you have gained is painful – to everyone. All I am suggesting is some perspective is lost among the extremely wealthy. Ok. What I am suggesting is that a LOT of perspective is lost among the extremely wealthy. And that lost perspective is unhealthy for not only them, but society. Ponder.

===

“Right now I’ve got just two rules to live by.
Rule one: don’t taunt elephants.
Rule two: don’t stand next to anybody who taunts elephants.”
Howard Tayler

===

Michael Jordan once said, “Larry Bird is the greatest trash talker and mind-game player of all time. He taught me everything I know about getting in folks’ heads.”

===

Yeah. I am gonna get in trouble on this. I am going to weigh in on the John Cena hand gesture women’s basketball Angel Reese Caitlan Clark trash talking issue.

There are several foundational thoughts before I get into the crux of the issue:

1. I have never liked any trashtalking. I have always preferred the stoic athlete. I found JJ Reddick insufferable, John McEnroe boorish and Deion Sanders an unnecessarily showboating asshat. All successful athletes who I just thought did shit they didn’t have to do. The closest I came to accepting trash talking was maybe the Larry Bird/Michael Jordan type. One-on-one in someone’s ear type. No showboating, just kind of their competitive dickedness on the field of combat.
2. I have seen almost all hyper competitive great athletes create a narrative. Me against the world. Some bulletin board comment. Some perceived slight. It doesn’t matter. Many of the most competitive create a story which they can use to deflect some of the other distractions attempting to dent their ‘zone.’ They use their narrative to fuel the performance.
3. I don’t care if it is sports, business, politics, whatever, context matters. A word, or a gesture, is only comparable in context. Without context we have flattened some important things to an almost absurd false comparison.

So lets get to the kerfuffle. Simplistically it has been dumbed down to John Cena’s “you can’t see me” hand gesture and a black player and a white player. Even typing it that was makes me think America is purposefully getting dumber on a daily basis.

Which leads me to the context.

• Iowa’s Caitlin Clark used the “You can’t see Me” move after her sixth 3 against South Carolina
• As the title game came to a close, LSU forward Reese celebrated the win by doing John Cena’s “You Can’t See Me” move on Iowa’s Clark

Haggle if you want, but one used the gesture while they were in a playing zone as a reflection of what they felt at the moment. The other used the gesture to taunt an individual player reflecting what they felt at the moment. The former felt like celebrating skill, the latter felt like a taunt. That said (part 1). I’ll admit. The Angel Reese use didn’t sit right with me (see #1 as a reminder on how I feel about trashtalking). That said (part 2). Is one better than the other? Not for me to judge. But my point is the point. Context matters.

Which leads me to personal narratives. Angel Reese, as did several of her LSU teammates, created a “disrespect” narrative prior to the game. I suggest create because no where I can find Clark disrespecting LSU. In fact, all Iowa had done up to that point was suggest they had the ultimate respect for LSU. That said. A narrative is a narrative and noted earlier, it is an incredibly useful tool for a competitive athlete to get in a ‘zone;’ to compete. It worked. LSU played well and won. But. The trick to narratives is that at some point the narrative becomes not of use. In this case, LSU had the win. And at no point in the game had anyone on Iowa shown any disrespect to LSU. At some point you need to shut the narrative down and accept the moment for what it is. I tend to believe this is also a reflection of maturity. But. That’s just me.

In the end. I don’t really care about two great athletes making some gesture, which used at the right time is kinda fun, or how they trashtalk or do not trashtalk, or even the color of their skin. What I do care about is the idiotic simplistic comparisons which create unhealthy narratives which get distorted in public. It ain’t the color of their skin, it’s the color of the moment, i.e., the context which should be driving the discussion. Ponder.

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

“I’m a firm believer in the power of change. 

But there is one thing I’ve learned, and that’s the hardest part of moving forward is not looking back.”

Felicity

=====

Progress is difficult <and easy>. Changing is even more difficult <and easy>. Now. I am not sure if it is more difficult if you discuss this as ‘one’ <an individual> or as a ‘whole’ <groups, countries, society>.

Well, to me, the reason why I kept on throwing in easy is because I believe we look at “difficult” incorrectly.

Maybe difficulty is simply difficulty.

Maybe there are no ‘degrees of difficulty’ when it comes to change.

Maybe there is no ‘little or big’ change.

Maybe it is simply, well, change … no size … no degrees … and it is all difficult.

One size – same degree of difficulty.

In fact. Maybe I should be arguing we diminish, or boost the whole concept of difficulty by trying to find levels within it. And maybe a philosophical young student Tv character <Felicity> simplified change and progress and difficulty into the simplest form — not looking back. In other words, change difficulty is all about the past and not looking back. Therein lies the hardest part or the “difficult” as it were with change – looking forward & just doing and not looking back at what you may, or may not be, leaving behind.

That said.

Individuals or societies, the ones or the manys, always seem to want to go back or look back <in some form or fashion>. It’s funny. We do this even if we know it isn’t the right thing or the best thing. We look at the past holding on to what exists with ragged tenacious claws.

Worse? We sometimes <often> delude ourselves into believing we are proceeding in the most rational way by weighing all of the pros and cons of various alternatives which are actually alternatives usually based on looking backwards <with an eye on a future thought>.

Oddly.

Quite often it really isn’t rational thinking because in the end most often the decision ends up no more than “I liked that more than I liked the other alternative.”

Oh. And that is scary. Because our attitude and perception with regard to the past is wacky.

Wacky not only because, all things created equal, we not only view the past differently than it really was <we tend to gloss over things> but also how we think and feel today <please note this is the first time I have mentioned anything to do with the present> influences how we remember yesterday. Yeah. Whatever we are feeling now and about ‘now’ is a filter in which the past has to sift its way thru. That matters because tomorrow’s anticipated gains and losses inspire today’s decisions and actions.

–          Example one:

After being shown an ad talking about the wonders of Disneyland, including shaking hands with Bugs Bunny, people were asked about their own memories of visiting Disneyland. 16 percent vividly remembered shaking hands with Bugs Bunny, even though there’s no Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. (He’s a Warner Brothers character.)

–          Example two <using some research>:

This is about what is called Time perspective. It’s not the actual real events of the past that most strongly influence our lives. It is actually our attitude toward events in the past matter more than the events themselves <ponder that one for a minute or two>.

Our time perspective — whether we tend to get stuck in the past, live only for the moment, or are enslaved by our ambitions for the future – effect our attitudes and behavior and decisions <lets call this ‘progress’>.

Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo created this idea of time perspective. After a boatload of research over a lot of time <10 years> he concluded our attitude toward time is just as defining as key personality traits such as optimism or sociability. He concluded time perspective influences many of our judgments, decisions, and actions. Zimbardo identified five key approaches to time perspective.

These are:

• The ‘past-negative’ type. You focus on negative personal experiences that still have the power to upset you. This can lead to feelings of bitterness and regret.
• The ‘past-positive’ type. You take a nostalgic view of the past, and stay in very close contact with your family. You tend to have happy relationships, but the downside is a cautious, “better safe than sorry” approach which may hold you back.
• The ‘present-hedonistic’ type. You are dominated by pleasure-seeking impulses, and are reluctant to postpone feeling good for the sake of greater gain later. You are popular but tend to have a less healthy lifestyle and take more risks.
• The ‘present-fatalistic’ type. You aren’t enjoying the present but feel trapped in it, unable to change the inevitability of the future. This sense of powerlessness can lead to anxiety, depression and risk-taking.
• The ‘future-focused’ type. You are highly ambitious, focused on goals, and big on making ‘to do’ lists. You tend to feel a nagging sense of urgency that can create stress for yourself and those around you. Your investment in the future can come at the cost of close relationships and recreation time.

Anyway. All the research aside … here is an uncomfortable truth. Most of us are either focused on the past or the future. Or even both.

Here is the uncomfortable part.

That means if we are so preoccupied with past and future, well, that inevitably makes the present, well, smaller.

Yeah. The present becomes the smallest part of our attitudes which inevitably drives our behavior.

Unfortunately <or fortunately to any change consultant>  change actually begins and ends with what you actually do in the present. Nothing else really matters when it come to change.

Yikes. That sure explains a lot.

Anyway.

The hardest part of moving forward is not looking back. Heck. Maybe the hardest part of moving forward is not only not looking back .but not looking forward too.

<note: my head hurts after typing that>

Change is, adn will always be, about flipping today to tomorrow. Easy, and as hard, as that.

I imagine that change will always be difficult and the only thing that may matter is to make the present a little bit bigger in how you think in the scheme of things. I say that because when you do flip the present, and what you do in the present, and tomorrow looks bigger & better you will most likely have no desire to look backwards anymore, less likely to hold with ragged claws to anything you used to do, and more likely to just have, well, changed … and it is all said and done.

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

originally written October 2013

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

===

“Who belonged to no one, who belonged to everyone.
Who had nothing, who wanted everything.”
Lana Del Rey

===

Business has always struggled to navigate self-interest versus collective interest. They create these sweeping uplifting visions and now even discuss a grander purpose with the intent to create collective interest in a common objective. Yet at the same time they design a long menu of incentives, bonuses, pay raises and in general every tool available to encourage every individual, every self, to do what is right for themselves. This conflict is a tug of war between self and the collective ultimately makes an organization less productive. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this conflict, which is incredibly important to every individual because this is how they earn their living, bleeds into society kitchen table by kitchen table.

But then there is this an added feature. And that would be group level selfishness. Humans aren’t stupid. Employees clearly understand what it takes to get ahead and to get more money and they understand they more than likely need other people to get what they individually want. Therefore, small groups form to not only fight within the system, but often to fend off the other groups from getting what they believe is a zero-sum pot of gold. It’s obvious this group level selfishness makes it hard for groups to get along. Like minded groups tend to amplify one key self-interest feature and that would be the different ideas of the appropriate terms of cooperation about what people should and should not expect from one another. Every individual has a point of view on this. Within a business, groups tend to coalesce around the common belief of their view on this. Obviously, what this means is that business has several different groups with number of different definitions of what they expect when they are asked to collaborate and cooperate with each other often of which are not in alignment.

Which leads me to shared ambition.

Look. I am all for communities, informal networks, distributed decision making and a variety of other ideas with regard to alternative thinking to command-and-control, but I think a business is a microcosm of society – a social construct grounded in some social contracts. Social constructs are inherently, and naturally, territorial therefore it would seem like the only way to share in a desired outcome is to tap into ambitions (which is inevitably a type of social contract). Based on that I think we need to spend more time on the social contracts aspect, as in “shared ambitions.”

Shared is important. Shared is not about efficiency, it is actually a “benefit multiplier.” An individual is additive and collective effort is a multiplier. I don’t need a case study to prove that, its common sense logic. Think about it in these terms: “if you say ‘I know I can generate these results, but I cannot generate these (something else) withouthout them.” that is tapping into potential through collective effort and collective interests. It is a combination of ‘me to you’ (what you get from me) and ‘we to you’ (how others expand individual effort). But this sharing demands a bit of a mindset agreement (not just in ambitions but in coexisting). What I mean by that is part of the uneasy social contract society has is its dealings with ‘helping others.’ Most people are perfectly happy to give money to their churches and other local institutions that serve other people. but when the government uses ‘their money’ (taxes) they think it goes not to hardworking people who just need a helping hand, but to welfare queens. Within this uneasy social contract, it means help goes to ‘them,’ not ‘us.’ This is group level selfishness and is fairly common – consciously or subconsciously. The tragedy of commons is a tragedy of selfishness, a failure of individuals to put us ahead of me which actually inhibits shared anything let alone ambitions. It gets a little trickier. The weird thing is that while moral thinking enables cooperation within groups it can simultaneously undermine cooperation between groups. This happens because each group has their own ‘codes’ and ‘moral ideas’ which remain slightly misaligned from either the collective interests or other groups. The outcome is the same however you view it – inefficiency and less-than-optimal effectiveness. In business terms, not maximized productivity. We need something that enables groups with conflicting moralities/codes to work together and thrive and a mindset that can resolve disagreements that create obstacles to progress. This is where shared ambition steps in. Complex social structures are about ‘us versus them,’ our interest versus theirs, our values versus theirs, disparate feelings and beliefs that make it difficult to cooperate and coordinate. I am not going to suggest every group thinks the same way, some will be more collective interest driven and some will be more individualistic driven, but if there are shared ambitions it creates a social contract which shifts the social construct. The automatic construct settings of each group, and individual, gets shifted just a bit to accommodate the shared ambitions. To be clear. What I am suggesting is that even group level self-interest has some vague outlines, rather than hard and fast boundaries, within which cooperation and effective collaboration can occur.

Which leads me back to self interest.

De Tocqueville said in 1845: “Desires still remain extremely enlarged while the means of satisfying them are diminished day by day. On every side we trace the ravages of an inordinate and unsuccessful ambition kindled in hearts which is which it consumes in secret and in vain.” He also said after taking a long hard look at America: “among democratic nations ambition is ardent and continual, but it’s aim is not habitually lofty and life is generally spent in eagerly coveting small objects that are within reach.” He was speaking of goals, but you can see the underlying seeds of self-interest and consumption within the thought. And then we should remember Faustus and his demon, Mephistopheles, wherein the insatiable thirst for individual knowledge leads him to make a pact with the devil –  a message about human ambition and stretching the limits. Everyone, every individual, has ambition in some shape and size. But the reality is any one ambition has limits and constraints which can only be expanded upon by interacting with others. Yeah. When we share ambitions, the tide does lift everyone; maybe not always equally, but all get lifted. It is a little dangerous even if you balance it all fairly well.  Clearly this is a tricky idea because to be as good as you can be you gotta give a little of yourself up to feed your talent and ambition to grow it beyond the normal levels. Someone is going to want to throw ‘trust’ into the ring here, but I will not. I tend to believe conflicting self interested groups will never really trust other groups, but they may trust in a more intangible, non human, thing like a shared ambition. In other words, we have the same ambition so despite their means, despite the fact they are ‘them’ and not us, they aren’t go to screw me/’us’. The good news with share ambition is that success at each level can be so addictive or pleasurable you have a tendency to want to feed it a little more. And maybe that’s the real prize with shared ambitions. Ponder.

===

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

Ottmer <the futurist>

===

“Imagine a cheap little device that isn’t just smarter than humans — it can compute as much data as all human brains taken together.”

===

Discussions about all technology seems to careen in-between oblivious no-fear (lack of belief that something like social media or an algorithm could “effect how I think”) and conspiratorial fear (government control, globalists, ‘the great reset’). And that’s before we even discuss something like a brain chip, an invasive introduction into mental enhancement. But there is a future lesson found in that fear binary. That lesson is that something like a brain chip will make the world binary and, objectively speaking, even more unequal.

Let me explain.

The people with the least understanding of technology but the greatest fears will reject the most progressive innovations, i.e., something like the brain chip.

The people with the most understanding of technology and the healthiest skepticism of ‘technology for good’ will accept the most progressive innovations, i.e., something like the brain chip.

Simplistically, just to make a point, the quasi-ignorant social media users will become dumber and dumber while the quasi- careful innovation adopters will become smarter and smarter. The latter will accept the risks viewing the potential benefits as outweighing them and the former will just see risks with little benefits. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this means one group of people will progress while another group will inevitably regress which begets a societal issue.

I begin with those thoughts to frame what I see as the benefits of a brain chip (which I do believe is inevitable).

*** note: Michio Kaku believes it is inevitable and Elon Musk even has a company, Neuralink, attempting to design one.

Which leads me to say we shouldn’t dismiss fears, but should still embrace the better hope.

I believe it was Peter Thiel who suggested something like “there’s all these scenarios where the stuff can spiral out of control. I’m more scared of the one where nothing happens.” This may sound odd but I believe we have been lulled into belief that technology is progressing too fast. I say that because most technology innovation hasn’t really been that innovative. Most of it has been superficial, but highly accessible, so that there is a general appearance of fast paced high innovation. But most of the technological innovations haven’t truly moved the needle on truly meaningful things (but have made a lot of money through consumerism). What this means is that our general view of ‘better’ has been skewed toward a fairly low bar. That becomes important when something like a brain chip appears because it is so far above the common bar it takes on all the appearances of science fiction, fantasy and, well, scary stuff – mostly dystopian. But here is where ‘better’ steps in: the higher the brain integration – verbal, visual, special and execution – the higher the intelligence. If a brain chip stimulates just that, well, that’s better. Better thinking by any one individual encourages better thinking within all people. And if enough people embrace the technology it creates structural societal thinking lift. It is this version of better that will encourage a shitload of people to seek to augment themselves in terms of intelligence and skills. And those people will inevitably separate themselves from those who elect to not pursue this opportunity.

That said. Let me describe better in my mind. it is clear that the human brain is incapable of coping with the onrush of new technology in the mosh pit formation available on a day-to-day basis. As trite as it may sound, while we now have more information available to us than ever, overstimulation makes us dumber on a daily basis if not unhealthier (depression, anxiety, etc). Many of us clearly understand our brains just can’t keep up with technology-driven cognitive load issues. Research has clearly documented the influence of information overload on attention, perception, memory, decision making, and even regulating emotions.  We have even seen that engagement with technology interferes with the pursuit of other behaviors critical for maintaining a healthy social contract. So, if an implanted chip is able to address many of our cognitive needs AND make us more effective thinkers, why wouldn’t we consider it? Why wouldn’t we consider augmenting our brain to better optimize it (not change it)? Maybe we should think of the brain chip as existing to help the brain as kind of a thinking companion. Try this thinking. Because this chip would be collecting real-time data on everything imaginable with regard to your brain physiology and sense-of-environment, it also optimizes your physical presence. You gain richer and richer datasets from which the chip can guide you so you could be at your highest functioning thinking and behavioral level. I imagine it actually could augment you to new level. I would be remiss if I didn’t note I am discussing a closed loop machine Learning System. Therefore it is secure and designed to augment only you and personalizes your data as opposed to a one-sized fits all system. However, this means the chip is on all the time (as is your brain).  You have to accept the fact your brain chip is listening all the time – to everything (including your memory). What this means is that many things – memories, knowledge, faces, etc. – stored away on some dark dusty shelf in your mind (meaning it has an imprint somewhere in your brain) can be activated by the chip. It takes away that nagging feeling you are forgetting something and brings it to the forefront at the right time. The chip activates a portion of your brain that says “hey remember this/remember what happened/remember that person” and it activates images from the past, in relevant context, thereby heightening your level of attention in the present. The interesting thing about this particular idea is the majority of us remember the things that we like to remember and forget things we like to forget. What that does is inherently bias your views and attitudes. The brain chip doesn’t permit this shortcut. It cuts in line in front of bias with even the things you wanted to forget. To be clear. The chip I am discussing means you remember even the things you really do not want to remember – yeah, even the horrible stuff and the stuff you hate. That said. What this means is you use, better than in the past, what you already know and increase depth of decisionmaking and insight into what you are thinking.

I imagine the next level would be if the brain chip could actually connect with the world wide web and supplement, or complement, what you already know to round out your knowledge. And it does so contextually (which we already know from education deepens learning). That’s next level thinking.

Which leads me to security and privacy.

Some people will never get over their fear of information being stolen and the fears will only increase with a brain chip because it becomes even more intrusively personal. That said. The adopters recognize within an increasingly complex world to keep identity safe and secure – from a personal identity standpoint as well as identity interface to things we own and have – the way to save identity is to actually lean in on technology. Insert a ‘yikes’ here. Yeah. Hear me out. While I have a couple of ideas on how to do this, I tend to belief an implanted chip is the best way forward <for a variety of reasons>. Every person could simply have a tiny chip implanted that permits a computer, or scanning system, to read a personalized code broadcasted by the chip. And while that may sound vulnerable to hacking or copying there are a variety of means and authenticating systems which actually protect us. For example, both Google Authenticator and Blizzard’s official authenticator use open-standard “TOTP” for authentication codes (although different). Google uses 6-digit codes, while Blizzard uses 8-digit codes, but the real idea I offer is that your personal identity algorithm, because it is implanted, can be tied to your biology which, well, cannot be stolen.

Which leads me to creating a good brain chip.

Algorithms really aren’t capable of thinking. They are simply yes, no; A, B; limiting, reductive, not expansive. Well. that is before the brain chip. A brain chip augments are complex brain so we see in patterns, not binaries. That said. We should simultaneously mistrust a brain chip technology and still recognize that it can augment the superiority of the human brain. It doesn’t circumvent our choice making it actually increases our choice base, our consideration set, so that our responses are more well informed and more well formed. It could permit all of us to sift through stacks of information which until now we were simply cognitively unable to do – or do effectively. A good brain chip makes us more effective human beings. It makes us optimize the present and increases our sensemaking skills (which cascades into better choicemaking). I could even argue it just makes us better people in that we become more well informed and a bit less biased. And if that’s the benefit, maybe it is worth the risk. To be clear. I would gladly take a brain chip. Heck. I would take a health chip implant that could possibly optimize my health. The benefits of ‘optimizing’ my brain and body clearly outweighs the possible risks – at least in my mind. And I end with that thought because that is the decision everyone is going to have to inevitably make and I worry that the decisions will only amplify societal divides. But. That is a piece for another day. Today we should be pondering whether you would put a technology chip in your brain.

===

“Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you.”

Carl Sandburg

===

In a world where we so often talk about time being money I am surprised we don’t see this quote more often.

Oh.

Sorry.

I know why. Because it suggests you control your time and popular wisdom suggests that our time is out of our hands (and that there is not enough of it).

Carl suggests a different perspective.

Time is currency in your wallet and just like that ten dollar bill you have a choice how and where and when to spend it.

I am sure there has been a book written suggesting this, but suffice it to say thinking about time as money in your own wallet that you have to spend (and earn) is actually a useful thought.

It’s bigger than “time management” and closer to “time budgeting.”

Anyway.

A similar thought <which I liked> is time spent is not distance covered. I don’t know who wrote this, or said this, but it seemed appropriate here.

How we use our time is a discussion I am fairly sure we will never tire of.

Well. We may tire of it but we will never stop discussing.

Mostly because we worry whether we are using it wisely, or efficiently or whether we even have any control of our own time at all. In addition many of us assess our time investment by ‘distance covered’ <distance being defined by any variety of something tangible so that we can have some type of ‘measurement’>. In fact, we use measurement in some fairly absurd ways to judge time.

Look. I see many <many> people spending the coins of their life, not flippantly for sure, but I question whether they do so wisely. There is more time spent on … well … time … than almost anything else I can think of. People, websites, apps, far too many other things to list, all telling you how you should spend your time, on what, and how, and for what. So many people being told HOW to invest their time.

But it’s your money. Do you really want others spending it?

Sure.

We all have responsibilities but at some point, I admit this may be a selfish perspective, if I only have ten dollars of time I sure as hell do not want to let someone spend all ten dollars for me.

To be clear, whether I really know what I am talking about what I do know for sure is that Carl makes a valid point.

One which I believe is worth thinking about. Ponder.

===

“Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at birth.”

Justice Oliver W. Holmes Jr.

===

“I have always believed that I should have had no difficulty in causing my rights to be respected.”

Eli Whitney

===

The limits of conscientious objection and civil disobedience is, well, the law. Okay. Not really. The limits are actually part of the social fabric of what society accepts. The truth is the machinery of legal order most typically establishes its enforcement when the social contract breaks down. What I just wrote shouldn’t be that controversial, but in today’s world there is always someone shouting “without laws there is chaos.” The problem is laws really shouldn’t be applied in all cases. Yup. I just said that.

Indiscriminate self-righteousness – or individual moral judgements – have limits within a citizenry and when the citizens themselves, the social judgement, cannot agree that is when law steps in.

Which leads me to say violence is not in the purview of those rebelling.

It is not only not within the law it isn’t within the overall social contract. Righteousness does not equal right.  Regardless. Righteousness, in almost all forms, is disciplined by risk. And that is where violence steps into the conversation. There is no such thing as ‘well intended violence.’ We may be empathetic towards the reasons, but never to the means. On the other hand, nonviolent interference into the normal everyday activities of the rest of the world should be expected and should be seen as almost the inevitable actions of civil disobedience of citizens with reasonable reason to showcase disobedience to a system/society. We should actually celebrate these activities, no matter how annoying they may be to our own lives, and maybe even lean in and listen.

We should listen because violence, or let’s call it extreme civil disobedience (which may or may not include actual violence), is usually a reflection of heightened frustration. This is different than rebellion. True rebels have established no allegiance to the legal order (no matter how they may twist their version of legality). The reason most people balk at true rebels and rebellious behavior is because it is incoherent to natural societal coherence. ON a side note, I think Jefferson was a bit misguided in his rebellion thinking but that’s a topic for another day. But this is where things go awry in today’s world. we confuse civil disobedience, rebellious behavior and even violence because we don’t view them with trying to understand but rather by our ideology. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a healthy society should be judging individual behavior against itself, the societal norms, and not ideology.

Which leads me to anyone who purposefully disobeys a law, or purposefully stretches the law’s intent, pits the individual judgement against society’s judgement.

Righteousness of motives is judged by everyone else. And this is where things go awry in today’s world. in the wayback machine everyone else’s judgement wasn’t tainted by ideology, only by what they sensed as right or wrong. In today’s world people seem to have settled into a simplistic binary world – “if we do not follow the law (strictly), we are no longer a country of laws” versus, well, any other view than that. There is a portion of the world that goes to the most simplistic definition because it is easier to make a stand. The problem is the world is driven by nuance. Shit. Even law demands a bit of nuance. And therein lies the issue. Disobedience defies definitions while society assesses definitions and ideology demands definitions. The truth is society makes exceptions all the time and these exceptions are not made by the process of logic; but by the rules of prudence. Its part of what Edmund Burke suggested: “the notion of an established form of social life with the notion of an established set of institutional arrangements.” What I mean by that is ideas flow, even disobedient ones, and that’s why civil disobedience has always influenced culture. And what I mean by that is, well, it is inadmissible even when it may feel admissible and, yet, admissible within strict inadmissible rules. This happens because society is malleable to prudence and judgement. I state that because there are boundaries in identifying the limits of permissible civil disobedience and protest, but we would be naïve to think that “whoever is in power in government will peddle their preferences on what is right and what is wrong and what is within the limits and what is not.” The truth is the ‘law’ is simply a weapon wielded by the ones in power.

In the end.

I would argue that if the citizenry of a society continuously use law to settle their grievances, the law will fail. You cannot expect the legal system to decide what is the right thing to do. The truth is society judges what is right and wrong, legal and illegal, and admissible and inadmissible. Unless maybe if you are a judge, saying “it is just the law” to justify something, is lazy. The law is the last resort to deciding right or wrong because if that is the point we have arrived at, we, society, have failed in our duty to judge well. Ponder.

======

In the scenery of spring,

nothing is better, nothing worse;

The flowering branches are

of themselves, some short, some long.

Ryōkan

==

1st day of Spring. I have always had this crazy idea that we should celebrate the first day of spring instead of New Year’s Eve.

I say that because I sometimes find it odd we celebrate new year’s day which seems to be associated with regrets and leaving ‘things’ behind and ‘starting anew’ as if you completely throw out the old and start with a clean slate <which sounds good but is not really possible>.

And, yet, Spring is actually all about new from existing, growth from that which is and, well, hope <not regret>.

To me, as nature begins to throw off the cold thoughts of winter and days get longer, it seems natural to think of possibilities. And <returning to my crazy thought on ditching new years’ eve> it seems like it would also be much easier to become the change we seek in ourselves in Spring than when you are in the dead of winter and you have to fight off not only last year’s regrets but the grayness and coldness of winter days.

Spring abounds with, well, a life to come.

==

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;

Man never Is, but always To be blest:

The soul, uneasy and confin’d from home,

Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

==

Spring begins what could be called the narrative of hope.  The narrative can be religious or philosophical or both intertwined. Regardless. The narrative revolves around a speculation of what could be.

This I am today.

That I will be tomorrow.

I say this knowing full well that speculation is not an end in itself.

Speculation must involve some meaningful application.

While you have hope for growth in a belief of freshness and emerging growth from what already exists, you have to water the plant <you get the metaphor>. You have to do some shit in order for all the ‘hope shit’ to happen.

Spring isn’t about putting aside old habits and things it is about using them as stepping stones to grow and move forward.

I would argue that Spring helps us with hope because it suggests possibilities. This is good because far too often hope tends to stunted in pragmatism.

In other words, fulfillment of hope is much much easier in spring then in the dead of winter.

Behaviorally speaking, the pragmatic constructs of life and improvement seem much colder and stricter and harsher and less attainable in the winter.

And, yet, those same pragmatic constructs of life seem more open and warmer to adapting to change in the onset of spring and, most importantly to attitudes & behavior, more attainable.

And, yes, I do believe pragmatism and possibilities have a symbiotic relationship.

Now.

While you actually have to do some shit to make change and growth happen, Hope is a pretty powerful thing. Hope, which actually offers nothing more than mere speculation, actually provides us with the very basis of living.

Seriously.

Think about it.

What is existence without the hope for a better tomorrow or expectation of things to come?

<answer: not much>

We long for meaning which is certainly intertwined with hope — a hope for being as good as we can. A hope for being better today than I was yesterday and better tomorrow than I am today.

All that said.

“Dum spiro spero”

(While I breathe, I hope)

Alexander Pope

As long as we breathe, hope breaths.

Spring is about, well, breathing. Breathing life into hopes & dreams.

I would argue New Year’s Eve is about suffocation and is grounded in the despair of past dreams.

Ponder that a bit.

How often have you stood on the threshold of a new year looking to discard things <to start anew> and felt this?

                   “From where you are you can hear their dreams.

The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams.”

Dylan Thomas

Conceptually, for New Years to exist it means some dreams have died. Yeah. On New Year ’s Eve we put to rest some of our dead dreams … and create new ones.

<please note: I do not believe any dream should die>

On the first day of spring we let the seeds of our dreams burst forth from the ground and grow.

Now that, my friends, is something worth celebrating.

Spring is here.

Hope lives.

Think of the possibilities.

==

“I fight to give people a destiny, but not to give them happiness. Destiny is what fascinates me.”

==

The role of government in people’s lives, and with people’s lives, is one of the most wretched discussions it seems like someone can have.

That said.

No one should live in poverty.

No one should be food deficient.

No one should be homeless.

No one should have no access to healthcare (preventive or remedial).

No one should not have opportunities to education, living wage jobs and to some version of happiness.

The weird thing is a shitload of people will invest a shitload of energy debating “no one.” They will attach laziness and hard work and a whole bunch of stipulations on ‘no one’ until all of a sudden it becomes permissible to permit ‘some people’ be one or all of those things. That seems weird to me. It seems weird because no one is suggesting someone should be wealthy or live a life of leisure. All we suggest is that there is a baseline sustenance of life , maybe think of it as a potential springboard, for seeking out one’s destiny. If someone is content living on sustenance, or survivable means, that is their choice but it would seem to me that part of a country’s responsibility is to maintain a basic level of sustenance to all citizens – regardless of their ambition or lack thereof. It also seems weird, if not absurd, to think everyone – 330 million people – will all want to work hard or work as much or even work at all. It may chafe to those who do work hard, but its silly to suggest everyone has the same attitude. All that really should matter is that those who really do not want to work can live that life and let the ones who want to work hard build the destinies they desire. I could actually argue letting the ‘sustenance accepters’ tag out of the game leaves more for the rest of us and clears the field a bit for a better game.

Which leads me to ‘the game’ or what some people call the free market.

The problem is a “free market,” or let’s call it a lassiez faire attitude, isn’t really effective at enabling 100% of the people to fulfill their destiny. I will not argue that in certain circumstances a hands-off approach can work with an economy, but there have to be some specific features to give it a chance:

• The structural tools have to be accessible to many and not few
• There have to be widespread opportunities accessible to large swath of population
• There are no limits to distributional aspects of earning wealth, i.e., there are limited protectionist policies and limited protectionist groups.

Any sane person recognizes the government cannot be solely responsible for economic success nor is the market truly a mechanism of the pursuit of self-interest in which the interests of society will be served well. For example, Noah Smith has noted transforming the U.S. economy, in order to more effectively compete with China and Russia, will involve industrial policy. There’s a very basic economic reason for this. The industrial structure of the free market will tend to produce, if left to its own devices, things that do not take national interests into account – it produces not what the market needs, but what profits the business. Thus, if we want to have an economy that’s optimized not just for consumption, but for the good of individual destiny manifestations, government has to play a role with economic interests. These solutions reside somewhere within what Adam Smith suggested in the Theory of Moral Sentiments in that ‘however how selfish soever man may seem to be supposed there are evidently some principles in our nature which interests us in the fortunes of others.’ Government interventions implement a more rounded view of human behavior which acknowledges the coexistence of both the self-interested and altruistic sides of human nature. To be clear. Humans are neither inherently altruistic or selfish, they are what researchers call conditional cooperators and altruistic punishers. I believe this is called “reciprocity” and defined as ‘a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish even at personal cost, if necessary, those who violate the norms of this cooperation even when it is obvious the personal cost will never be recouped.’ I would argue this is the true invisible hand, not the market, in that there is no rationality other than ‘the structure of the system will define behaviors’. I say that because one cannot blame individuals for most failures, but rather the system itself. This is an important thought as I discuss “no one” because e tend to highlight the accountability of ‘the individual’ in some unhealthy ways within economic narratives. I say unhealthy because, well, as Hanzi Freinacht has suggested the entire idea of individual or collective is outdated in today’s world. And in the Cluetrain Manifesto they suggested “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.” I imagine my point here is that 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 and true self-interest really doesn’t exist because no one ‘self’ can exist without the whole. That’s today’s world no matter what the politics of economics may suggest.

Which leads me to where it all goes wrong from there as we discuss “no one.”

Mancur Olson suggested, in stable countries with unchanged boundaries, distributional coalitions (interest groups, collusive organizations) are inevitable. The longer the country is stable, the more distributional coalitions it will have. These groups influence politics to gain benefits for their group, thereby imposing economic effectiveness for themselves and, simultaneously, macro economic inefficiencies. Yeah. Coalitions of self-interest slow growth. The only way to increase growth and enhance societal feelings of ‘collective good and needs’ is to break down the coalitions of self-interest. If you don’t, these groups increase not only wealth, but power and ultimately increase divisiveness (haves and have nots). This issue is actually where the world is struggling most (and, in particular, the US).

===

It is more beneficial for the groups to spend money to redistribute wealth to themselves (through political lobbying or collusion), rather than increasing overall efficiency of the economy (investing in new technologies, etc.), since the redistributions go only to their small group while the overall efficiencies would benefit the economy as a whole. The involvement of many special interest groups in politics makes issues more divisive and complex.

===

We should be seeking to have society operate, prosperously, with an incentive to redistribute opportunities (give people access to destiny). I would argue if we did this than wealth would naturally be better distributed. The problem is individual coalitions naturally protect jobs, opportunities and wealth thereby restricting jobs, opportunities and wealth. Within this protection it actually speeds up siloed decision making which only exacerbates the greater unhealthy asymmetry in totality. But maybe worse is that these self interest coalitions are inherently slower to adopt things (technology and new process) and are horrible at reallocating resources to optimize future growth. Why? Because, once again, their objective is to their protect jobs, opportunities and wealth, not fund the largest growth potential, destiny, possible. They may not seek to purposefully want other people not reach their destiny; they just cordon off their resources to ensure their own success above all.  I bring some of this up because a lot of what I just said flows into discussion surrounding where I began – what ‘no one’ deserves versus what one does deserve.

Which leads me to economic support in government is inextricably linked to how it is viewed in the public’s eye.

Ordinary people, the public, tend to have certain biases particularly when it comes to government and the role of government in economics. Those on the left tend to be more altruistic and when things don’t go well, they see it as true as greed and self-interest. Those on the right tend to see welfare programs as ineffectual and a waste of their taxes because people become lazy nor self-reliant/self-interest mindsets. However, the truth, as pointed out earlier, of how we accept economic policies gets driven by reciprocity. Strong reciprocity norms tend to encourage people to categorize the disadvantaged into the deserving and the undeserving and programs that reflect this distinction tend to enjoy broad support. Programs that run counter to these norms, even if it’s just by perception, and benefit perceived undeserving people tend to be controversial. The easiest example of this is welfare programs that give benefits with no requirements such as work or training. My point here is that politicians exploit our biases within the politics of economics. The truth is most people are not lazy, requirements tend to exclude some people who really could use the system and the most people who abuse economic policies are actually not the ones who need the programs.

Which leads me to embracing a ‘no one’ philosophy.

Well. Not to get philosophical but I think all cultures are in a constant tug of war between self-interest and collective good. And this is where systems play a role. If someone believes the system is rigged or unfair in some way then the individualistic aspects start getting stronger. Or. Say for example the system leans in hard on wealth accumulation or productivity/materialism this sucks out any ‘individual meaning’ which bends the arc of the everything toward individual versus collective good. So. Systems create dynamics which bend a society toward either collective or individualistic.  This is important if you care about enabling ‘potential destinies.’

Some politicians seem to hijack scraps of moral precepts to justify actions, ignoring the realities of the ‘no ones’ we are always discussing. They seek to offer simple, and simplistic, answers to things that are neither simple nor have any real answers. They also seek to use pseudo-logic to de-humanize humans and their situations. They seek to divide in order to have power over parts of the whole – because they cannot gain power by any other means. This, similar to my earlier point on ‘distributional coalitions’ is counterproductive if your objective is to fight to give all people (no one) opportunity to fulfill some destiny.

The truth is self is actually about a collective ability to understand and act. Problems are rarely individual; they are more likely larger tragedy of the commons issues and therefore demand some type of collective action. Politics of resentment is anti- ‘everything in that last sentence’. Resentment, at its worst, makes everyone an individual and everyone a potential enemy or someone to blame for any number of my individual woes – real or perceived. Consequently, politics of resentment makes everyone a victim. That last sentence was hard to type because it is a hard thought to swallow. But maybe the first step out of resentment is to accept someone is attempting to make us a victim and have the self awareness to understand everyone enjoys some version of a ‘free ride’ in a healthy society. Generally speaking in any societal action, there is no way to exclude people from the benefits nor should we want to. A society should permit someone to refuse to participate, and not make any contribution, and yet still benefit. I can decide to not contribute to the local library or the local park and yet I can still have access to both. In this case I am a ‘free rider.’ I do think it’s fair for a society to selectively pressure any one individual, including me, to assess my selective free-riderism, but at the same time I like being part of a society which understands that it is impossible to attain symmetrical organization of all people, and all groups, with a common interest and attain optimal outcomes for everyone. And that is the fundamental argument for “no one” left out. There will always be abusers of what is free. Period. But a society doesn’t design itself to these outliers, it designs itself so that ‘no one’ should be deprived of what is good for everyone. No one should be representative of everyone. We should fight so that no one is deprived of a potential destiny and within that I tend to believe we will not only encourage individual happiness but societal happiness. By ignoring the few abusers of the system, the many will achieve a better destiny. And, yes (circling back to my opening sentence), government can play a role so that no one can be part of everyone. Ponder.