==

“I’ve often noticed that we are not able to look at what we have in front of us, unless it’s inside a frame.”

Abbas Kiarostami

==

‘To work in the world, one needs to know how the world works.”

Zygmunt Baumann

===

I’ve written about framing in a variety of ways. Navigating invented boundaries to framing is 90% of success. Today I will suggest the more uncertain, the more confusing, the world is, the more we will craft a frame that “explains” it all to us. This is a different frame, and framing, than I have explained in the past. In this framing instead of crafting a frame to provide clarity of reality, we instead craft a frame to explain what we believe is reality.

Which leads me to the framing effect.

Framing effects occur when people give different answers to structurally similar problems depending on their “frame” (Kahneman). This self-crafted frame is crafted by our biases, intuitions and “common-sense” beliefs despite how bad intuitions tend to be and how non common commonsense is and how misguided our beliefs often are. Regardless, this creates an effect where our frame makes certain logic more palatable and that affects the reasoning. We converge on our own thinking. This convergence only increases in a group dynamic. So, while the fact we frame may have all the appearances, to ourself, that we are reasoning, the truth is the decisions are almost foretold. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention LLMs here. An LLM, in today’s world, is an imprecise, precise looking, frame. We ask it a question and the computer, having gobbled up more information and knowledge than any individual human is capable of, spits out a response. We ask; it answers. And its here I bring up one of my favorite nerdiest books: The Alignment Problem by Brian Christian. It was here I saw the thought “the computer is extremely confident when it guesses.” Sometimes, not always, we ask; and it guesses an answer. But it doesn’t tell us it guessed nor does it offer any thoughts on how confident it may actually be with its answer. The good news is a new tool call Thermometer has been developed to frame some confidence levels for us. My fear is that the crappy answer machine train will be way down the tracks before Thermometer, or anything like it, is commonly used. LLM digression aside, we are our own LLM. Ponder that.

Which leads me to expectations.

Frames establish order and order creates expectations creates expectancies if not expectations. And in doing that we attain what Stuart Hall called a breach of our expectancies. In other words, we naturally order our world and anything that represents symbolic challenges makes us feel uncomfortable. Media has a significant role in this. Not only does media record resistance, but often they normalize it by placing it within an acceptable framework of meanings and symbols (even suggesting it is the majority while it is a minority view). By repositioning and recontextualizing things within society it subverts conventional thinking and legitimizes new thinking through something called “the false obviousness of everyday practice (Althusser).” I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is framing (orderliness) to encourage disorder.  The reality is that this disorder coheres into a meaningful whole. It creates a new internal structure for a subculture creating an orderliness where in each part, and person, is organically related to other parts, and peoples, and it is through the fit between them that the members themselves make sense of the world. Within these people can see their core values held and reflected. The frames, and framing, offer society coded exchanges of reciprocal messages.

“Men in bits of paper whirling in the cold wind

That blows before and after time.

TS Eliot

Which leads me to shaping.

Shaping is a version of framing, shaping is the active use a of a frame to craft a desired outcome, and how things are framed drives perceptions, attitudes, behaviors and even decisions. The problem with most framing is that in seeking understanding (or some cognitive engagement) they create a sense of ‘identical problems’ (“I have seen this before”) when, at best, you have only seen a version of this problem before. A frame tends to unite seemingly random things. Within a frame even beliefs are united. Usually in a neat fashion. Unfortunately, uniting demands dimension, perspective and inexactness which offers some uneven edges that makes thinking richer and more interesting than some smooth filed down concise recap. Shaped frames tend to emphasize ‘reciprocal messaging’ and reciprocal messaging actually restricts the addition of additional messages and stories therefore it smooths down communal thinking. Basically, frames can make reciprocal messaging an echo chamber where stories and myths thrive. I say that because restriction is often cloaked in “honing a good story.” Unfortunately, reality is always a little uneven and less restricted. That said. Effective consistency is certainly a way to ensure some things are not seen and, yet, remain connected in some way. Ponder that.

Which leads me to contagion.

The contagion rate is the fraction of the time that an encounter between an “infective” and a person effectively convinces the susceptible people enough of the story to spread it further. Many encounters may be needed before a particular person is “infected” with a narrative. Now. Contagion may seem like an odd concept when tied to framing, but hear me out. Technology has reshaped how we frame things. And technology has certainly reshaped contagion. To be clear. It is a bit naive to suggest this is a new issue. Certainly, technology has amplified some issues, but our crappiest beliefs (narrative) have thrived as narratives for quite some time. While we may never be able to explain why some narratives “go viral” and significantly influence thinking while other narratives do not, we would be wise to add some analysis of what crappy thinking clusters tend to embed self-activity thinking.

Narratives are major vectors of rapid change in culture, in social ‘vibes’, and ultimately in behavior. Spreading narratives, often many parallel narratives around a common theme, have been creating cultural change long before social media. The only difference may be, well, the framework of the model, because there is a higher contagion rate for narratives due to social media automatically directing narratives to clusters with likely interest in them (let’s call this “directed infection”). That said. An effective frame in a contagion also heightens the removal rate, the rate of forgetting or the simple decay of memories (this is actually cue-dependent forgetting). The removal rate increases because there are declining cues for the memory, i.e., a story seems less connected, less apt, or even superficially contrary to current theories and prejudices. Contagions and framing have a symbiotic relationship.

Which leads me to narratives and frames.

Narrative is a word used to describe ‘the accumulated wisdom around the best frame through which to contextualize and think about things/events.’  Narrative is the filter through which sensemaking is distilled. It is the glue that connects disparate events together to create an understandable whole. The fundamental objective of any of these attempts is to create an indelible narrative imprint increasing the value of the narrative itself. What I mean by the narrative itself is crafted typically by those in power attempting to keep their power through substories, i.e., subgroups enhance that narrative without which those in power would not be able to keep their power. Basically, they use these narratives, frames, to fuel the narrative itself; the ones they desire. This is impoartant because what seems a single society, and a meta narrative, is usually divided by multiple mesa populations with their own mesa narratives. So long as they speak the same language, figuratively not literally, they enjoy the same signals, pursue similar goals, accept the same rules and regulations, there is mesa social cohesion in a meta society. But let communication fail or let a gap of misunderstanding develop among mesa communities so that the signals, symbols, words or phrases, no longer carry a universal meaning, a gap appears where an entire narrative, or frame, can slip into and vanish. Frames create a social construct which creates ‘order.’ The rules and regulations create the boundaries of what could be called law and order which preserves a degree of order essential for the survival of the society as a whole. This ‘order’ is more social identity than it is anything else. ‘This long order are the rules that protect an individual from the depredations of others and represents a concerted defense to protect an individual from the depredations of others. All of these things happen within a larger construct of which is framed by the individual need for satisfaction through identity stimulation and security’ (Robert Ardrey). Yeah. Its actually a bit surprising, but security ranks lowest among our needs and identity highest (there is research, I just lost it). To know who you are; to achieve identity in the eyes of your social community; to sense a fulfillment of and from that identity, all meet a need.  We abhor anonymity and effective framing insures a place of identity.

Which leads me to clarity (and transparency).

Frames expose evidence; real or fantasy. People love evidence. The pursuit of evidence and explanations and clarity creates an intense pleasure when we ‘find’ it. We are encouraged to believe the transparency a frame offers enables not only truth, but encourages a feeling of “how right we are.” I believe it was Georg Simmel who said “transparency prohibits fantasy from incorporating its possibilities; no reality can compensate us for their loss because fantasy is self activity that cannot be replaced in the long run by obtaining and enjoying (reality).” He is right. We may be delusional, but we like fantasy thinking because it offers the easy evidence we require. In fact. Transparency is not the holy grail, it is, in fact, lack of definition. That may sound a bit nuts but the lack of definition enables us to fit in our own little fantasies. And this is where we go back to frames. Within the frames we craft for ourselves we enable a periphery of things within which change and pleasure and possibilities to thrive. Rather than create the concise clarity within which common sensemaking can occur we enable our self-activity, self-thinking, a home to cozy up to a fire of fantasy-like thinking. I have also written a number of things on our love of fantasy thinking, but the difference here is that even with logical framing, we easily delude ourselves. So, use your frames wisely. Ponder.

===

“Just because we don’t understand doesn’t mean that the explanation doesn’t exist.”

Madeleine L’Engle

==

There are a shitload of things that happen in the world, and to us specifically, of which we will never understand. In fact, the probability of never understanding something is higher than the probability of understanding.

Which leads me to probabilities.

In our minds, the more probable, the more likely there is an explanation. In the good old days, we didn’t speak of probabilities, we would sit down and pragmatically think about the likelihood of shit happening – both good shit and bad shit. And, yeah, most times when probabilities are being discussed these days “crisis” is tossed around and when ‘crisis’ enters the narrative we inevitably seek explanations – relentlessly seek explanations. Let me be clear. Crisis is never good. That said. There is certainly bad crisis, i.e., “the bottom has dropped out from under our feet and we are 5,000 feet up”, but then there is also good crisis, i.e., “holy shit, they loved it and we have an order for a 1,000,000 sock puppets but we only have a 1000 capability sock puppet manufacturing capacity.” Both are certainly a crisis just that one focuses on survivable and the other on thriveable. I share that to suggest explanation importance is relative.

Look. Explanations in Life are tricky things. This is why gamification was/is so appealing. But we know from research that finite progress (milestones, sprints, etc.) are a doom loop of chasing things in which people get trained to chase output instead of outcomes, items instead of impact, explanations instead of learning/understanding. People inherently gain greater satisfaction if they show progress – better today than yesterday, better tomorrow than today – so why don’t more people do so? Well. Progress can be a fuzzy thing with fuzzy explanations. Because of that we emphasize measurement which, unfortunately, heightens discomfort of the alternative; the plausible but not certain, the probabilities of, not the prediction of. The plausible does not usually equate to “is” and it is within the wretched hollow in-between where we become captive to nothingness where no explanations reside. This is where “there must be an explanation” falls. So, we twist ourselves into pretzels turning thoughts of plausibility into images of possibility, then images of probability, ultimately shaping/morph itself into a perception of “is.” We move the uncertainty ball into the certainty space, one explanation at a time, not because we actually believe it will make our lives meaningful, but rather because we fear the absence of certainty. Second is that, well, absence of a pursuit of explanations, you worry you may actually end up with nothing and knowing nothing about why you have nothing. Yeah. The truth is while business and society use “somethings” to make us captive of what are actually ‘nothings’, nothing is personal. What I mean by that is even though we may not view the world in a zero-sum way we fear having nothing at the end of the race. We show up to our meeting with Death with no explanation for what we did in our Life. Please note I am suggesting even in death we will reflect more on our ‘doings’ than on impact. That means we become a captive to a fear of nothing explained so we jump onboard the ‘something train’ and hope even if we don’t do anything meaningful (however that could actually be assessed) we will have something; rather than nothing. We make all of our ‘somethings’ explainable. Ponder.

Which leads me to end with an important reminder.

Preciseness, and rationalizing, explanations are mediated truths which deprive us of the ambiguity which is the engine of imagination. The enemy of imagination, and imagination revolutionaries, is certainly pragmatism, finiteness, and rationalization, uhm, explaining and explanations. To be clear, I tend to agree with “doesn’t mean an explanation doesn’t exist,” it’s just that our pursuit of ‘an’ explanation is reductionary rationalization rather than expansive imagination. Imagination has become ‘something to do,’ i.e., a pragmatic thing to do with a pragmatic objective. Imagination has been replaced by innovation pipelines, blue sky thinking workshops, and any number of constructed tasks to be deployed with a specific objective in mind. Everything. Imagination must be ‘explained.’ They become singular expressions of imaginative imagination when imagination should be embodied within an infinite thought and the pursuit of infiniteness. Yeah. Sometimes unexplained. Yeah. That’s a problem in today’s milestone/KPI/achievement obsessed world, but the essence of the imagination is located precisely in its improbability and imprecise explanations. In a probabilistic, finite-driven, rationalizing, world that is a challenge. That is why we need imagination revolutionaries who hold imagination high as the idea, and ideal, around which an imagination revolution can occur and a better future can not only be envisioned, but constructed. We need imagination revolutionaries who can embrace the idea that what we do not understand may have explanations, but those explanations will be beautiful, and plausible, in their impreciseness. Yeah. The power actually lies in the lack of definition. Ponder.

======================= 

“It’s easy to make a buck.

It’s a lot tougher to make a difference.” 

—–

Tom Brokaw  

============================ 

“In a dream world, everyone is treated with the same amount of respect. But until we reach that goal, I will lend my ear, I will lend my voice to any boy, girl, man or woman who does not feel like they can protect themselves.”

———-

Jennifer Lawrence

===========

Well. When you get to my age you sometimes pause and think “has anything I have done really made a difference.”

I tend to believe it is a reflective thing we naturally do because most of us have invested gobs of energy in some career, gobs of energy outside of the workplace with home & family responsibilities as well as gobs of energy in at least some ‘self fulfillment’ stuff.

We kind of want to assess life in maybe an ROI type way. That ROI idea may sound a little weird, but starting all the way in grade school where they pound into your head you should be involved in extracurricular activities <on top of schoolwork> all the way throughout your career you tend to measure your Life in an “energy-to-achievement” ratio way.

To be clear <part 1>.

We draft resumes being encouraged to espouse “differences we made on a business” wherein we take basic responsibilities, shit we are paid to do, and stretch it out into some dramatic outcome. Our professional lives seem to be driven into some simplistic ‘where I made a difference’ encapsulation which sadly derives it of the true rich & royal hues.

And, yeah, that matters. It matters because it is, more often than not, in those swirling colors where you personally find satisfaction – and meaning.  Yet, almost all of us distill our differences into simplistic black & white terms, or, in other words, we are encouraged to sell ourselves as “I am a good ROI.”

Now.

To be clear <part 2>.

This ‘pause & think’ isn’t about doubting any personal ability, or smarts or even accomplishments. I assume I am not that different than most people my age that I assume I have some ability, some smarts and some accomplishments.

The ‘pause & think’ is more about the ‘degree of.’

Am I really that good?

Am I really that smart?

Are my accomplishments really that good?

You start thinking about whether you have truly made a difference or if your “wins & accomplishments” were simply pedantic grind-it-out every day shit and that your losses were losses that didn’t mean anything anyway. Or, in other words, we are encouraged to think of our lives as “was I a good ROI.”

Now.

If you truly think about that you start thinking about what you have done and ROI.

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

“Hey, if I am going to lose, let me lose doing something.”

Sam Seaborne

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

Ok. I say all that because I received a couple of unexpected messages recently. The kind of messages that makes you pause & think … “maybe I did make a little bit of difference in some corner of the world”:

—————

Hi Bruce! I hope you’re doing well! It’s been a little while since we’ve talked. I just caught up with +++++ and a group of <college> students in Chicago last week. You set such a great example of leadership and teaching young people, including myself, a few years ago. I can only hope to have the same impact on this new group of students. I sincerely hope you’re doing well and I hope to keep in touch!

—————————–

Thank you so much, Bruce. You know I think about the day you pulled me into that little conference room at 151 W. 4th Street to tell me you were bringing me on to +++++++ – a lot. You saved my career that day. I will always be grateful to you for teaching me so much over the course of that year. Thank you for everything.

——————–

I am fairly sure no one gets a lot of these messages so I am fairly sure almost everyone cherishes them. They reflect some “return” on whatever we have invested.

But. You know. It is quite possible I look at ‘making a difference’ and my own personal ROI a little differently than a lot of other people. I know I would love to leave behind a legacy-like idea but, maybe more importantly, I would like to leave behind a legacy of ‘he made a difference’ – however that comes to Life.

That drives me and what I do and say <and write>.

The dilemma with pursuing thinking like this is while it has a high appeal for success <because it means ‘something’>, it is difficult, time consuming, <honestly> has a relatively low chance of success and is not the kind of thinking that really pays the bills. I imagine any life ‘purpose’ decision, combined with the fact you have to sustain and maintain everyday life responsibilities at exactly the same time, makes you ponder this unfortunate dilemma.

I can unequivocally state anyone who makes a conscious decision to ‘want to make a difference’ should make sure they think that decision through. It is not one to be made flippantly and while I shared a couple of notes which makes it all worthwhile to me, mostly you do not get much positive feedback.

That said.

I will offer a thought as you think about the dilemma.

Some guy named John William Atkinson wrote Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior in Psychological Review in 1957. He suggested that if you can choose the grade of complexity <difficulty> of a task most of the decisions are taken in a mid-complexity-level. Too easy tasks or too difficult tasks can neither provoke a strong feeling of satisfaction nor a strong disappointment and vice versa.

Highly motivated people often choose a realistic complexity of tasks whereas low motivated people choose tasks that are finally to easy or too difficult for them.

But. Here is where I think I would sit good ole JW Atkinson down and have a debate. If I set aside the fact bills have to be paid at some point, I would say he doesn’t give ‘appeal of success’ enough emphasis. Especially if the appeal of success is tied to “doing something” or maybe better said ‘doing something that may truly matter.’

Huh? As Sam Seaborne says “if I am gonna lose let me lose doing something.” What I mean is that if you consciously decide to ‘go big and win big <or lose big>’ your satisfaction criteria changes and, therefore, you are willing to plow your way through more complexity and difficulty.

Look. I don’t think I am different than most people. We all want to ‘do something.’ Deep in our heart of hearts we want to know that we have done something that matters. I imagine, in a ‘big impact’ thought kind of way, somewhere in all of us we would like to leave the world a better place than the way we found it <and everyone can define the extent of ‘better place’ in their own minds>.

A friend of mine once pointed out that this ‘go big ideal’ can often simply be making a smaller difference in someone’s life. He is right. And if that is as good as it gets, well, that ain’t bad. But sometimes the desire to ‘do something’ is bigger than individuals or individual moments. That doesn’t make it ‘better’; just bigger. Bigger as in my case I take ‘world’ literally and not figuratively.

That ‘bigger’ matters because Atkinson is suggesting that the size of the ‘do something’ legacy task can often lead to a complexity that increasingly makes it difficult to be successful <but the prize more tantalizing>. I think what he misses is that a desire to make a difference can mentally shake the motivation etch a sketch.

Anyway.

At some point I think we all make some decisions on whether to compromise ‘greater purpose’ versus ‘everyday grind it out needs & responsibilities.’ Day to day responsibilities <not just bills but true responsibility to others who count on you> is a real life factor in whatever you decide to do or not do. It’s not like you have a blank Life sheet and put on it “do something that matters.”

The sheet is never blank.

You have cars, mortgages, children, mates/partners, work obligations, general shit that needs to get done. In fact, if you think about it too much, you will start thinking “holy shit, I want to make a difference but how the hell does it all happen?”

Well.

In the kindest sense you learn to balance or juggle.

In its harshest sense you compromise.

I would argue far too many of us confuse those two things and more of us actually compromise than we juggle. And I fear compromising has left far too many people numb to life or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe, more specifically, numb to ‘doing something.’ or, maybe worse, numb to making a difference.

Me? I think I have always had some fear of that numbness if I end up compromising and avoid it like the plague.

I don’t know. What I DO know is that when you get to my age you focus a lot less on the ‘what did I do’ and ‘what did I not do’ and ‘compromise’, and a lot more on “difference achieved.”

Sure. I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. Learn. And have offered some value in all that.

But, today, I’m focused on “doing something that matters.”

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

“The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little.”

Thomas Merton

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

Did I really do something that can leave the world a better place?

Did I really do something that made a difference?

Atkinson is/was probably a shitload smarter than I, but I gotta tell ya … even with all of his complexity & poor likelihood to succeed thinking, well, in my mind if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big … something really big … something that matters in a big way … something that someone would know really made a difference … I think you gotta go for it. It sure seems like you would want to do something, anything, which lends a voice to those who aspire to greater things themselves.

I mean, what the hell, if, in the end, I am going to lose or look like a loser, I want to know I lost doing something. In my mind I want to work hard at making a difference so that at some point, when all is said and done, there was a bunch of people saying “I wish I had sent Bruce a note.”

‘Cause I don’t need the notes. I just need to know they felt like they should have. In other words. I made a difference.

Just to close off this thought:

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

“You know the Greeks didn’t write obituaries, they only asked one question after a man died, ‘Did he have passion?’”

quote from the movie Serendipity

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

Even at my age making a difference can happen starting today. As I wrote in my obituary post years ago:

An obituary is not about what you can undo from what is done.  You don’t undo. It’s about moving on.

That, my friends, is a big thought.

Because a lot of people want to go back and fix or ‘undo.’

 Once again.

 You can’t. 

But obituaries can be written at any time.  In fact.  Many obituaries are written … well … when they are written … and that means they are written with “what is” as the case and point.  I guess what I am suggesting is that you can choose to unburden yourself from the past at any point. The good, the bad, the indifferent … none really matter.

Write your obituary from today on.

In other words, start making a difference today if you have not already.

In other words, seek to maximize your ROI to the world around you.

==

“I don’t know what they are called, the spaces between seconds – but I think of you always in those intervals.”

The People of Paper by Salvador Plascencia

==

“Social capital. Connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arises from them.”

Robert Putnam

==

We think we never have enough time. For anything. We constantly feel rushed and forced to ‘do’ rather than explore. Maybe that is true; and maybe it is not. But the consequence is that we don’t think of time as something to be used; we just ‘manage within it.’ Well. Maybe we should explore the spaces between seconds for a bit today. that may seem crazy, but if we average (which means there can often be much more) 30,000 decisions a day, well, the space between seconds can loom just a bit larger. Now. That last point becomes a bit important. There are a shitload of good things swirling around us at any given point, any given space between seconds, but I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge technology has a nasty habit of over-empowering the more nasty parts of society. Or maybe the issue is we never really defined what we thought a better society was nor even offer up a vision to everyone, so that (1) technology overtly created things that would nudge us toward it – space between second by space between second and (b) show a scenario to society at large that they would incrementally nudge themselves toward somewhere within the space between the seconds – within the 30000 decisions they make daily. All that said. Everything is not positively emergent, therefore, spaces between seconds become important (as possible leverage moments).

Which leads me to what’s in the space between seconds.

Cultural norms, or societal norms, dominate the spaces. And if cultural norms provide the micro rules of individual behavior, then social capital is the emergent result of individuals creating cooperative communities. To be clear, not call cooperative activity generates social capital, the most productive cooperative activity is captured in repeated social interactions. Anyway. This is important because norms drive thoughts and thoughts beget actions. Think about something strongly enough and it will influence not only how we think, but how we act. It shapes what we do. Yeah. We become neurologically what we think. If that is true, I imagine we should be asking if we cannot think clearly, what do we become? As we get cognitively bludgeoned the bludgeoners actually impose a version of determinism. The technology, and overstimulation, exploits the natural loopholes in free thought and free will, and begins to shape, well, us. Biologically our brains are always in flux adapting to new information, new stimuli, new circumstances, and new contexts. This begets the question, in a 24/7 world, what if the circumstances and context are always in a flux? Can a brain constantly in flux accommodate a world in flux? Look. The brain, and all the neural circuits, are all subject to change. Feelings, seeing, thinking, learning, remembering, even perceptions, “the brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions” (James Olds). And, yet, to adapt, some things must be cast aside.

Which leads me to the power of the spaces within seconds resides in the flux.

Self is not a centralized all powerful entity impervious to time, space, ideas and connectivity. Self is a collection of constantly changing microsociety of ideas within images of what the mind ‘sees’ as well as ideas of what ‘ought to be.’

People suffer because they are caught in their views. As soon as we release those views, we are free and we don’t suffer anymore.

Thích Nhất Hạnh

That said. It is within the spaces that we actually assess; in real time.

• How am I different today then yesterday?
• Did I make a difference to anybody or anything?
• What could/should I do differently?

Yeah. In the spaces between seconds, we assess growth, impact and improvement/progress. Sure. Its good if we reflectively ask these questions to ourselves to assess how far we have come as well as how far we have to go, but the rubber hits the road in the space between the seconds. The space of microsocieties where larger societies are crafted thread by thread; stitch by stitch.

Which leads me to technology.

We cannot pretend that the space between seconds is too little to matter just as we cannot pretend technology itself doesn’t matter, i.e., it is how we use it that matters. I will suggest it is healthy to ignore the technocrats as, well, an inventor is not the most reliable judge of the value of their invention.

“if the experience of modern society shows us anything, it is that technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning.”

Langdon Winner

But the reality is many of our routines, and lives, follow the paths laid down by technologies. I don’t believe it’s a stretch to suggest that every technology is an expression of human will – in some form or fashion. What I mean by that is through our tools we seek to expand our power and control over circumstances as well as time and space. Well. I bet that sounds complex, if not overly complicated, when applied to spaces between seconds. Well. It is. But life is nothing if not complex or complicated.

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

And simplifying things is actually destructive – even to micro spaces like those between seconds. Oversimplification is not efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we overinvest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to our oversimplification. I would be remiss, because this section is about technology, if I didn’t point out technology’s entire reason for being is to simplify. And it is human nature to take it’s simplification and, well, oversimplify everything. Technology destructs time and space and we embrace this destructive behavior gladly.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that we all have shorter, and shortened, attention spans.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves in our perceived “never enough time” world we have to simplify everything <to fit everything in>.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention that the specie between seconds are (a) irrelevant and unimportant and unpowerful, or (b) catastrophic tipping points worthy of everyone’s attention.

We do this destructive behavior because anything micro is easy to not understand.

Anyway.

All I can really say is that if you navigate the spaces between seconds well, you will most likely live a meaningful, and full, life. Ponder.

==

“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 4^th 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 4^th.

=====

“Our culture made a virtue of living only as extroverts. We discouraged the inner journey, the quest for a center. So we lost our center and have to find it again.”

Anaïs Nin

I used to think society’s, or civilization’s, journey could be followed left to right, maybe not on a horizontal line, more like a roller coaster, but definitely like a timeline of sorts. I imagine I thought of a bit like continuous improvement, or progress, even if it had some fits and starts.

I do know we certainly talk about it this way. Agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, whatever revolution. Internet 4.0 <implying 1.0 and upwards>. And we relentlessly tie #’s to people to show “growth” on this semi-linear journey.

But I think I was wrong. Heck. I think everyone was wrong.

I actually think the better mapping of society and civilization is viewed like an atom.

Different cultures and people and ‘civilizations’ zooming around like electrons circling the nucleus.

From a grander narrative perspective this seems like I am suggesting who we were is what we are and what we will be. And, yeah, simplistically I imagine I am on some level. And if you buy that, conceptually, because all these electrons zooming around, because culture, and civilization, is made up of billions of ‘ones,’ it may often seem like we lose our ‘center.’

We really don’t.

Honest.

We don’t.

The center is always there. It is solid. It remains, and will always remain, the compass for that which is right. The nucleus holds it all together. However. What circles the center, the billions of ones with different demands and different needs and different likes and dislikes all of which desire different accoutrements for happiness, they never remain still and very often collide with each other.

And exactly the same time there are media channels and advertising and movies and magazines all screaming at the top of their lungs trying to distract us from our center with slivers of less then meaningful distractions. Distractions that make us question our center or maybe what we think is important <which can be very different from our center>.

Let’s face it. some of the people circling the center can be real noisy shits. In addition, the shit that circles our centers can be noisy sonuvabitchs. All so noisy that, well, it can be the only thing you hear.

And therein lies my point.

I disagree with Anais. Society, or civilization, doesn’t lose its center.

It cannot.

Why?

Because the ‘ones’, the billions of electrons themselves, never lose their center.

Because we, the ones, the individuals, don’t lose our center it’s just that sometimes we lose sight of it. Or we just cannot hear it on occasion.

Or maybe we just don’t listen to it hard enough.

Or maybe it whispers to make it more meaningful for us.

I don’t really think it matters.

Because we don’t lose our center. The center is always there, it is within us, as individuals and as a whole. It is the 8 billion <give or take given the few raging assholes in the world whose center is in their ass> and it is within the ones and it is all the same center.

Call it the moral compass.

Call it the good that resides within everyone.

Call it ‘knowing what is right and what is wrong.’

Call it the soul of humanity.

But ever suggesting we lose our center?

C’mon.

We never LOSE it.

We may misplace it on occasion.

We may just not be able to hear it over the cacophony of Life.

But we never lose it.

Which leads me to losing sight of the center.

Society is an abstract idea grounded in concrete norms, principles and beliefs. The problem is that the world has become less and less concrete and more and more abstract. This creates a societal shift in which structures that bound some individual choices, institutions and guard the valuable repetitions of routines and patterns of acceptable behavior struggle to maintain their shape long enough to let society gain some shape and structure. The cacophony of the world, and some of the tools bludgeoning society, deconstruct time and space so nothing can settle. Open societies have always been vulnerable to those in power (hands of fate), but in today’s world, a globalized world with a myriad of conflicting ‘hands of power’, many of the past certainties just can’t be obtained. So society and social life retracts not to some ‘center’, but rather to safety (they are often not the same). People hide within tribes, live behind walls, carry guns, and start embracing a number of activities and habits which simply increase the sense of disorder in the world through the paradox that the individual feels they are building order. The problem is all of these actions and activities are a function of the fact that a sense of fear is embedded within, stifling our ‘center,’ and, simultaneously, permeating daily routines, attitudes and mindsets. Circling back to fate, this gives us a sense fate will always strike without warning and is indifferent to not only us, but the order and certainty we are trying to construct for ourselves individually. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that infinite progress becomes unattainable in this situation as we substitute an uninterrupted game of finite objectives and tactics and our dreams get smaller and smaller. This all gets compounded by a governing elite which encourages us to believe there is no possibility of existential security through larger collective actions and shared interests. Instead, they encourage everyone to focus on individual survival, i.e., everyone for themselves, all cloaked in self-responsibility and individual expression. All this does is increase fragmentation and continue to tear apart the basic principles of collective action and shared interests and that tears apart our natural, human, center. Paradoxically, this creates some significant issues for governance. By encouraging all of this, society no longer believes they can be protected by the state or, at minimum, they are unlikely to trust the protection offered by those governing. As a consequence, the citizenry will encourage lashing out with military force or simplistic things like tariffs or isolationism as a reflection of an acceptance that there are certain forces that they cannot control and even worse there are no longer any hopes to be able to subdue the forces which could infringe upon individual survival. This is a negative mindset, negative against globalization, negativity against collective interest, negative against interdependence, basically negative against anything that optimizes or maximizes potential progress and prosperity and certainly negative against our ‘center.’ This is a world of despair. As Oscar Wilde said: “a map of the world that does not include utopia is not worth even glancing at for it leaves out the one country at which humanity is always landing. And when humanity lands there, it looks out and seeing a better country, sets sail.” Progress always resides in the chase of utopias never the realization. A utopia is always simply just an image of another universe different from the existing universe we know, or know of. What does this have to do with a quest for center? Well. The center of our being, collectively and individually, relentlessly anticipates a universe originated entirely through human imagination and human betterment. If you seek to leave a universe of grindingly monotonous life, you must imagine another world. It is at our center in which this imagination resides. Ponder.

==

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.

==

“That proves you are unusual,” returned the Scarecrow; “and I am convinced that the only people worthy of consideration in this world are the unusual ones. For the common folks are like the leaves of a tree, and live and die unnoticed.”

The Land of Oz

---

“Men have become the tools of their tools.”

John Stuart Mill

==

Let me begin in an odd place. Progress is the inevitable increase in complexity. This means when we speak of a simpler past, in many ways, we are correct. The less things are connected, the more simple it is. And if there is one thing one could say about civilization’s progress, it is that we have been quite good at inventing things that connect us. The consequence of that progress is, well, increased complexity. This complexity has a variety of different consequences, but let’s focus on individuality today.

Which leads me to self-expression as a tool for individuality.

Today’s world demands that we each, individually, cultivate a habit of constant self-expression. More and more we are encouraged to ‘be yourself,’ “bring your whole self everywhere,” and more and more we are encouraged to become more aware of our ’emotional selves.’ This is encouraged whether we want to or not or whether it’s healthy or unhealthy with regard to the health of “me.” This happens because we live in a self-expressive culture and society. In addition, we are constantly encouraged to trust our instincts and our impulses above anything else. In other words, trust the things inside ‘me’ and distrust the forces outside that we perceive discourage our instincts and impulses or even suffocate what is best for me. All of this means self-expression is a weapon against a world attempting to make us less unusual, less distinct, and less of ‘me.’ I would argue this isn’t really a true battle’, but I don’t think it’s too far off to suggest that everyone wants to etch a sense of self in the walls of the world – through behaviors, habits, and attitudes. The trouble arises in that, paradoxically, self-love has a nasty tendency to encourage unhealthy focus on instincts and impulses. Unhealthy self-love isn’t always ego-ism, but it does encourage ignoring wisdom from others and the outside world. Along those lines, true love demands connectivity and through that connectivity it has a nice tendency to counter unhealthy instincts and impulses by balancing them out with what other people value. In fact, true love eliminates the distinction between me and you. I want to be careful with the word eliminating. I do not mean to suggest that ‘me’ is completely erased, but rather me has a reflective mirror with which to objectively and subjectively reflect upon itself. “Me’ becomes a bit of a blend of all the people one has met and all the conversations one has had. Its kind of like Hanzi Freinacht’s transvidualism. Anyway. In other words, your personal and unusual no longer reside solely in the purview of ‘me,’ but also in the context of the collective. I would argue this is where the healthy unusual resides.

Which leads me to ‘me’ and competition.

I don’t think it’s a big stretch to suggest society encourages competition as a means of maximizing one’s “me potential.” Well. That is fraught with peril. For example. In recent research lower social-class university students (and other adults) do worse than their higher-class counterparts on a reasoning task only when they’re led to focus on outperforming others. Competition, in other words, exacerbates social inequality. In other words, competition constrains potential.  I would posit this occurs because people with higher status, and wealth, believe life offers them more chances even if they get something wrong, while lower class people feel like there is less margin for error. I would also posit competition encourages ‘less unusual’ among the masses, i.e., conformity enhances probability of survival/some thriving, as well as encourages mediocrity. I would argue that in a competitive world, every ‘me’ must to start with where power lives. This is counter to self-reliance, self-responsibility and ‘power of me’ narratives because all of those things suggest you should think in terms of your influence on the world. Instead, in a competition-based world, you need to first and foremost understand your influence is in the hands of the existing power. This is painful to say, but there are no real independent individuals in this world. I would be remiss if didn’t point out technology has exacerbated this issue. Technology makes us feel more independent and, yet, the reality is it makes us more dependent upon other people’s opinions, attitudes, beliefs and input. We have, in other words, become tools of our tools. Which leads me to communities of unusual. Communities of unusuals may seem weird to suggest. And, to be clear, I am not suggesting a conformity of a certain type of unusual, but rather I am suggesting a coherent community of those who are unusual in some way. I suggest a community because when you are in groups, you can be very powerful. You can change things. You have confidence when things go wrong that you don’t when you’re on your own. It changes the concept of power. In fact, it is Grace Blakeley, at the end of Vulture Capitalism, who reminds everyone that when people work together, they have more power than any system.

Which leads me to eccentricity (the word most associated with unusual).

I, personally, do not believe unusual is equal to eccentric, but let me explore eccentricity a bit. I could find the only person to have looked into eccentricity: David Weeks, an Edinburgh psychiatrist and co-author of the 1995 book Eccentrics: A Study of Sanity and Strangeness. What he discovered during a ten-year study of 1,000 peculiar people < including a Chippewa Indian who walked everywhere backwards and two Californians who hypnotized frogs> might surprise you. I think most people believe that extreme eccentricity is a short step from serious mental disorder. But, in fact, Weeks’s subjects suffered less from mental illnesses such as depression than the majority of the population.

Fewer than 30 had ever been drug or alcohol abusers. He also found that eccentrics visit the doctor 20 times less often than most of us and, on average, live slightly longer.

The study conclusion? People benefited from non-conformity. Simply put, those who don’t repress their inner nature in the struggle to conform suffer less stress. Consequently, they are happier and their immune systems work more efficiently. Overall, Weeks found that eccentrics tend to be optimistic people with a highly developed, mischievous sense of humor, childlike curiosity and a drive to make the world a better place. Well. Kind of maybe makes you start thinking about envying eccentric people rather than laughing about them, huh?

Anyway. I believe eccentrics are the people who tend to see problems <and life> from new and unexpected angles.  Their slightly odd, off kilter, perspective allows them to conjure up innovative solutions. They are the visionaries, even within smaller individual life moments, who make giant imaginative leaps. Weeks, in his study write up, suggested maybe that like the occasional mutations that drive evolution, eccentrics may provide the unusual, untried ideas that allow human societies to progress. Not too shabby for folk who are very often dismissed as cranks and crazies and nutjobs.

“No new horror can be more terrible than the daily torture of the commonplace.”

H.P. Lovecraft

Which leads me to I am worried about the world.

Society, and communities, appear to have abolished any type of eccentricity <or individuality> within meaningful power positions. Society, which tends to dictate behaviors, seem designed to promote the rise of the ‘accepted and acceptable’ behavior.  Think about that. One can be fairly sure that you won’t find too many Teslas surfacing in the next few years as they are weeded out early by the application of standardized policies designed to produce standardized human beings. When I was younger it seemed like businesses had their share of quirky, slightly nutjob, people and they added color to the office. They added a dimension to the work, and workplace, which sometimes made a tough day better and a tough assignment less challenging. Not always, but at minimum it made the experience more interesting by far.

Anyway.

Look. I am not suggesting more people be eccentric, but maybe possibly less people should find conforming as important as they do. Maybe embrace being, well, unusual. That’s it. If for no other reason than a research study suggests you may be happier.

“Success is liking yourself, liking what you do, and liking how you do it.”

In the end I imagine the challenge remains that we reside in a world that glorifies individual success, yet, our greatest power lies in our ability to come together. A truly empowered and resilient society can only arise from a sense of unity and collective purpose, not self-interest. How can we reclaim the power of the collective without losing our sense of self? Maybe we should be asking how we can create more communities of unusual. Maybe it will be the communities of unusuals who will be most likely to have the ability to navigate increased complexity and ensure progress for civilization. Ponder.

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

But resounding with the truth of things prophesied,

But of things with truth resounds

Но    вещей    правдою  звучат

No v’eshchej   pravdoju   zvuchat

Its lips are covered with blood!

Lips covered with blood

Уста, запекшиеся  кровью!

Usta, zap’vekshi’esa krovju!

——

Ophelia’s Song: Alexander Bok

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

“Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

–

Leonardo da Vinci

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

59squared.

3,481.

3481squared.

12,117,361.

12,117,361squared.

1.5 billion.

That’s three degrees and I am at almost 1/5^th of the entire world. Yeah.  The numbers are really not that neat, but you get the point. With a single event, a single death, one person can set off a chain of events that will affect hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of people.

Some people call this “6 degrees of separation” <although I showed it to you as only 3>. I didn’t make up the squared concept. In some form or fashion it reflects the truth of the internet of things and connectedness and it shows the likelihood that the majority of us have some connection to any event in which 5, 59 or 559 people are part of.

I say this because it makes a lot of things, well, personal.  The main point here is that a person now has access and is aware of more people <true friends as well as web based friends> and can have more frequent communication due to the ‘digital revolution’.

Yet.

Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network <personal or professional> and friendships can be more expansively realized than before <it amplifies>. This means that truth resounds more quickly & clearly & bluntly than ever before. The other truth is that our own experiences, and Life, can then be at the mercy of crowds of friends & acquaintances — crowds providing unsolicited input & feedback & experiences all influencing hordes of additional people’s thoughts on a daily basis. This means whether you are present in one place, or not, you can be impacted in the present place you stand. You are a nomad in which the world remains your home.

Our world is now one large network consisting of two basic things – people and connections. And while many times we look at this as some forced or constructed network <Facebook, twitter, etc. provides hubs and constructs> the reality is that most people networks & connections are organically constructed. So while we like to draw out nice symmetrical shapes to define how connections work and networks are constructed the reality is that networks are more often not symmetrical.

The unique patterns in the connections determine the shapes. We reach out in asymmetrical ways to places, events and thoughts and bring them near in seconds. In addition the ties between the connections can be complicated – spanning from intense or passive.

In the business world we try to characterize networks and connections in a variety of ways. The trouble is that people are not that orderly and certainly not stagnant and they actively reshape their connections, interests and networks all the time.

But I am not here to discuss how the internet can, or cannot, affect personal relationships or a sense of individual isolation but rather this is a thought on how the internet can make things, and Life … well … smaller.

On most days the ‘quasi-truth’ that resounds in the echo chambers of what we talk about and ‘think we know’ is that the internet is isolating us … disconnects us from reality and social interaction.

So … is it possible that the internet increases connection and decreases connection at exactly the same time? Yup. The Internet connects and it isolates.

The usual assumption that most of us make about our computing and communication environment is that we are ‘always’ connected. Indeed, most of us are ‘nomads’ when it comes to computing and communications. We live in a disconnected world much of the time as we travel between our office, home, airport, hotel, car, coffee shop, bedroom, etc. We now recognize that access to computing and communications is necessary not only from one’s `home base’, but also while one is in transit and/or when one reaches one’s destination.

It is an anytime, anywhere access world. It is also, paradoxically, a ‘be anywhere at any time’ world.

That is the connected aspect which creates the whole disconnected aspect.

Well. Let’s just say we feel slightly disconnected in a connected way, of course, until something happens that tightens all the lines of connection.

It is within moments like that where the supposed 6 degrees of separation becomes less degrees and more links all of a sudden the 59squared aspect of connectedness occurs.

The world gets smaller … in fact … really fucking small.

We are brought together and something that happens to 5 people, maybe 59 people, or even 559 people, becomes an experience within our own grasp.

Which brings me back to truth and resounding.

The majority of our social networking constructs today are on the internet <or have a foundation on the internet>. Simplistically, we, the people, are connecting via the internet. What this means is that the internet muffles or amplifies our voices, events and truth <as well as lies unfortunately>.

What this means is that … well … an event, a moment, a death, an injury, resounds … resounds as in 59squared.

What THAT means is we have to face a truth whether we want to or not. Now. At that point we have a choice – see what we face or don’t see what we face. And if we refuse to face it we will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.

That was a sad sentence to type.

At this point, my conclusion, I imagine it may be relevant to remind everyone of 59squared and the fact that I can do one thing, one right thing … or one wrong thing … and it will resound.

Choose your ‘one thing’ wisely.

==

“In a world with abundant computational resources where nothing is forgotten and where we are connected in pervasive, unexpected ways beyond our choice, it is reasonable to stop and ask ourselves just what kind of world we hope to create.”

Grady Booch

==

Generally speaking, how we ask ourselves what kind of world we hope to create will inevitably find that ‘how’ battling between two conflicting views. One view is that human beings are inherently altruistic and that greed and selfishness is not actually part of human nature, but rather constructed from the norms, and what is valued, of society. The other view is that human beings are centered on self and that the pursuit of self-interest is absolute. Unfortunately, this binary thinking creates some flawed structural thinking impeding how we can actually create the kind of world we hope to create. The flawed “how” creates a flawed foundation from which to build upon. What would help would be to understand people are neither inherently altruistic nor selfish. We are actually what researchers call conditional cooperators and altruistic punishers. I believe this is called ‘social reciprocity’ and is defined as a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish, even at a personal cost, if necessary, those who violate the norms of that cooperation. Reciprocity behavior is grounded in an inherent understanding that teamwork and cooperation and working with others will always create “more” than what one individual can create alone. I also believe that this binary framing conflicts against a general understanding that the most extreme, or purist, implementation of any ideology, model or belief system is not effective, i.e., effectiveness is not achieved through simplicity. For example. State run systems turn into bureaucratic nightmares and free market constructs lead to dysfunctional societies.

Which leads me to suggest, generally speaking, most people have reached a pragmatic consensus that markets and governments each have a role to play in society.

Despite this understanding the vacuum between is wretched. And it is within this vacuum within which society and humans and humanity continue to evolve typically at a snail’s pace – despite popular belief everything is rapidly changing. And even within this slow evolution there is conflict because humans get trapped in-between the fact we slowly evolve endosomatically, through our genes, and the fact there is a more rapid evolution exosomatically – through our culture. This conflict means that we will constantly drift from order to disorder, entropy and energy, self and collective, all wrapped up in an uncomfortable blanket of uncertainty.

Circling back to my opening, within this wretched inbetween we ask ourselves not only what world we want to create, but actually how to build it. Within this ‘how’ we enter into the next conflict: closed system versus open system. Closed systems always have a predictable end state. Humans like that. To be clear there will always be some unpredictable things occurring in the closed system. Regardless. All closed systems eventually find their future resides in entropy. Open systems are significantly more complicated and complex. They oscillate between stable equilibrium states and complex and unpredictable patterns far from any equilibrium (or anything that would be comfortable to greater society and people). Open systems are uncomfortable to people because if an open system continues to be fed energy and resources, it is impossible to predict its ultimate end state (or whether it will ever even reach an end state). People hate that kind of shit especially if they are thinking about how to create the world we hope to create. Unfortunately, the world, itself, is an open complex adaptive system – a system of interacting parts and pieces that adapt to each other and their environment over time.

Which leads me to what should we hope to create.

Let me begin with some economics. Ultimately, economically, the objective should always be helping poor people to get richer rather than economically punishing the rich This is easier said than done because it is never as simple as rich and non-rich. A bunch of things, and how people think, get bundled up in this discussion (individual power versus environment systemic issues being the main framing). That said. If we focus on non-punishment, then we just focus on a positive vision of growth which gets fairly distributed. And that conversation, in today’s world, gets warped in a confusion between value creation and value extraction. As Mariana Mazzucato said this has serious economic and social consequences. The main consequence is we would need to dismantle, in some form or fashion, how the existing economic system incentivizes, and rewards, those with power who thrive on extraction versus creation to offer value. Now I am going to get nerdy (but this is about what kind of world we hope to create, so …). At the core of this confusion is a misunderstanding of marginal utility. The marginal utility theory of value states that ‘all income is reward for a productive undertaking.’ Without saying anything else, I believe it is obvious that that is not the way our current economic system works. Well. Certainly for the majority of the working people. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Marx becomes essential reading on this. His labor theory of value was not simply an abstract idea, but an act of critique of the system. He asked, if labor produced value, why was labor continuing to live in poverty and misery? He asked, conversely if a group of people did not create value, how did they become so rich? I point that out because all of a sudden, a positive vision of growth then becomes a little bit more complex. What I mean by that is that there can be produced value growth and, separately, there can be individual wealth growth. I say that because we often look at GDP as tied to production growth in how we view whether the system is economically healthy (referring back to Mariana Mazzucato; it is not). The problem gets compounded by the fact that the outcome of production growth (as defined by today), and the growth and distribution of wealth – indirect & direct – created from that production, may actually be quite unhealthy for society. This isn’t to say that I don’t understand that everything must come from somewhere (extraction) and once something has been created it must actually go somewhere (distribution), but what we hope to create will need to be shaped from a reshaped system.

Which leads me to shaping.

If we seek to shape the world we want to create, we need to shape the extraction and distribution. By “shape” I only mean constraints, parameters and nudges; not direct activity. And, yes, shaping often refers to government. And therein lies the next conflict we need to resolve in order to create the world we hope. Does government enhance productivity and add value or does it hold back the economy because it is actually unproductive and can even destroy value? Once again, just as I stated at the beginning of this piece, the truth resides somewhere betwixt. Government, in and of itself, is not bad. Regardless of how you specifically define the role of government, I believe most of us can agree the future will always reside in some combination of reducing activities which inhibit the society and economy and increasing activities which more closely create a truly productive activity and a productive healthy society. Government has a role.

Which leads me to the mindset necessary in the kind of world we hope to create.

We need an adaptive mindset. An adaptive mindset is pragmatic while still embracing possibilities. It values doing shit over doing nothing and values tangible facts about today more than guesses about tomorrow. This mindset doesn’t expect that everything will work out as planned and prefers lots of smaller failures to big ones even while embracing “going big” over “going home.” This paradoxical thinking is willing to say we learned something new and now we need to change course. Basically, we learn by doing and to end up doing what is necessary to make progress. But maybe one of the unsaid things within an adaptive mindset is the fact that it embraces a belief energy potential is the key to pragmatism, possibilities, the present, and the future, i.e., energy is abundant and accessible – if you choose access it. This leverages an idea physicist James Prescott Joel: “nature, itself, is stingy with its energy and energy is neither created nor destroyed, but converted from one form into another.” I bring that to the forefront because what this suggests is that the energy within a system is one of the few guaranteed resources available. Energy always exists and if we want to create a world, we need to control and employ the existing energy. Which leads me back to an adaptive mindset (rather than talk about encouraging massive change). An adaptive mindset recognizes the pragmatic innovations in the present which can be leveraged to do the things to create the world we desire. This is helpful because it is always easier to create something from something rather than create from scratch. To be clear. This is not to suggest we should not challenge ‘the past imaginations.’ I would argue imagination is iterative thereby naturally inventing the future rather than resurrect the past. And from there we need to acknowledge that in the past almost all innovations, and imagination, were limited by their dependence upon nature in some form or fashion. Today’s innovations often strip the limits of nature often optimizing the potential of nature. Solar energy is the prime example of this. Anyway. With that we can begin to envision a world in which machines and technology result in an economy that “potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings.” (Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution, 1964). While this offers some possibilities, it also creates additional issues because machines produce, but do not consume (that’s the job of humans). And the warning here resides in Vonnegut’s Player Piano where we see a dystopian future of an automated economy in which an industrialized business world is managed by few technological elite who do the work while everyone else in society faces a meaningless existence and hopeless future. It is easy to pursue this dystopian thinking especially because advancing technology is clearly pushing us toward making business, and the economy, significantly less labor intensive. It is here I posit: but what would help is if we designed a world to which we purposefully shifted to. It seems like that is the path to make things work out for people rather than simply offer theories.

“but in the end, it did matter.”

In the end, let me remind everyone it was Marx who reminds us that capitalism inevitably creates its own grave diggers. Yeah. If we seek to find the kind of world we want to create, we will have to wrestle with capitalism. Why? Capitalism will always seek to innovate, but those innovations will almost always surround a more efficient productivity and production process. Neither of those things guarantee a more effective society or a better world for people nor create a world we hope for. And maybe that is where I will end. What world do we wanna create? I would suggest if we can imagine it, we can create it, but, uhm, we may need to destroy some things to do so. Ponder.

• ** postscript: “hoping to create” is a big idea, in a typically little idea world. What I mean by that is often the future is envisioned by ‘fixing’ the existing system or iterating from what exists. That’s, well, little idea thinking. A ‘bigger’ idea is thinking about what kind of world we want to create – and then go about creating it. But you gotta believe you can do something like that or, well, you get stuck in the little idea world.