Well. Okay. Not hate. Let’s say they are kind of like how I feel about New Year’s Eve. Just another day in the year unlike Christmas (a chubby guy with presents and egg nog with rum) and 4th of July (you get to blow things up).
That said. For some people birthdays are special.
I keep hoping one day my birthday becomes as special to me as some birthdays are to other people. Storypeople (Brian Andreas) is one of my favorite artists and thoughtful saying artists. He summarized the thinking perfectly:
“I used to hate birthdays, she told me, until I figured out I was the Queen of the Universe & now I do them for the little people.”
storypeople
Me? I keep waiting for the day that I feel like the King of the Universe and start liking my birthday.
But for now? To all my friends who love their birthdays and celebrating it like Christmas … well … Happy Christmas! … oops … Birthday!
I envy your ability to seize the opportunity to celebrate your life.
I tend to find the people who enjoy their birthdays as the people who know how to enjoy their lives.
The people who look at each birthday as an opportunity to smile a little about their life.
The people who seem to be glass is half full (if not more) type people.
They aren’t tortured souls, but rather more life celebrators.
I envy them because I think they have kept a little of their ‘little kid’ and not afraid to let everyone know it. The best don’t really care about the gift part at all (excepting maybe from someone really special in their lives) they enjoy the celebration. The enjoy the moment.
It’s fun to them getting together with a huge chocolate cake, ice cream and maybe tons of balloons and friends, family or loved ones.
And here is the real nuance.
I think they like to celebrate them, but love the fact that people actually remember it’s their birthday.
So. While I am certainly one of the non-birthday people (who could give a rat’s ass when it comes to my own day) I will make a big deal with someone else’s birthday if it’s important to them.
But most importantly I remember (or try as well as I can).
For the greatest gift I believe you can give a friend is found in the details.
So.
happy birthday.
And, in the end, here is one thing about your birthday that is truer than true:
“Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.”
“National honor is the national property of the highest value.”
James Monroe
===
“Results are obtained by exploiting opportunities, not by solving problems.”
Peter F. Drucker
===
“Great” is a fairly amorphous thing. It is not seamless and if we are honest ‘great’ is usually reflective of a temporary state (something permanent to aspire to). For example, a business may be ‘great’ and at the same time be a quivering mass of vulnerabilities and in a constant state of work-in-progress. That said. I admit. I am a 100% business guy and I have absolutely fallen into the “seeking results by solving problems” trap on occasion. I begin there to say despite that I know in my heart of hearts that exploiting emergent opportunities is the key to business success, but in the day to day grind, especially if you enjoy solving problems, you can get focused on “boy, I sure had a good day because I solved a lot of problems.”
Problems reflect tangible almost immediate pleasure and identifiable outcomes.
Opportunities are less tangible and more hopeful.
Unfortunately, day to day business cannot run solely on hope. And leadership is more often than not defined by providing, or uncovering, or supporting, opportunities to those who seek, and need them, the most. So, happy 4th of July America and let’s talk opportunities.
Which leads me to politicians and governing opportunities.
My biggest issue with most politicians is a general lack of understanding of business and how it applies to how a government & country can be managed. In fact, I would suggest most politicians are horrible at envisioning opportunities, they simply seek out votes (salving existing problems). Now. I continue to believe a business person with no government experience can never successfully manage a country and a lifetime politician will always struggle to understand the underlying attitudes and behaviors of a successful business. In my mind I believe someone who understands attitudes & behaviors & motivations is one most likely to be a successful governing leader. To be clear. This doesn’t mean understanding anger or frustration, but rather what motivates, inspires and makes people collectively move rather than individually stand and bitch. And, pointedly, it doesn’t mean standing around, or shouting from some podium, blaming someone for all the problems America has and shouting at the top of your lungs saying “I can solve these problems.” Those asshats should seek the opportunities that exist <and there are a shitload> and exploit them. Instead of arguing over problems we should argue over which opportunities represent the best opportunities for the better progress of America, i.e., identify and exploit opportunities.
“We hope. We despair. We hope. We despair. That is what governs us. We have a bipolar system.”
Maira Kalman
Look. There will always be questions. And there will always be ‘problems.’ Making something great is most often found in looking at what is and discovering the opportunities and exploit them. To be clear, opportunities don’t reside in the past.
I can’t bring back jobs, but I can create jobs.
I can’t stop globalization, but I can exploit the local opportunities globalization offers.
I can’t recreate a dying industry or dying skills, but I can create new industries with the skills that exist.
That is how a governing entity can help make America great.
Which leads me to ‘making America great.’
If we, or some leader, creates an environment in which opportunities are exploitable, and exploited by those who are most in need, all the major issues slip away. I often wonder why instead of bitching about what is ‘holding America back from greatness’ we accept some things are great and some things are not and get on with getting on. We may not understand the reason, accept the fact there will always be more questions than answers, and ask the best questions and use the answers to discover the opportunities and exploit them. Accept the fact that even though things may not be going the way you wanted them to go or the way maybe that it should go … well … opportunities exist <if you look>.
The American dream never resides in the past. The founding fathers had a dream of what could be – a future. And the biggest gift they gave us was not any document or law or ruling guidelines; it was the gift of looking forward and not backwards. The gift to shed problems and issues and disagreements by advancing confidently in the direction of what could be.
==
“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
Henry David Thoreau
===
Making America great will never have anything to do with building any walls, or breaking up banks, or free college, or dividing people, or gun control, or any issue we seem to invest far too much energy debating. Making America great will always have to do with seeing the opportunities that exist – not any we have to actually create – and exploiting them.
Crumbling infrastructure? We have an opportunity to build whatever infrastructure we want.
Massive debt? We have an opportunity to cut unnecessary expenses <in the real world this is called “downsizing”>.
Archaic education system? We have an opportunity to throw out the old way and build a completely new way <and this doesn’t mean privatizing education which is not a real solution>.
Manufacturing? Build plants.
I could go on and on. Every supposed “problem” America has represents an opportunity. So maybe instead of running around trying to ‘fix’ all the problems someone should sit down and say “let’s go do something great.”
“Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”
Harry S. Truman
We are the ones who make history and we, people, are the ones who make up greatness. We do this through actions and words. Yeah. Words play a role. What I mean by that is the stories we tell ourselves matter. The stories we tell ourselves about people, events, the past, shape how we interpret and respond to and show up in the present and how we envision the future (possibilities). The stories ultimately become what we become. The words we use to tell ourselves stories matters. We should not deny reality, yet, we should also not deny hope for greatness.
248 years ago a relatively small group of men with really only one thing in common – a vision & the opportunity to build a country – saw opportunity as what would make the fledgling country great. And wrote some really important words down. That didn’t mean there were not problems nor did it mean they ignored problems nor did they get everything right, but they recognized the way out of almost every problem and issue was forward, not by fixing, and therefore they sought out opportunities and sought to exploit the opportunities to the benefit of a better America.
My wish for year 248 is to stop talking about what is wrong and who has done something wrong and instead talk about all the opportunities that exist. That would be a great attitude. Happy 4th.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
Vladimir Lenin
==
“No one is walking in saying, ‘Great, I’d love to pay full price’.”
==
One of the things that drives me nuts is when people say how much better the economy was during the Trump Administration. It’s not really true, it was good, not quite as good as under Obama administration, certainly not bad, not really comparably as good as current economy, but that’s a post for a different day (and I encourage everyone to research economists like Noah Smith, Tyler Cowen or Justin Wolfers to read their thoughts).
Today I’m addressing the comparison elephant in the room: inflation.
Inflation is not the economy. It seems like the majority of people are judging the economy solely on what they perceive is inflation. Inflation perception may seem like an odd term. Heck. Inflation itself is an oddish thing. Economists define it in a nuanced way, people define it in a simplistic way, news defines it whatever way its own political winds blow way, and reality is somewhere in between. But where people think of inflation the most is with prices they pay (not causes).
So let me speak a little bit about pricing during the Trump administration years. Similar to the Obama administration years, in the Trump years corporate America scanned about their competition and tried to figure out how to be able to charge the highest possible competitive price and generate the highest profits. It’s kind of standard operating pricing procedure weighing “how much can I charge and still create significant demand.” That doesn’t mean that many of these same companies were year in year out doing things like conjoint testing (testing variables that affect the price that could be charged versus the demand increase or decrease, i.e., price sensitivity). Businesses are always trying to figure out how to have higher prices. That said, generally speaking, changing prices sends a shiver down the spine of every business as they worry about the demand effect. So, the natural arc of pricing is to establish your price within a competitive environment, watch your competition pricing, and establish a demand for your product or service based on that price. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that I’ve sat in endless meetings where business people wistfully spoke of charging significantly more than they currently were charging.
Which leads me to the Trump Administration years.
Business institutions had less and less wistful conversations. Not because they actually raised their prices, but because the Trump Administration went out of their way to cut corporate taxes, offer incentivized subsidies to keep cost of goods affordable, and did a variety of things which enabled businesses to increase their profits, not their sales, without ever having to raise their price one penny. Let me reiterate that the Trump Administration also did everything they could possibly do to subsidize everything (things that effected cost of goods) to keep inflationary pricing down. The consequence of this was soaring federal level deficits, but for the most part the everyday schmuck like you and I didn’t really care because prices remained fairly stable and the headlines didn’t look any different than they had always looked in the past – pointing out day after day the soaring corporate profits. We all felt like the system was rigged, the corporations were gouging us, but we didn’t really see it at the shelf or in our pocketbooks. So, we just hated business, but didn’t hate the economy.
Which leads me to the pandemic.
Instead of theoretical, conjoint-like, testing, every business was faced with market reality and a real market test. Supply chains were disrupted, commodities – costs of goods – that were essential to their production and resources needed for services became limited or asymmetrically supplied and more costly, and consequently prices changed – most typically upwards. Oh. And everything was passed along to the buyers. What this meant in practical terms, to a business, was the sellers were able to test the market pricing (elasticity) without being blamed. They could see in real time how demand was affected by disruptions and price changes. Rightfully so everybody pointed their fingers at the pandemic, but businesses didn’t really lose a lot of sleep because they maintained their profits, for the most part adapted to the changing demand, and tried to keep their profit heads above the water. Then the pandemic ended. And businesses sat around conference rooms failing moral gut check after moral gut check. And what was that moral gut check? What to do with my pricing now that my cost of goods has decreased. This isn’t to suggest that some industries and businesses were still affected by some of the ripple effect consequences of the pandemic with regard to the cost of the goods they needed to be able to craft the products they offered to the market. But for the most part the pandemic encouraged businesses to create a more resilient production model to make their cost of the goods more stable. In addition, the corporate tax cuts stayed in place … despite the current administration wanting to increase them (government is government and nothing changed there). Many of the tariffs were removed which should have eased pricing to the buyers, but many of the businesses failed to pass along the cost savings. In addition to that the pandemic market had shown many of the businesses the price elasticity and inelasticity of their products and services. For example. My geographic market prior to the pandemic. It would not be rare to see that you could buy a two-liter bottle of Coke or Pepsi on promotion for $1 (actually 99cents) and the everyday price was always below $2 (maybe $1.99, maybe $1.89.) During the pandemic of course all prices went crazy. Coke and Pepsi’s two-liter bottle prices soared above $2 every day (usually $2.99 everyday). Uhm. Post pandemic the everyday price for a two-liter bottle is now $2.50, or above, and promotions never drop below $1.25 per 2 liter. The demand has remained exactly the same and Coke and Pepsi are getting, at minimum, $0.25 gravy, at maximum, $1.00 gouging, on every single two-liter bottle purchased. Just to complete the math on this. If they sell 1 million 2-liter bottles, they make anywhere from $250,000-$1,000,000 additional profit. Uhm. And they sell billions. Anyway. This isn’t to just pick on Coke and Pepsi, Coke and Pepsi are indicative of business. The problem is most people aren’t thinking about this the way I just finished describing it. All they see is what groceries are costing them every single day, without promotion, a dollar more per 2-liter bottle. And as they wander the supermarkets, they see the same thing. In some industries the prices have certainly decreased and, generally speaking, the majority of the pandemic pricing has decreased aligned with the realities of whatever their cost of goods increased or decreased. But when you go to the supermarket you don’t focus on the prices that lowered closer to prepandemic, you focus in on the prices of the goods that you want that you’re tired of paying pandemic pricing for. And I word it that way because that’s not inflation. That’s pandemic pricing in non-pandemic time.
“The reality is that business and investment spending are the true leading indicators of the economy and the stock market. If you want to know where the stock market is headed, forget about consumer spending and retail sales figures. Look to business spending, price inflation, interest rates, and productivity gains.”
Mark Skousen
And that’s the economic gut check on the moral gut check businesses failed. I am certainly not suggesting that the Trump Administration is to be blamed for the current pricing. They didn’t plan the pandemic and the pandemic certainly affected all businesses in terms of their supply chains and cost of goods. And just as well I can’t blame the Biden administration for not doing anything about what I’m calling pandemic pricing, which is confused with inflation, because governments are not in the business of dictating pricing that people pay. Suffice it to say, no administration would ever change the prices people pay.
“I believe that it is just a matter of time before our party pays a heavy price for President Trump’s reckless spending and shortsighted financial policies, his erratic, destabilizing foreign policy and his disregard for environmental concerns.”
McKean
But, in the end, I opened discussing what drove me nuts (the Trump administration wasn’t as great as many people think it was). Inflation in Trump times was no better than prior administrations and unless you have a crystal ball there is no way to know whether inflation would be the same, lower, or higher if the Trump administration were in place now. That said, I will suggest that the likelihood a new Trump administration would lower inflation is next to nil. Any objective observer would struggle to imagine what policies the Trump administration would have in place that would lower inflation now or even what policies would be in place that would make the economy any better now.
At this time, I tend to believe the biggest culprit is institutional pricing, not real inflation. But that’s me. Ponder.
“But the brain does much more than just recollect it inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes, it generates abstractions. The simplest thought like the concept of the number one has an elaborate logical underpinning. “
Carl Sagan
“We need to free ourselves from the habit of seeing culture as encyclopedia knowledge, and men as mere receptacles to be stuffed full of empirical data and a mass of unconnected raw facts, which have to be filed in the brain as in the columns of a dictionary, enabling their owner to respond to the various stimuli from the outside world. This form of culture really is harmful, particularly for the proletariat. It serves only to create maladjusted people, people who believe they are superior to the rest of humanity because they have memorized a certain number of facts and dates and who rattle them off at every opportunity, so turning them almost into a barrier between themselves and others.”
Antonio Gramsci
Velvet curtain of culture.
Iron curtain of ideology.
Samuel Huntington
==
This is a slightly different discussion about speed and speedy stuff. Farnam Street did a topnotch job outlining speed versus velocity, and I wrote an entire series on velocity, but today I am focused on speedy looking less-than-important stuff and more important slower-speed human nature, in other words, meaningful cultural movement versus superficial culture movements.
Which leads me to most culture is inertia disguised in speedy clothing.
Most culture is misidentified by 24/7 culture scam artists posing as futurists, trend spotters, and social influencers, i.e., people who monetarily benefit from hype and, most specifically, ‘speed hype’
· ** speed hype is typically captured in the ubiquitous phrase “the world is moving faster than ever.” It’s not.
Most businesses, with good intentions, get caught up in the speedy inertia wheel of doom. So, let’s talk culture in two ways:
1. culture of human whims.
2. culture of human nature.
The former is about cultural shifts, or shifting, (some big, some small) and the latter is about foundational movement (the inevitable cadence that always exists). Ultimately, this becomes a battle between whims and nature. Sure. Sometimes a whim is a reflection of some deeper human truth and has some enduring nature, but for the most part whims are whims, fads are fads, and things that look good in the ‘shift phase’ look pretty stupid in a rearview mirror. But within the battle of whims and nature the word ‘culture’ is wielded like a dull axe. To be clear, as Dick Hebdige, author of The Meaning of Style, said “culture is a notoriously ambiguous concept.” Personally, I believe we shouldn’t be landing on one definition but rather, well, “the best thing about definitions, like $100 bills, is to have plenty of them” (Robert Ardrey). That said. Simplistically, culture is the elements of human nature that make up the experiences of a group. Yeah. Culture is the work of whole peoples and their interactions. It moves at the pace of language, experiences, and stories. To be clear. Events, religion, ideologies feed into language, experiences and stories, but those things are not culture, but rather stimulus of culture. Regardless, all this means cultural truths are tied to the rhythms of human nature/biology and connectivity between peoples – the cadence of humanity. I know businesses prefer talking about profitability, objectives, and KPIs, or even what culture they may ‘have,’ but the more a business can tap into the cadence of nature and humanity, its cultural truths, the more enduring the business idea will be. I would suggest that it is through culture that we make sense of our lives so when a business taps into the movement of culture, people’s lives tend to move with it.
Which leads me to inertia or, in other words, irrelevance.
Forever is a long, long time.
And has a way of changing things.
The Fox and the Hound
We accept inertia, irrelevance, far too easily/comfortably. Why do I think irrelevance is accepted? To be fair it’s easy to confuse the irrelevant as being relevant in today’s speedy FOMO world. First. Let me point out that speed can look an awful lot like inertia. So, if you think running in the hamster wheel of hype is doing a lot of ‘important things’, you are wrong, but ‘feels’ like good shit is happening. You are more likely just doing a lot of things and the business is never really moving or gaining value. Second. A misguided understanding of value. This misunderstanding is most often discovered in opportunities missed. If you emphasize the speedy stuff, or just speed alone, as offering the highest value, you will inevitably miss out the slower moving opportunities which offer foundational, and sustainable, value. Mistaking all that speedy stuff for culture is transactional value versus enduring value and, in most cases, I would argue a business is leaving dollars on the table.
Which leads me to how to navigate offering relevant value.
First. Slow down (the world is not moving so fast you will miss anything significant). Second. I would suggest find the relevant cultural movement. To be fair, it is tricky to find the natural, biological, cadence tucked in human nature. The problem is we have a collective shortsightedness grounded in “living in the now,” but in order to maintain a thriving business you need short term results without being shortsighted and you need a long-term view while ‘being’ in the short term. I have found Stewart Brand’s pace layering an invaluable tool for thinking about how brands can ‘navigate the long now.’ In other words, ground a business in culture in terms of human insights, not popular relevant(?) culture.
Let me explain. Remember. Cultural insights are grounded in human nature. These things have a bit of timelessness to them. In pace layering terms they are the slow moving truths that people gather around, or, as James Carse said: “a culture is not anything persons do, but anything they do with each other.”
These things are easy to overlook because they are the things that hold us all together when it seems like the world is moving too fast for us (while technology is shouting at us to go faster). If a business leans into these cultural truths, human psychological truths, they construct a strong but flexible structure built to absorb shocks and, in most cases, incorporate them. Instead of breaking under stress, like something brittle, the business accommodates what the world throws at us and yet its cultural truths move so slowly, they seem like they are unchanging.
Fast learns, slow remembers.
Fast proposes, slow disposes.
Fast is discontinuous, slow is continuous.
Slow and big controls small and fast by constraint and constancy.
Fast gets all our attention, slow has all the power.
Stewart Brand
Business walks a variety of paths every day. But today rather than looking at as terrain and paths let’s think of these paths in concentric layers. I, personally, believe everyone should think about Stewart Brand’s pace layering and from a larger perspective, societally, I believe we could all use a good lesson in navigating the long now rather than focus solely on the now (and the short term). Societally we certainly have a collective shortsightedness grounded in “living in the now,” which I would argue isn’t particularly good for any of us. But for a business that is the kiss of death. An enduring, thriving, business demands a long view and I believe that long view is found within a cultural insight. Here is the harsh truth. Most businesses skate on the superficial surface of irrelevance because they ignore cultural truths. For the most part brands are ignoring these truths for temporary happiness. Far too many brands view fads, fashion, much of social media as cultural truths and, for the most part, they are not. Cultural truths are grounded in human insights – psychological, behavioral – which power our hopes and dreams and anger and happiness and, most importantly, connection with other humans. Today’s brands see ‘culture’ in the fleeting outside world of fads and fashion and style and useless gadgets-of-the-moment which are just the momentary mindless, the irrelevant, clothed in a veneer of connectivity.
Remember. Culture is not static, its transitory. Culture is a process (that which is acquired) as well as a product (that which has been acquired). Culture is both backward looking as well as future looking (nostalgic or memory grounded as well as utopian or dream looking). Culture is a refraction, not a reflection. Culture is a macro narrative made up of micro-narratives (sub cultures).
Which leads me to infinite movement.
Business is addicted to finite stuff. Projects, initiatives, weekly goals, all rolled up n KPIs. Business loves to isolate things and ‘make them perfect’ while espousing infinite value. Look. Forever, infinite, is about time and it isn’t. What I mean is we associate forever with time and, yet, it is timeless so time is almost irrelevant to ‘infinite.’ What is relevant to forever (or let’s call it ‘the long now’’) is constancy and adaptation. Please note I never said “control.”
“We control nothing, but we influence everything.”
Brian Klass
Ah. Control. Now, being the type of outcome-oriented people we are; we actually try and apply some measurement to infinite progress (yes, measuring that sounds like an oxymoron) and all it does is increase the perception of speed and encourage inertia. We look like we’re filling up time with important things, we feel like we are filling up time with important things, we even sit around conference room tables pointing at numbers that look important, but for the most part none of those things are contributing, in any significant way, to the constancy and adaptation which is the key to navigating the layers of pace every culture and business exists upon. In fact, all of those things are just attempts to take snapshots of all the blurry unimportant things speeding by. Yeah. The numbers are an attempt to convince you that the unimportant is important.
So we measure meaningless stuff and hold on to old things, including thinking, for too long. Businesses get caught in the wretched hollow in between shiny fast moving meaningless shit and the old thinking which only increases burden on a daily basis and the people gravitating to either side of FOMO or stability. Therein lies inertia. Therein lies path dependence.
Here is the crazy thing. The whole idea of infinite far too often tethers us to our past or inertia which is not very productive. Maybe worse is as we grow away from infiniteness, we grow closer to the understanding of finiteness, measurement by measurement, fad by fad, widget by widget. Paradoxically as we focus on all the shit speeding around, all the whims and fads, we reduce nature to silly things we convince ourselves are important.
==============
“Let me tell you a truth … no matter what choice you make, it doesn’t define you.
Not forever. People can make bad choices and change their minds and hearts and do good things later; just as people can make good choices and then turn around and walk a bad path. No choice we make lasts our whole life. If there’s ever a choice you’ve made that you no longer agree with, you can make another choice.”
Jonathan Maberry
============
Which leads me to paced learning.
Rather than discussing fast or slow, let’s discuss pacing – and learning. The reality is that organizations learn. That may sound a little odd because organizations are made up of people and we typically talk about learning in individualistic ways. However, organizations and the systems are implemented by people and in turn influence people’s mindsets, attitudes, and actual behaviors. So, when I say that organizations learn what I mean by that is that they encase their learning in programs and standard operating procedures that the people within the organization routinely execute. That is the system. The problem with this is that all of these programs and procedures typically generate inertia. And this inertia inevitably increases as the organization brings in new people and reward conformity to the system and its ‘learned implementation.’ This is done over and over and over again embedding past learning in the present (and future). As the successes accumulate the organization doubles down on the existing system emphasizing efficiency. The consequences of this are inevitable – the system itself becomes complacent, people learning slows, and inertia sets in. To be clear. Inertia and complacency is a double whammy to a business. It slows culture down and human nature (natural adaptation) down. So how should organizations learn? Well. As William Starbuck said “organizations must unlearn.” Unlearn is an awkward way of saying that systems must be systemically dismantled piece by piece and iteratively rebuilt. And what that means is that the people within the organization need to be self-aware enough in order to be able to influence not only organizational systems, but organizational learning. This is where hierarchy comes in. In most businesses organizations are constructed in a hierarchy. What this means is that the higher up the manager is the more likely they are to dominate organizational learning as well as organizational implementation. This means that most managers invest the majority of their energy in terms of learning the existing system and not unlearning aspects of the system, i.e., trying different things and innovation. It may sound odd, but past learning inhibits new learning. The only way to create space for new learning is to be able to discard some old learning, i.e., unlearn.
Which leads me to human nature (human movement).
Nature is never still. Nothing, in nature, is ever infinite other than possibly adaptability. This truth includes humans and human nature. Adaptability is a complex coherence of faster and slower moving aspects (static and dynamic). Typically, the aspects seek an optimal equilibrium situation through reactions and interactions (connectivity) where all become stable in a coherent sense enabling movement. In fact, maybe that defines infinite and progress. What I mean by that is optimal is only attainable in a temporary state (finite) therefore the pursuit is always infinite. This means true ‘achievement’ is not possible therefore progress is the only reality-based construct. Anyway. I would suggest the most interesting systems are dynamic in that they are non equilibrium systems that form order from actively dissipating entropy. Ah. Entropy (and its relationship to paces and pace layering). I would argue that entropy increases as the total surface of what is exposed to external stimuli is decreased. This decrease surface connectivity creates an overall increase of entropy. To be clear. “Surface” is a complex weave of whims and human nature at speed. Discerning between the two is important because if the ‘external stimuli’ you elect to expose yourself to are ‘whims’ that will only increase entropy (that is the paradox of speed). This doesn’t mean that there can’t be constant re-formation of order; just that there is an increased likelihood of entropy. I believe it was physical chemist Ilya Prigogine who viewed the paradox of evolution as one of an engine running down and the other of a living world unfolding toward increasing order and complexity. In his theory, the second law of thermodynamics – which is the law of ever-increasing entropy or disorder – is still valid, but the relationship between entropy and disorder is different. At bifurcation points states of greater order may emerge spontaneously without contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. The total entropy of the system keeps increasing, but this increase in entropy is not uniform or symmetrical. In the living world order and disorder are always created simultaneously. What this means is that there are always islands of order in all seas of disorder and their role is to maintain and increase their order. And therein lies another thought, one in which that speed, inertia, and cultural movement will always have aspects of order and disorder. Well. That thought will make every business uncomfortable.
“Strategy’s endgame is to spark movement. But as an intermediary measure, feeling moved by the process is an indicator you’re doing it right. Because if you’re doing it right, you do embody new people. New messages. New audiences. A new tone of voice. Strong vicarious vibes. And by doing so, things get raw. Raw precedes real. And real is something that provokes a response.”
Rob Estreinho
Which leads me to cultural movement.
Let’s say this is about experience versus experiencing. I tend to believe most people are misguided when they focus on experiences, and selling experiences, rather than focusing on experiencing (which is more about human nature). Here’s what I mean. Experiences are an outcome of experiencing, and experiencing is a complex culmination of connections:
1. Connection to human nature.
In other words, the biology which creates the comfortable or the purposefully uncomfortable cadence that seems natural to us (note: this is actually embodied in a number of cultural cues)
2. Connection to context and environment.
This Is the environment which expands or reduces potential.
3. Connection to other humans.
In fact, human nature experiencing is autopoiesis. Autopoiesis means self-making. It is the main characteristic of life in that it is self-maintenance due to the natural internal networking of the system itself. It constantly maintains itself within the boundary of its own making. But it also implies that a living system is the totality of all of its mutual interactions, i.e., connections (as listed above). Through connections multiple mini transformations continuously take place and, yet, at its core the system/human/human nature maintains its individuality. Is this apparent contradiction between adaptation and constancy which actually explains a healthy system. I say all of that to suggest all living systems need some constancy and yet still need some change through adaptation. I say that to suggest human nature, culture, is constancy constantly, slowly, adapting.
Which leads me to end with the fact most people discuss culture incorrectly.
Human nature is at the core of culture. Whims and fads are simply temporary features of human nature’s more systemic rhythms. The reality of culture is that it is not a particular speedy thing. With that in mind, rather than giving so much attention to speedy stuff, maybe we should invest just a bit more energy focusing on the less speedy stuff. I seriously doubt we will miss out on anything truly meaningful in the process. Ponder.
====
“It is misleading to argue that cultural circulation has been democratized. The means of circulation are algorithmic, and they are not subject to democratic accountability or control. Hyperconnectivity has in fact further concentrated power over the means of circulation in the hands of the giant platforms that design and control the architectures of visibility.”
“Besides, it doesn’t matter if it’s real. It never does with dreams.”
Tim Tharp
==
“The past doesn’t need you anymore. Your future does.”
some Tumblr advice
==
“Science fiction has a long and valuable history of providing us with visions of a better world. …[But] Science fiction since the Sixties has signally failed in that regard; we have been fed, by and large, a diet of Chicken Little soup in a pot of message, ladled out over leg of Frankenstein.”
So, let’s talk about science fiction and scanning future scenarios.
This is where I believe science fiction can play an invaluable role, but:
Science is not a theory of reality, but a method of inquiry.
Science fiction is not a theory of reality, but a method of inquiry.
Science is a process of learning and discovery, and sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong. Science and science fiction and fantasy do not predict the future yet, on occasion, they can offer plausible narratives for what could be as well as offer some reflection on what is. On my side in this discussion, Michio Kaku encourages all of us to think about science fiction and fantasy and future possibilities through the eyes of physics. He often says the laws of physics, as far as we can tell, do not rule things out, just makes suggestions on what could be possible. But possible does not always mean feasible. And maybe that’s the interesting thing about quantum physics. It suggests possible paths of existence all circling back onto itself never really going backwards in time and yet affecting the time continuum. It suggests the universe is made-up of multiple stories. In fact, in relativity, now only exists in a frame of reference not as an absolute. Yeah. Time and space may appear as an unchanging multi-dimensional block within which we call the present, it is interesting to maybe think about time and space as contextual, never stagnant, and constantly changing second by second. All that said. The future should always be viewed as a world of possibilities where the good things we desire can be imagined. Far too often science fiction, and futurism, dwells on
(a) the negative possible outcomes, or
(b) an extension of the present amplified.
Weird, huh? If you believe science fiction is a way to imagine how the world will be different and to help make sense of the future, well, why wouldn’t we seek to envision the hopeful possibilities?
Which leads me to how “extension of the present” amplifies less-than-useful possibilities.
I would argue seeing, let alone understanding, the significance of most events in the present is dubious at best because there are too many spiraling indirect consequences within the myriad of conflicting competing interests. This includes both threats and opportunities. That said. Being passive is not an option while being active guarantees nothing. So what I suggest is that rather than seek to extend the present you should seek out the ‘power’ you have, i.e., the power applicable in a wide range of contexts, and seek to maintain this power/control at the lowest cost possible. I would even argue that protecting the power you have is almost survival 101 (albeit it’s not directly translatable to thrivable 101). The tricky part of that is if you tether things too tightly to the present (which is simply a different way of embracing the past), you are doomed. Doomed because connectedness will prevail over any one thing you have deemed ‘important.’ What I mean by that is any one thing, in today’s world, is never discrete, it is always connected in wildly complex intricate ways with other things. What I mean is the bad things are so embedded within the weave of things you can’t simply shed them by extending the present. Heck. I could even quote Goldratt’s ‘the race’ and point out that simply eliminating one thing creates another equal, if not worse, issue. The truthy is extending the present simply means you get the bad with the good and the bad, more often than not, is gravity. Gravity that drags the future down every time the future seeks to fly. Look. There exists in all of us a tendency to think of the present as the appearance of how things will be in the future. We pride ourselves on our decisions in the present. We believe we’ve considered all the available options and think that the current decisions we’ve made seem rational, right, and proper — but that’s a trap. We all find it difficult to think of reasons why we might change the ways in which we do things today, how our habits will develop or how our attitudes and preferences might evolve, but change inevitably happens, and it’s undoubtedly coming. Or, as Toffler said, ’the future always comes too fast and in the wrong order.”
“If we are called on to not fear the future, it might be better to persuade us that we have a place in it, that it is ours to make. Show us a future we want to believe in.”
Michael Harris
Businesswoman changing reality of drought to spring season
Look. Any future thinking typically demands a reference point as kind of an anchor for thinking. What this means is we need to rummage around history to be able to look ahead more effectively. In doing so it helps us understand the trajectory and choices made in the past which got us where we are. In other words, how did we create the present we are in? There is no way to escape the present if you don’t know how you got trapped in it. As a corollary, it also helps to rummage around science fiction and fantasy for future anchor possibilities. What I am discussing is foresight versus forecasting. Foresight has a long view and is speculative; forecasting uses data to extrapolate what may likely come next. One is possibilities the other is probabilities. Pick your poison carefully, but, simplistically, you cannot go wrong if you seek to improve the quality of the present so that it can exist in the future; not predict the future because it is always out of reach. Why? Prediction is as much a way of thinking and how we craft facts to build from moreso than any high falutin technique. And that matters because it all shapes our perceptions of what is ‘inevitable,’ and, as a consequence, what kinds of futures are considered ‘plausible’. That said. Whether you’re looking at the past, present, or future, you’re always seeking the dimensions of change the space and time within which things occur. In 2020 Gaya Herrington said amidst global slowdown and risks of depressed future growth potential from climate change, social unrest, and geopolitical instability, to name a few, responsible leaders faced the possibility that growth will be limited in the future. And only a fool keeps chasing an impossibility. I would argue that you aren’t chasing impossibilities, you are changing possibilities over a range of probabilities some of which were increasingly unlikely and others increasingly likely.
“Technological optimism means to practice the ability to recognize bad surprises early enough to do something about them.’
Edward Tenner
Which leads me to technology can be both gravity and wings for the future.
The present is burdened by existing myths, narratives, and institutional system structures. People (culture & society) are caught in the wretched hollow in between the reality that science and technology do not provide a philosophy, or human framework, by which to live or the belief structure of society. Sure. It is impossible to not embrace all that science and technology has to offer and, yet, they are bereft of any moral construct within which to build a better future. In that, culture, and society, get squeezed in this conflict.
“The very basic core of a human’s living spirit is its passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun.”
Christopher McCandless
Circling back to the topic at hand, the future of technology and science, the foundation of all science fiction and futuristic fantasy, is profoundly dependent upon humans and their understanding of the future. This understanding needs to be grounded in shared values, shared what is valued,’ shared sense of how to create value, and shared sensemaking of what is valued (note: Zak Stein discusses “what we value” really well). This will span political, economic, societal, community and legal structures. And while the future certainly will be reliant upon technology in some form or fashion, it would be a mistake to shape future thinking solely based on simplistic techno-optimistic people captivated by fantastical thinking because, inevitably, most of this thinking doesn’t think about the fabric of society within which those things will be woven. We need futures crafted through science and technology ‘by and for humans’ with an eye toward humanity’s progress and prosperity. And maybe that is where I end this section. Because both science fiction and fantasy may not design a future state, they certainly have optimistic scenarios to lead us to inquire “how we can we craft a future like that.” And isn’t that half the battle?
“They used to say if man could fly, he’d have wings. But he did fly. He discovered he had to. Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn’t reached the moon, or that we hadn’t gone on to Mars and then to the nearest star? That’s like saying you wish that you still operated with scalpels and sewed your patients up with catgut like your great-great-great-great-grandfather used to. I’m in command. I could order this. But I’m not because Doctor McCoy is right in pointing out the enormous danger potential in any contact with life and intelligence as fantastically advanced as this. But I must point out that the possibilities, the potential for knowledge and advancement is equally great. Risk. Risk is our business. That’s what the starship is all about. That’s why we’re aboard her.”
Which leads me to no specific future is a given (or inevitable).
First. So how do we get, pragmatically, to the future? Oddly I will not highlight innovations or ‘original thinking,’ but rather, uhm, half invented ideas. Half-invented ideas is a Nassim Taleb thought. The reality is science fiction is simply a narrative of half invented ideas. They are mostly ideas which can be partially attained; therefore, the future is more about taking the time to explore how to attain the half-invented idea. It is through that process in which objectives are attained. I argue for half-invented ideas because progress is always making (and even moreso today) knowledge, energy and resources more and more inexpensive, accessible and abundant. I would even argue that a half-invented idea addresses civilization’s most challenging obstacle – short term thinking. A half-invented idea gives you a running start toward the future. It is much easier to stay ‘on mission’ if you are editing rather than creating from scratch. Ponder.
Second. So how do we envision a future? Science fiction is, well, science fiction. It’s a narrative that expands the imagination of what could be.
“It is now in our capacity to destroy civilization as we know it, or to build a world of unprecedented opportunity for all people.”
Barbara Marx Hubbard
Science fiction stories also play an important role in challenging the basic truth that most people tend to extrapolate from the status quo to envision some predetermined future, i.e., a bounded vision. It is bounded by the constraints and suppositions of dominant perceptions of reality of which science fiction pushes against. The truth is there is no single “future” let alone one single trajectory, but rather an array of possibilities and paths. This happens because the future is continuously shaped by our actions as well as our inactions. That’s why I think the sharpest people speak of ‘futures’ and not just ‘the future.’ There is a spectrum of future possibilities — the probable, possible, plausible, the desirable. Science fiction and fantasy expand our understanding of the possibility spaces of tomorrow’s choices and, therefore, choices of what future we shape. But. Nothing is inevitable; even narratives. Once again, science fiction offers possibilities. This is an important thought because the best futurist thinking embraces the unresolved and the things that have yet to be well defined. They offer vague shapes of what could be and propositions seeking clarity, i.e., structures yet to be designed. Circling back to the beginning, as I read Theo Priestly’s piece about futurists and Futurism, I was reminded that he was reprising a concern that Alvin Toffler, probably the original contemporary futurist, had. Toffler lamented that his idea of futurists was being diverted by a focus on the present in likely futures. He was concerned that the objectives were limiting the possibilities of Futurism. Ultimately, he believed that futurism shouldn’t focus too much on identifying likely futures, but rather should be exploring ‘the less likely but the impactful’ possible futures. In my words looking to the future should be about designing a future scenario within which people can see themselves within and therefore start redesigning their own lives to be able to not only fit into it but to build it person by person. That is easier said than done because the thing about the future is past narratives trap our future thoughts. We seem to forget is that some of the biggest transformations occur when problems and crises arise because they tend to create a perfect space in which to explore valuable futures. And with that let me quote Heather Vessent: “who gets to decide what is positive and what is dystopia?” The future always resides in “human needs solutions” not technological capabilities. Simplistically, this means we ground things in human needs – significance, connection, love, progress, contribution, meaning, and not from ‘optimal functionalities’ of a technological widget (which means we can do things only in the way that the widget suggests). This means that the technocrats view of considering solutions from a technological capability perspective with human needs as secondary is fraught with peril. The peril resides in that all of these solutions best fit the present rather than redesigning or potentially redesigning a future. And while the technocrats may claim that technology is the engine for progress what I actually described is almost like putting a governor on progress. We may see some short-term productivity increases, but long term all it does is continue to bound existing behavior and attitudes rather than looking towards the horizon for new attitudes and behaviors.
Which leads me to “eyes up” thinking and doing.
We all know that walking looking down at your feet means it is only a matter of time before you run into something. The trick is always seeing ahead while not losing sight of where your feet actually get placed.
“Ideas, unless outward circumstances conspire with them, have in general no very rapid or immediate efficacy in human affairs; and the most favourable outwards circumstances may pass by, or remain inoperative, for want of ideas suitable to the conjuncture. But when the right circumstances and the right ideas meet, the effect is seldom slow in manifesting itself.”
John Stuart Mill
Oh. That said. “Seeing” or “scanning” is a daily task – and a daily task better done by a team than any one individual. “Seeing” seeks out reference points and signals of change in the present offering cues to ideas for the future. Yeah. And this is where rather than discussing innovation I bring up ‘half-invented ideas’ again. These signals should be bucketed into ‘opportunistic positive’ signals and ‘dangerous dystopian’ signals. In other words, investigate and interrogate the things that seem to put boundaries on future progress or even future death – for the greater world AND the half-invented ideas themselves. But what this means is we need to consider what the futures could be and more importantly what the world could be like in which a half-invented idea would prosper or wither away. Thinking of it all this way is important because we cannot imagine the future trajectories of every organization, of every idea, of every community, of every economy, of every country, let alone of every person, or even of any half-invented idea, but we can certainly craft a world all of those things could exist within. In other words, create a fictional future within which all of those things can thrive and prosper and you’ve identified something to be able to fully-invent half-invented ideas toward.
Which leads me to identifying stories.
Stories always play a role in the looking toward the future. Science fiction stories thrive in this scenario, but not all stories are created equal and there are science fiction stories of the past, stories of the present, and stories of the future. Stories of the future are speculative fiction, but valuable nonetheless. But all of the stories are important because they activate our brain, and then we share the story, it actually synchronizes an aspect of a collective sensemaking brain. can become even more powerful when shared. For when we come together to listen to a story our brains start to synchronize with those of the person telling us the story. From there we are off to the deeper motives, desires, imagination, perspectives races. And that mental race is the fundamental underpinning of building a better future.
“If you want truly to understand something, try to change it.”
Kurt Lewin
People must be able to envision a better future in order to make the choices to craft it. That takes some work as well as some imagination. And here is where I end, with a thought from Theodore Roosevelt: “reformers will be assailed on the one side by the reactionary, and on the other by that type of bubble reformer who is only anxious to go to extremes, and who always gets angry when he is asked what practical results he can show. The true reformer must study hard and work patiently.” Toffler took that thought a step farther in Future Shock suggesting we needed to train people to think as futurists – all people. Society needs imagination doors to walk through and science fiction and fantasy tend to be the builders of those doors – for all people. Ponder.
“For nothing will remain unchanged. The future is fluid, not frozen. It is constructed by our shifting and changing daily decisions, and each event influences all others. In education, we need to begin paying attention to matters routinely ignored.”
“I have no ideas, only obsessions.Anybody can have ideas.
Ideas have never caused anybody’s downfall.”
Emil Cioran
==
Ideas have consequences.
==
Crazy ideas with consequences.
==
Ideas are tricky things. They get especially in today’s world where we talk ad nausea about how anyone can have a ‘good idea.’
Truth?
While all ideas have consequences, and crazy ideas can have some crazy consequences, not all ideas are created equal.
Truth?
Not all people can come up with good ideas.
Another truth?
Obsession, or the injection of obsession, actually may be what makes an idea more than just, well, an idea.
Why is this important?
Because so often we sit in meetings and brainstorm and flippantly toss out ideas. And they are, well, just ideas.
Hollow? Maybe not completely.
Flat? Possibly.
Deep? Rarely (many are mostly created from some individualistic opinion or belief).
Obsession? Extremely rare. And that is what differentiates ideas. The depth. What I mean by that is there is an obsessive aspect to a great meaningful idea.
To be clear. People can obsess over an idea and that idea can be crappy. But there is a link between obsession and obsessive. What I mean by that is obsession in an idea can (not always, but, can) generate an obsession among people.
So, while an obsessive idea may never become obsessive to people, an idea obsessive to people will always be generated by someone who has been obsessive in the idea and its thinking.
And I imagine that is my point.
There are ideas. And then there are ideas that change people <which means we have an opportunity to change the world>. Uhm. Unfortunately, these types of ideas come with a responsibility — a burden as a matter of fact . And not all people are capable of accepting this burden and not all people WANT to assume the responsibility of these types of ideas.
“Sureness will always elude you.
The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole. We do not go on despite this.
We go on because of it.”
Claire DeWitt
==============
“All extremes of feeling are allied with madness.”
Virginia Woolf
Ok. So, if obsession is the glue to successful ideas one begins to wonder where does that glue come from. Well. First. Far too often we seem to judge obsession in absolutes — as in absolutely unhealthy, bad or creepy. But what if the obsessive ideas are actually generated from an obsession with learning — some specific topic like science, math or woodworking or any ‘increased knowledge-based’ aspect of Life — which creates the underpinnings of something someone can become obsessive about.
That kind of seems like a good worthwhile obsession.
But let’s take a moment on obsession with learning.
Life, and learning, and even curiosity in general, means most of us are trapped in an endless chase.
The real scam people try and sell you is that some milestone or some objective represents some end point. I imagine another part of the scam is something I tried to debunk back in 2010, the whole concept of “well rounded” learning and people.
What we are taught about learning — how to learn, what to learn & what learning is important – is very different than what most of us feel & perceive when we encounter learning. And the rules look even more out of whack if you are one of the ones who is obsessive about learning something.
Those of us who have encountered, and embraced, obsession recognize that the learning game is rigged and has rules opposed to what we view as maximizing learning. We know there is no ‘well rounded’. We know there is actually no end. We know that our obsession is a means to an end and more often a favorite piece of clothing we will inevitably store away on the closet to be replaced by some other piece of clothing we will wear endlessly until we become obsessed with another.
What this means is that anyone with a relatively healthy obsession will endlessly circle around whatever they want more of and do so willingly because it was what he/she wants.
We visit the extremes seeking the extreme edge of something that is infinite and, yet, we find solace in the extremeness and not an unhealthy pursuit of something that will never actually be sated.
What this means is that a good obsession may actually mean you have the high unrealistic expectations and yet are able to mix and match them with the curiosity exploration of the day.
What this means is that obsession is what creates ideas with depths & dimensions that people can become obsessive about.
I tend to believe good obsessive learning is effective for a variety of reasons.
It is self imposed.
It is defined by a chosen environment & topic rather than a dictated one.
Measurement is self-imposed and the measurement objective is an unquantifiable “enough when it is enough” <we dictate the ‘satedness’>.
At its root level obsession is all about “wanting more.” And with regard to learning the ‘more’ is not some well-rounded evenly shaped smooth journey. And therein lies obsession biggest challenge in life. Unevenness makes people feel uncomfortable. They seek ‘well rounded’ and ‘planned exploration’ in terms of what is right. Therefore, if you are obsessive on one topic or one task you are not, well, doing it right.
And that kind of seems silly to me.
I am sure that someone will point out that there truly is a ‘righter way’ to learn but in my pea like brain learning driven from the inside of someone is significantly more powerful than learning dictated by someone outside of me. I also believe in my pea like brain that an idea created from an obsession, maybe with some uneven edges, is more likely to create obsession because it has some uneven edges.
Anyway.
I tend to believe part of youth is learning about obsessions and constantly being obsessed with something and some things. Unfortunately, adults confuse exploration with youth obsession. Sure. Sometimes the exploration can verge on some unhealthiness, but more often than not it is a pursuit of ‘more’ within something liked or desired. The pursuit itself becomes a means to a different end in that exploration means one encounters new things which can encourage a diverting/diverging path and a new obsession.
That is partially what youth is. It was in my day and it remains so today <although reading things online suggests many adults seem to think the young are more obsessive than ever – note: no research proving that>.
For some this obsession learning path provides a focus for adulthood.
For some this obsession becomes an unhealthy adult pattern.
For some this obsession becomes a healthy relentless pursuit of something ‘more’ in adulthood.
I would never suggest that an obsession with learning is easy mostly because, well, anything extreme runs the risk of edging a little toward madness <or at least maddening to the people around>. But I will suggest that an obsession with learning is one of those youth obsessions which translates fairly well into adulthood but also seems to get beat out of people as they grow older as ‘obsessive is bad.’
Me? I could suggest that an obsession with learning, as long as you don’t get too full of yourself, means you maintain a certain youthfulness toward Life.
To be honest, I haven’t completely figured out how to resolve obsession I simply manage it and think I am always working on it. What I do know is that those of us who are obsessed with learning will always be dissatisfied with what we do not know and, yet, sometimes find satisfaction in the ideas our obsessiveness creates.
The ‘ideas’ portion is important I have learned that the pursuit of your obsession has to have meaning in order for it to be a healthy obsession. And meaning can take form in a variety of ways, but it cannot be a simple milestone or objective but rather an embodiment of some growth or ‘moreness’ <not actual attainment of something>.
To finish up … I will end where I began. Ideas have consequences. Crazy ideas have consequences. Great ideas have consequences.
On the way down
I saw you, and you saved me from myself
And I won’t forget the way you loved me
And on the way down, I almost fell right through
But I held onto you
I’ve been wondering why it’s only me
Have you always been inside waiting to breathe?
This song is on one of my mp3 players. It’s a banger of a song, but it’s the words that are its special sauce.
On first listen it simply sounds like a pop love song, i.e., someone being saved from ‘the hole’ by someone. But. On second listen. Uhm. Maybe it is about self. What I mean by that is maybe “having you always been inside waiting to breathe” is something, someone, inside oneself. Maybe as you slide on the way down into that hole in life you grab onto something already inside you and in doing so you can pull yourself up – even while on the way down.
I have never written about how being in a hole sometimes can help you find yourself – and it is actually yourself that gets you out of the hole. I have never done so because I often think (a) on your way down into a hole it is difficult to see anything about yourself clearly excepting bad, useless, shit and (b) holes are dark so all you tend to see are dark things. That said. Everyone in a hole needs to be saved. I guess the only question is does someone else save you or do you save yourself? And maybe that is why I listen to this song. You can hear it either way. And maybe it is meant to. Because the only thing for sure is holes demand saving. And it doesn’t really matter how you get out of the hole, just that you do. So, yourself, someone else, who gives a shit? On the way down, well, saving is saving. The means is irrelevant as long as the ends are met.
——-
<context: thinking they hear King Henry approach the dungeon>
Prince Richard:
He’s here.
He’ll get no satisfaction out of me.
He isn’t going to see me beg.
Prince Geoffrey:
My … you chivalric fool … as if the way one fell down mattered.
Prince Richard:
When the fall is all there is, it matters.
“The Lion in the Winter”
—
“It’s true, I suffer a great deal–but do I suffer well? That is the question.”
Thérèse de Lisieux
===
I will begin with the thought that it is incredibly easy to flinch from “the fall” when ‘the fall’ is all there is. Look. We don’t often talk about ‘the fall’ because society tends to focus on ‘everyone can win’, ‘falling isn’t failing’, ‘possible resides in impossible’, and a bunch of other happy horseshit. The truth is we all fall. It is inevitable. And how you face ‘the fall’ is a choice. And the choice you make about what you do when you make it matters. Because when the fall is all there is; it matters.
It matters a lot as a matter of fact.
Yeah. Today’s piece focuses on the biggest ‘fall’ – death.
Now. I am not going to be popular with aspects of the thought I am going to share. Pretty much everyone focuses on ‘living life to its fullest’ and making every moment count. In fact. I often worry that sometimes we worry so much about ‘maximizing Life’ or being positive or believing the impossible can happen or you should always try to win in the face of impossible odds that we forget, or undervalue, how we fall says something about who we are as a person.
I say this because it is Death where things get a little reversed. In some cases, some people actually see the Life finish line and ‘fullest’, all of a sudden, becomes a bit more finite. Things are no longer limitless, but limited. Sure. We all know it is there, but for most of us it creeps up on us from somewhere beyond the horizon, unseen. For others Life shows it to them. It says “here it is.” But let’s be clear. Even then you can see it and, yet, not see it. Or maybe you just don’t accept it. And that’s where I believe not flinching from ‘the fall’ resides – in acceptance. At some point you look around, assess reality, and see your destiny will contain ‘a fall.’ And you accept it. And in that acceptance, you deal with it.
“Most things will be okay eventually, but not everything will be. Sometimes you’ll put up a good fight and lose. Sometimes you’ll hold on really hard and realize there is no choice but to let go. Acceptance is a small, quiet room.”
Cheryl Strayed
Yeah. Accepting it gives one freedom. Like the freedom to choose one’s way to fall.
I am not suggesting you shouldn’t fight for what you believe is right up until the end.
I am suggesting that when the fall is all there is that the way you fall really matters.
Look. I fully understand that some people ignore ‘the fall’ because they want to focus on Life. Ignoring the fall as an undesirable event which should be ignored as if it will not happen is the way they choose to fill up what is clearly finite time. I will not suggest that is a bad thing to do. I will not because everyone has to decide, individually, how one will face their fall.
But I will say this.
Will King Henry care if the prince is disgraceful, or, chooses to die with grace and honor?
Probably.
He may look at the prince differently.
May.
Will it matter to the prince … Richard?
Surely.
It is within that distinction in which acceptance resides. Acceptance makes a statement of who you are as a person. Acceptance is a decision. It is a decision, a recognition, that your fall will echo in eternity in a certain way. It is destiny’s version of “the last impression counts.” I guess my point is that one way of looking at ‘the fall’ is to treat it simply as an adverb in the middle of a long sentence.
Simply a word with the intent of getting to the period.
Or.
Like Richard the Lionhearted you can treat it like it is the end of a sentence.
A period.
Or an exclamation point.
Or a question mark.
Or anything definitive or declarative.
A way to put a piece of punctuation at the end of this particular sentence.
Richard states that it matters to him and he is going to control how his fall is defined. This isn’t about being right or wrong. This is about character. We do not choose when we will die. Death, more often than not, touches you and says “tag, you are it.” Your horizon becomes less infinite and your fall is better defined. You didn’t choose this ‘fall’, but by being chosen you have to choose.
The question one must ask themselves at some point is … well … do I suffer well? I imagine the answer resides in deciding if the way one falls matters. Ponder.
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
“Style is the fashioning of power, the restraint of power. The administrator with a sense of style hates waste, the engineer with a sense of style economizes his material, the artisan with a sense of style prefers good work. Style is the ultimate morality of mind.”
Professor Whitehead quoted in Mary Parker Follett ‘professional standards developed and effected through group organization’
==
“We can never wholly separate the human from the mechanical side .. you all see every day that the study of human relations in business and the study of operating are bound up together.”
Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration
==
We are surrounded by people who do things because the rules tell them to do so, a book told them to do so, some program or process tells them to do so, or simply because it’s the way “I have been told to do so.” This is one of those weird situations in which they are not wrong and wrong at the same time. Its kind of a mechanical way of going about things and it offers structural replication of things that are at the core of offering steady value day in and day out. Conversely, there are people with style. Maybe call it craftsmanship. Call it what you want, but it is style which unearths the potential in any situation in which mechanics are grinding out outcomes and consequences. And noodle that thought as much as you want, but be sure of one thing – humans, and human relations, is the only thing that can offer style. Technology cannot.
Which leads me to the enemy of style.
Technology, AI and data included, are the ultimate immorality of the mind. Let me be clear by ‘immoral’ in this case. It isn’t about ethics, its about stripping away any style. It’s the commodification of doing, thinking and attitudes (if not value creation). Algorithm design for mass usage tends to flatten. Lets call it digital flattening and data flattening. Style, associated with technology, demands both predictive and emergent paths and needs to purposefully encourage non-flattening. Style acknowledges the natural arc of flattening and creates a counterweight to that flattening. I am not suggesting style crafts an ideology (or tautology), but it can certainly enhance the desired behavior/attitudes and tamp down the less-than-desired aspects.
Which leads me to stupidity (a less-than-desired aspect).
A collection of people can be stupider than an individual, in fact, even more stupid, and, an individual can be stupider than a collection of people. The trick is always to find when one is smarter than the other.
Style demands some smartness, but business (and society) encourages people to be stupid. Now. To be clear. I am not suggesting people are stupid, just that we are encouraged to ‘follow along’ even when it feels stupid to do so. Hence, we lean in, far too often, on stupid; not smart. And then there is technology whispering in our ears.
The new patterns of interaction that are emerging in digital environments often blur the boundaries between self and system and between self and others, yet, we would be mistaken if we did not recognize the individual perspective, the “I”, anchors the sense of experience in conceptual thinking and the collective (connection with others) anchors our sense of meaning. I imagine my point is that while making a point about stupid and smart the real point is that the key to style will always be a connection, and interaction, of self and others and by recognizing that a business decreases the odds it will be stupid and increases the odds it will be smart. In fact, I would argue, that it is within style that a business, a group of people, or any system in general, becomes ‘smart.’ Ponder.
“Changes of regime, revolutions, and so on occur not when rulers are overthrown from below, but when one elite replaces another. The role of ordinary people in such transformation is not that of initiators or principal actors, but as followers and supporters of one elite or another.”
Pareto
“a conspiracy of an easily located set of villains”
Wright Mills
Anyone who reads pieces I write know I am generally optimistic about technology and its future. So let me begin by recommending a podcast with Jim Pethokoukis and Marc Andreessen which was conducted after Andreessen’s ‘the techno-optimist manifesto’ was published. I recommend it because while I chafed at lots of the written manifesto, and still disagree with many points, listening to Marc discuss it softens it up a bit and fleshes out some of the thinking that is not always possible to communicate in writing. I encourage everyone to read the companion piece to this one, a discussion on technocrats, because my biggest concern with Marc, and other technology people like him, is he makes some very scary things – things with massive existential risks – sound incredibly reasonable.
That said. Tucked into the podcast is a short section where Marc discusses ‘elites’ and ‘masses.’ It’s a bit jarring to hear “elites” particularly when it is discussed in terms of “the people who influence the decisions for the masses.” Both words, elites, and masses, are burdened with a number of negative halo perceptions. So today I discuss the concept of circulation of elite.
Which leads me to Pareto’s “circulation of elites.”
The circulation of elites is defined by the process whereby the ability to govern and the powers of government lie in the same hands as well as that process which allows for the expression of social interests within the elite circles. The circulation of elites theory is grounded in a belief that people are unequal intellectually and morally and the more gifted, those who are most capable in any particular grouping, are the elite.
“By elite, we mean the small number of individuals who, in each sphere of activity, have succeeded and have arrived at a higher echelon in the professional hierarchy.”
It was Emory S. Bogardus who said:
“The theory of elite is that in every society there are people who possess in a marked degree, the qualities of intelligence, character, skill, capacity, whatever kind, that there are two classes of elite, that the two groups are disjunctive at any given time, that there is an up and down circulation of elite.”
Circulation, or upward and downward circulation amongst the members of the elite and non-elite, is a typical characteristic of an ongoing cycle of social change. That said. Very few individuals may join the ranks of elites from the non-elite groups. And a few elites may become non-elite members of society. In a fair economic system, heck, a fair system in general, there should be a constant and free circulation of elites. Unfortunately, the circulation of elites is seldom ideally free or unimpeded. In fact, typically the only time a vast change in elites occurs is either through revolution or war. Despite that, as Pareto suggested, it is true that a steady flow of elite into vital positions enhances a stable society that does develop and progress – just not optimally.
“History is the grave-yard of Aristocracy.”
Pareto
The cycle of history plays a really important role in that small ‘circulation’ of elites I mentioned earlier. It suggests an existing elite emerges, dominates, falls into decadence and falls in power to be replaced by new elites who have had disdain for the decadence or seek power with their new wealth. But, once again, most of the circulation of elites is on the edges – small percentages highlighted to create the perception of ‘movement.’ Certainly, some non-elite, by their merit, may rise to the level of elite and, of course, on rare occasions revolution overturns the elite class, but for the most part elites stay elite.
‘By the circulations of elites, “the governing elite is in a state of continuous and slow transformation. It flows like a river, and what it is today is different from what it was yesterday. Every so often, there are sudden and violent disturbances. The river floods and breaks its banks. Then afterwards, the new governing elite resume again and slow process of self-transformation. The river returns to its bed and once more flows freely on.”
Pareto
Which leads me to how circulation is managed and limited.
Control and power is easier if you control and have power over the everyday population’s (masses) perceptions of what the system is and should be. To be clear, perception isn’t reality. Reality is reality. That said if the Elites can shape a perception, which encourages most of the people to generate a reality close enough to that perception, control can be maintained. What I mean by this is elites establish images of the system that prepare the people for their own particular conditions within which they will survive or thrive. Elites shape reality in a number of ways, through numbers, through imagery, through words, all with the intent to generate enough success for the masses so their position can be maintained. This is a bit easier than one may think because reality is unlikely to be as we believe it to be. Which means that we approach everything with just a bit of skepticism because its never exactly how we wish it could be (or believe it should be) therefore begin thinking there is something wrong – just not with us or our own view. This leads the everyday person to begin questioning data/information which doesn’t support the perceived reality and that leads the everyday person to give up on science or rational thinking and embrace some dubious non empirical speculative thinking. This is bad (but elites take advantage of) because it is rational thinking, in particular, which helps us understand things about ourselves and our relation to the world. But possibly the most important image elites foster is one of safety. When the societal imagery is crafted well the Elites are seen as the safety net for the entire circus. The masses become dependent upon the Elites for a level of thinking. What this means is that the everyday person offloads some of the really important shit for a number of very good reasons and yet it will inevitably decrease learning among the masses of everyday people themselves. It is a structure and a system of dependency or somewhere there is some powerful leader or group of Elites who exist to ensure that no catastrophic events follow as a consequence of the irresponsibility of certain individuals. This entire perception driven system encourages all of the everyday people to assume someone else, never them of course, is stupid and likely to do irresponsible things and it is the elite who ensures that ‘stupidity and irresponsibility does not affect me as an individual.’ Ultimately this means that the majority of people mirror the system that they are placed within. That is basically how the elites embed control.
Which leads me to elites as a concept.
No matter how one decides to discuss ‘elites’ it has a nasty taste to it. For the most part we think of them as a group of people who believe they are smarter, more capable, and “more,” than the majority of society. Simplistically, partially true, and partially false, elites are the few who have the power and the majority are the many who do not have power to ‘pull the levers’ of policy and governance and business. This power decides who gets what, when, and how as well as the participation in the decisions that allocate things to society. They are the few who participate in the decisions that shape our lives while the majority of people are the many whose lives are shaped by institutions, events and the elites. Now. An elite group is not some conspiracy cabal desiring to oppress or exploit the masses. The reality is many elite decision makers may actually care about the welfare of the majority, but, they do so with an eye toward maintaining their own status and power and wealth. Regardless of theyir attitudes, we are stuck with them governing. This may chafe, but the reality is they possess more control over more resources and more information and knowledge of the processes then everyday people (note: this doesn’t mean an increasing amount of everyday schmucks think they are as qualified as the decisionmakers). This isn’t to suggest a well-organized, well informed, mass of non-elites can’t seek some control, but the truth is the majority of Americans are relatively apathetic and ill-informed about politics and public policy and, if we are honest, they have a surprisingly weak commitment to the freedoms that would actually give them power. What this means is that the critical element for the health of society (and a country) consists of the beliefs, standards, and competence of elites. This would also suggest that if society issues arc toward indecision, disaster, and crisis, the responsibility rests with the elite, not the majority, to find the solutions. This doesn’t mean the ‘masses’ never have any impact on the attitude of Elites, but only that elites influence masses more than masses influence elites. Once again, generally speaking, elitism is not a conspiracy to oppress society. It also doesn’t imply that those in power constitute a single body polity. This also doesn’t mean that the Elites in power are always in conflict with the masses and always desire self-interested goals at the expense of the public interest. All this means is that the decisions and direction are controlled by the elite. In the end elitism implies that public policy does not always reflect the demands of the people so much as it reflects the interests and values of Elites. This also means any change in policy or direction only occurs when, and if, the elites redefine their own values as well as what they value. And while the general attitude of an elite group is it is that it is always in their best interest to preserve the institutions and the systems, that doesn’t mean that public sentiment can’t affect a change in their attitudes and beliefs which can modify the existing systems. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that last sentence reflects that most changes tend to be incremental rather than revolutionary.
Which leads me to the economic elite.
It would seem like the main distinction between Elites and 99% is based primarily on control over the economic resources of society. This means that industrial and financial leaders compose a major part of the elite. This has been true since the dawn of time. Industrialization pooled extreme wealth creation and made a few men spectacularly wealthy. From there it became a short leap for the economic elite to believe they, rather than the government, should direct the country’s development. With that I offer a quick historical lesson from Heather Cox Richardson:
In June 1889, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie published what became known as the “Gospel of Wealth” in the popular magazine North American Review. Carnegie explained that “great inequality…[and]…the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few” were “not only beneficial, but essential to…future progress.” And, Carnegie asked, “What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few?”
Rather than paying higher wages or contributing to a social safety net—which would “encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy,” Carnegie wrote—the man of fortune should “consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer…in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.”
At the source of economic success attitudes and beliefs resides the fact America has never lacked for anything. This creates a sense of infinite abundance and a lack of appreciation, or respect of, of any scarcity. One of the consequences of this attitude/belief is that the ‘masses’ are continually drawn to ‘possibilities’ which, as a counterweight, simultaneously increases the likelihood of despair when possibilities are not attained. All of that said. We need to remind ourselves that the technology industrial machinery are solely instruments and it is people who are the true source of America’s power. Today there is tier of technocrats, business autocrats and inherited wealth who make up a more significant portion of the elite. In fact. Recently we recorded the first instance where inheritance, not entrepreneurship, has been the primary source of wealth for the majority of new billionaires. It is expected this trend will continue for the next 20 years (1000 billionaires passing an estimated $5.2 trillion on to children). The shift in the elite class will continue to accumulate wealth because we are in an economic period where market power consolidates in the hands of a few and market power has unprecedented power over governance and policy which ensures the power structure remains intact. I mention this shift only because it changes the challenges of how to break up the elite. Anyway. Circling back to an earlier comment, this is not a conspiracy within which there is some global cabal who ultimately make all of the decisions for everybody, like puppet masters, but rather they are part of a group of influential people that influence public policy and programs that impact society. And while people may be chafing on this whole concept of elite group making decisions I need to point out that the Founding Fathers of the United States were quite elite. They had elite education, elite experiences, and clearly viewed the United States not just in an isolationist or nationalist perspective, but as a nation among nations and had a very intentional international collective view. But getting back to economic elites, these economic elites – just like other elites – do not wield limitless power, they are nominally held in check by the ‘masses’ (shifting needs, wants, legitimate concerns, of the people). In fact, the process of the ‘circulation’ is often triggered by the existing elite’s ineffectiveness to meet the present problems, which effects their wealth, and new wealth ‘circulates’ into the economic elite. To be clear with regard to this group, as John Kenneth Galbraith said in A Short History of Financial Euphoria, “the relationship between intelligence and wealth is specious at best.” So, we do not always get the best and brightest simply through an economic narrative. That said. In capitalism, particularly with the advent of certain types of technology, wealth determines social status, and those possessing a disproportionate share of the capital, resources, and money to wield it all have assumed a disproportionate share of power. This inevitably creates a class bias based primarily on wealth where wealth is a fixed factor of the elites. In fact, while my information is dated, let’s say the wealthiest one-fifth of all American families hold nine out of every ten elite positions on the federal level with the next wealthiest controlling the remainder, save for a few token positions scattered among the rest.
Which leads me to experts versus elites.
I guess experts are part of the elites, but we need experts; not elites. I am not suggesting that we view those with the best qualifications and competencies as ‘the few who are chosen and everyone else is a failure and deserves to be forgotten,’ I will suggest that experts mostly get chosen because fewer people can actually do what they do – and do it well. I get that people are sick of experts, but that is misguided thinking because experts are experts for a reason. But, maybe worse, people are sick of thinking that people can actually do something they cannot do or make decisions they cannot make. The absurd overarching view becomes “a decision is a decision and anyone with common sense can make it.”
That is absurd. And, yet, that perception creates a reality in which those who truly have superior competence and excellent qualifications are treated to the unending joy of explaining why that doesn’t translate into a commodity. All this to say that we have a competency crisis at hand. If qualifications do not matter … if experience does not matter … if everything you have done is second guessed to a point of … well … nothing meaningful, then anyone and everyone is competent enough to maybe not do any job, but certainly able to make the same decisions anyone else can make. Reread that. If that doesn’t send a shiver down your spine, I do not know what will. Look. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. And even the guy at the corner of the bar can find the right decision on occasion.
What made me include experts is that I had the unfortunate experience of listening in on Lex Fridman’s podcast with Jared Kushner. You can go on YouTube to find a couple of critiques of the podcast which outline the many lies and half-truths Mr. Kushner showcased. I’m not going to talk about that. But tucked within the podcast is a moment where Mr. Kushner physically ‘air quotes’ experts. What he espoused was that he was able to see things and think of things because he was an outsider and that the experts in particular on diplomacy and foreign policy – they just couldn’t “see things because they were, well, experts.” This is one of these insidious arguments that have a minutia of truth. Experts certainly can be blind to alternative ideas and thinking, but for the most part they’re experts because they have more experience, have seen more things, have a deeper education into the intricacies and complexity of that particular topic. While as an individual, they may have some objective blindness, within an expert group there is usually a healthy dialog and debate which leads to some fairly robust thinking. The main point of this particular little section is that the circulation of Elites was a theory developed when the Elites were aristocracy. In today’s world elites can be a number of different things or made up of a bunch of different groups – of which one can be experts. The experts who are directly involved in policy development, governance, and the development of system ideas can often be found in the Elites, but many experts reside outside of the elite category. They can range from academia, whose increased abstract knowledge may only equal decreased usable or relevant knowledge, to experts with specific specialties or skills (note: they are more likely to ease into the elite group if they are of value to the value creation of the elite). Within the circulation of Elites I would suggest that there’s a difference between expertise and expertism. Expertism is talking down from the authority of privilege and position. Expertism typically inhibits any systemic transformative adaptation and tends to maintain the institutions and the system construct of power and control. Expertise are true experts who offer us the structural knowledge who can enhance an adaptive adaptability and create the progress a society deserves.
“The theory of democracy as self-government must be understood as a myth, formula, or derivation. It does not correspond to any actual or possible social reality. It does not, however follow that the theory of democracy is without any influence on the social structure. The ruling minority always seeks to justify and legitimize its rule in part through a formula, without which the social structure would disintegrate. The positive significance of democratic theory is as a political formula of this kind.”
Which leads me to the irony of democracy (Dye and Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy) and elites.
Democracy, the construct, and traditions, are nurtured by those elites whose existence depends upon the continuation of democratic principles in the system. Democracy does not technically mean “self-government” or “government by the people,” but it does constitute a unique mechanism where there is a symbiotic relationship between the masses and the elite – one in which the elites seek to control and the masses nudge the behaviors of the elites. They are interdependent. The elites cannot ignore all realities and, yet, they can shape perceptions AND reality. That said. The elites circulate within this interdependence with an eye toward maintaining their status and control. I say that so that those of us in the 99% do not fool ourselves when elites do things that benefit us. Ultimately in any system, the responsibility for stability lies in the hands of the rulers–the elites who, “with few exceptions, have a special stake in the continuation of the system in which their privilege rests.”
“Elite theory pinpoints the central … actors. It does not tell us how much power they have with respect to any given social policy, and it does not tell us what social goals they will pursue”
It is important to remember that because it was Machiavelli who attributed fraud as an indispensable characteristic of the viable “ruler-type,” i.e., the elite. With fraud elites can continue in power by manipulating other elites and the 99%. Yeah. The elites are characterized by their ability to captivate the 99% via stories, uhm, fraud (lies).
“The useful lie serves to direct men into action and at the time create the basis of leadership”
Which leads me to my final issue with elites as they circulate themselves.
Look. I don’t begrudge the one percent their wealth or even their status. What I do have a grudge against is the system that they have crafted so that the one percent, or this group of Elites, constantly circulates itself. They’ve created a self-sustaining system within which 99% of the people cannot participate. Let me clarify that last point. 98.9% of the people cannot participate. Because that is what the circulation of Elites have crafted within their system where 99.9% of the elites constantly circulate allowing .1% to be eliminated and .1% to be added. This creates the perception that the circulation of Elites is a myth because the exceptions are highlighted as they get added. And it’s also possible that I have a grudge against this circulation of Elites because this elitism is typically not based on either social status or intellectual achievements to be able to sustain the system which allows them to exist. And therein lies ‘the rub.’ They have the most power and, yet, they do not have the most intellect to wield that power. It was Tolstoy who said that the state insured that the wicked dominated that criminals were far less dangerous than a well organized government were essentially violent forces held together by intimidation corruption and public indoctrination and, well, Galbraith said what I noted earlier. But where it becomes truly unconscionable from a society perspective is that it almost seems like the governing elite only know three things: money, propaganda, and fear. Each are not discreet in and of themselves, but a rather intricate DNA weave whirling around each other. The elite become elite by working the margins of ethics and norms when the more rules you break the more success you have. This gets compounded with a mindset where the game, i.e., where there are only winners and losers, never stops. This means that any pause for peace by the masses in the daily struggle simply becomes another opportunity for Elites to squeeze more out of the system. But maybe the worst aspect is the elites always view social problems as problems to be solved only if solving them would not reduce some dependence of a system. yeah. Sadly, there are no grand plans no grand strategies just a lust for power and an insane addictive desire to accumulate more and more because too much is never enough. And maybe that is where I end. With my disgust for the circulation of the elites.