“Man is a rationalizing animal not a rational one.”

Robert Heinlein

===

This is about culture even though it is not about culture. What I mean by that is I saw for the billionth time “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” something Drucker never said, most likely would have never said, and is kinda nuts to say. Ironically, Purpose is more likely to eat strategies then culture. Anyway. Let me talk about what that statement really says and what it should say: “systems eat misguided strategy.” What I mean by that is culture is what people do together and what they do together is usually reflective of the system in place. But it gets a bit worse. The truth is the Will of the Institution eats culture and strategy is simply actions a business takes to feed the Will of the Institution.

Look. The reality is that most employees, including managers and leaders, are rationalizing animals. What I mean by that is most people, within an organization or institution, will use the system as it exists to, well, exist/thrive in the role they are in. that includes strategies. Most rationalizing sane people simply seek to optimize what exists. That’s kind of what most C-level people do. They may not like the system, but it is what it is, the competition is most likely optimizing a very similar system, so you gotta do what you do so the business survives. Maybe that is culture, maybe it is not, but it is 100% a description of a system.

Which leads me to the conflict between the system and the people.

This is a piece in and of itself, but for today let’s talk about angst and anxiety. What the typical business system, under the guise of culture, has done, as a mechanism of growth at all costs, is actually to stifle the future. What I mean by that is business system growth is not the same as personal human growth. Therein lies the most basic conflict and the one which creates the most angst and anxiety. This conflict may certainly lead to disengagement, but I think that word is too sweeping. Someone may disengage mentally, but will be fully engaged with the system. That is actually what many institutions encourage; work the process and the process will reward you. Pretty simple. So simple, in fact, most employees line up and embrace this, or, what I call “the Will of the Institution.” They do so not because they like it, but it’s the system in which they are placed. Strategies may be defined and implemented with the best of the intentions, but if they do not match the Will of the Institution, well, it will get eaten – not by culture but by the Institution itself. By the way, that’s where most radical thinking goes to die. Regardless. There is almost always conflict between individuals and the institution where the institution seeks to impose some “will.” To be sure, the systems produce profits so there is no apparent rationale from leadership perspective to attack the system, but individuals are nibbling away at the system trying to make it (a) possibly reach higher value creation potential or (b) possibly make it more palatable to the potential of the people. Within these institutions, if enough people are nibbling away (because there needs to be enough movement in order to stop inertia) a shift will occur. Once again, this isn’t culture, this is just people fighting within a system and strategy is typically not the weapon they use.

Which leads me to point out that behavior is an outcome of system design choices.

Institutions are infamous for talking about ‘culture’ when they really mean systems and process. Goals and accountability are outcomes of the system. The system is always designed to shape an operating model systematically encouraging a range of choices, often very bounded, designed to shape desired performance and whatever the Institution perceives is the value that should be delivered to generate the profit/financial performance desired. And while it is true an individual can shape the system just as a system shapes the individual, the power is not equal. Individuals nudge systems, systems bludgeon individuals. This means, by default, the system inevitably shapes the social aspects of the institution. I guess that is ‘culture,’ but it is actually a system strategy that eats any positive organizational culture.

Which leads me to machines and people.

Systems, as the Will of an Institution, are basically an attempt to make the entire business, and all its pieces – including humans, into some type of replicating machine; a production line as it were. Technology has only encouraged institutions to think this way. Machines and technology have augmented our ability to ‘distribute’ thoughts, ideas, social connections and a variety of things that add value in the marketplace of people and business. This is captured in Metcalfe’s Law: as the number of people involved in any communications technology increases, there is exponential growth in the amount of communication paths. This is known as the network effect and it has both good and bad properties. I imagine my point here is as connections and connectivity expands, Institutions will seek to create stronger and higher border walls. The main ‘wall’ they build, within some twisted culture worldview, is objective setting. For example, ROI. Or. Profit. Some simplistic stripped-down objective which can be wielded as a dull axe to the culture and systems analysis. It matters because ‘maximize the return on investment’ tends to encourage ignoring the things not so good for society so an ROI-focus meets some specific business objectives. Sure. Sometimes a business will pony up some higher Purpose, or some  societal-focused objectives, but most are just a sub-objective meant as a ‘culture importance’ head nod. Anyway. ROI, or things like that, absolve the Institution, and the system, of anything but that objective. Yeah. A system is less than careful in discussing humans and humanity because it simply views humans and connectivity as ‘social machines’ to be built and optimized of, and by, the system. As a corollary, the builders of systems, i.e., the Institutions, use technology and to a lesser extent machines, to create and use people, as passive recipients with aggressive intent – to produce specific results. People become part of the machine simply by being part of the system and an Institution will gladly step forward and call it ‘our culture.’ It is a reinforcing system in that individuals act both in, and upon, institutions and they embody, realize, and reproduce those institutions through their daily activity. This does not make technology and the machines dependent variables within the system, but tools with which to craft social behavior and dynamics and culture. I would be remiss if i didn’t point out much of what happens in today’s technological world, and culture building, occurs independent of human awareness, yet, humans are still accountable for much of the system itself.

• ** note: as an aside, if this piece makes you grumpy, you have a responsibility to reflect upon your actions/thoughts even though technology may have encouraged the action/thought.

So, while business models are the structures and systems of a business which creates value to offer to a marketplace, it is the business systems which make people subservient to some process and incentivize them to the will of the institution so that while being paid as an individual, they must worship the institutional process/structure/system/culture to do so. Strategy gets eaten at the altar of this.

Which leads me to culture’s relationship with a system.

Business lives in a world of relations, connectivity and connections, i.e., business is not performed in a void. An enlightened business, one which accepts being accountable beyond simplistic profit self-interest, needs to understand how dynamic systems work, social relations work and how everything they do is connected to the community and, ultimately, society. They need to understand that business is not just a sum of its relations, but also the people that stand in between, or intersect, are just as important. The reality is that systems, even when focused on the greater good, tend to never be totally successful because they ignore, well, people.  What I mean is that while we talk about technology/machines to help us better manage value, the economy, and society, we should also, simultaneously, talk about how humans can better manage value, economy, and society. People are only scratching at their potential and systems are not crafted to enable potential maximization – of individual, companies, society, or the economy.  People can babble all they want about culture eating strategy all they want, but the real issue is the way business is used to running is mismatched against an increasingly dynamic, complex, business world and the existing systems, for the most part, reflect that mismatch. Progress is almost always defined in additive, multiplicative or exponential terms. The reality of humans is that they have exponential potential, but current systems arc toward additive results and subtractive meaning. Therein lies the conflict business must resolve for a better future. So maybe stop talking about culture eating anything and start investing energy in systems development so your strategies are effective. Ponder.

==

“Sometimes, the hand that feeds you is also holding you captive.”

Ben Irvine

==

“Beneath the incessant parade of images, nothing.”

Magnificent Ruin

==

We are all captive of something. And often that ‘something’ is tangible, yet has the ultimate value of nothing. That is why progress can be elusive and self identity can become a bit of a tug of war between the “I compass” and the external world. That said, today is actually about being captive of something specific – nothing. I will define ‘nothing’ as things that (a) don’t really have an impact beyond individual satisfaction and (b) don’t really contribute to personal meaning beyond productivity.

The sheer numbers of data, wealth, images, memes, production of stuff, that bludgeon us and our senses on a daily basis only suggest we measure our lives by accumulating some of those things – theoretically by choosing one we give them the meaning of something – rather than what we actually may choose to be measured by absent of these choices. In doing so we become occupants of a space designed by the system, captives of nothing. Yet, this nothing is defined, or bounded, by what is deemed ‘reason’, common sense or, at minimum, reasonable. Yes. The world convinces us it is reasonable to be measured by things with a ‘nothing value.’ And by defining these numbers, or these ‘somethings’, as a measure it will invariably constrain focus toward the present (the now) with critique centered on either the past (kind of a warped assessment versus ‘then’) or against others within the Now defined space (competition within the present). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that if your concern is having “something” at the end of life, judging oneself, consistently, in the present doesn’t guarantee that.

“Everything seems simpler than it truly is, when you are not the one working on it”

Look. The truth is results 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 and items instead of impact. 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, first, what the emphasis on this type of measurement does is to heighten the discomfort of the alternative; the plausible but not certain, the probabilities of not the prediction of. The plausible does not usually equate to “is”, i.e., some certainty, and it is within the wretched hollow in-between where we become captive to nothingness. This is where “if you cannot measure it, how do you know you were successful” 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 not because we actually believe it will make our lives meaningful, but rather because we fear the absence of certainty found in plausibility and probability. Second is that, well, absence of a pursuit of these things, you worry you may actually end up with 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 answers for ‘did you have a successful life.’ By becoming a captive to a fear of nothing 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. And maybe that is the weird (awful) thing. In our successful pursuit of these things, we actually still end up with nothing. I tend to believe far too many people are currently captives of nothing. My reasoning? Well. I tend to believe we are having an existential “meaning”, or “how do I matter”, societal crisis and what I have just written could very well be part of the reason why. Ponder.

===

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

H.L. Mencken

==

“Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers.”

Mignon McLaughlin

I have always disliked using the word ‘radical.’ To be fair, I tend to dislike any word that can be twisted in some hyperbolic fashion. The truth is radicals, and radical, is inextricably linked to the idea of revolutions and, well, revolution often gets twisted in some hyperbolic fashion. So let me speak of radicals, being radical, and revolutions in a non-hyperbolic way to show that radical ideas are rarely truly radical, yet, over time they will encourage a radical departure from ‘the norm’. Hence, in reflection, it will look like a revolution occurred.

To get started let’s go to one of the most demonized radicals of all time – Saul Alinsky. In 1971 he wrote a book called “Rules for Radicals: a Pragmatic Guide for Realistic Radicals.” The reality is that most of his ideas were not particularly radical nor was he much of a radical. He was a community activist seeking to empower the ‘community’ to take back some power from the institutions. Needless to say, institutions didn’t like this and, therefore, he was a radical and his ideas and thinking were ‘radical.’

Which leads me to why radical is so scary.

Radical implies anti-status quo. Anyone residing, with benefits from, within the status quo hates ‘radicals’ and fears ‘revolutions.’ Simplistically, its all trouble and that trouble is created by troublemakers. Suffice it to say, trouble is found in the nuance. As John Lewis said “making good trouble” is what progress is all about. Shit. I would argue good trouble is found in the basis of doing the business of good business. What do I mean? Hearkening back to good ole Saul Alinsky, almost 10 years ago I used his ‘radical ideas’ to make a point about how to conduct business successfully in my piece “a pragmatic primer for business radicals.” That said. Revolutions are never particularly selective in their affect. Therein lies the fear of. Revolutions start with some, fairly simplistic, ‘radical idea’ – which is actually a fairly simple well embraced existing concept – and then, well, you are never really quite sure where it will go and expand its effect into. And that is what makes revolutions so scary (and radicals).

“Every important institution in the public life of the nation – education, employment, unions, churches, entertainment, housing, politics, commerce, investment, welfare, transportation, public accommodations – is immediately affected by this revolution, and this revolution will not spend its course until every such institution surrenders to its objectives.”

Revolutions are social events with social dynamics and, well, institutions are made up of people who interact and these institutions are only effective if they do things in a dynamic way. I imagine the scariness resides in ‘losing power’ or ‘losing control’ (2 things inextricably linked) and any true radical, and radical idea, is always interested in changing the way a system works or does things, i.e., challenge existing power and control. With that I bring in the next scary person – Marx. To be clear. Simply because I reference Marx or admit to reading Marx makes me a Marxist or even a Communist. That may sound radical, but its not. anyway.  Virtually all revolutions revolve around the individual right to self-define one’s situation and possibilities for behavior and the definition of the boundaries and rights of the greater ‘We’ that self is associated with. I would suggest any of the famous ‘radicals’ emerge from the basic belief that people are enabled to self-create their own rules of maximizing potential. Just as a reminder, nobody ever creates rules from nothing in an empty space, i.e., the system or the status quo exists and inflicts their rules on individuals. Reminder. Karl Marx said human beings make their history themselves, but they do not do so voluntarily, not under circumstances of their own choosing, rather under immediately found, given and transmitted circumstances. Yeah. So, radicals seek to change the underlying circumstances.

Which leads me to who is a radical.

I have said, many times, anyone can be a radical.

“Look. I believe everyone is a potential revolutionary. What I mean by that is I believe everyone has the ability to be a revolutionary given the interest to engage. Sometimes you join a revolution or sometimes the revolution is within oneself. From a personal perspective you must ask whether school, community, work, life, etc. produces what we wish humanity to be made of and, if it is not, what we wish and what do we need to change – AND what your place is within that. The reality is many things can change society, but I would argue it always begins in one place – the world as it is and you. You can wish it was different, but “the world as it is” is kinda stubborn.”

 I would argue a radical with a valid idea is how progress is nudged along. I would also argue that the power of any radical, and radical idea, is found in evidence; not feelings. In today’s fragmented world this becomes a relatively important point because proof is relational in character and the success as an instrument of mindset & behavioral change is dependent on the criteria the audience assesses the evidence. We often assume scientific proof transcends culture and politics, but that is not true in today’s world. Well. That is not true for people blinded by the status quo and the existing institutional ‘rules of believing.’ The reality is there is no self-evident truth and radicals create contexts where truths do become more evident.  The challenge is, when assessments of evidence are subordinated to system or institutional considerations, the evidence almost has to be framed as radical in order to be heard. Maybe my point here is a radical is someone who seeks to open the closed existing universe to other possibilities. A radical points out how freedom is oppressed, how ideas are oppressed, and maybe most importantly, how potential is oppressed. I use oppressed because that is where ‘revolution’ comes in. It is within this idea where different ideas battle each other for a future unifying truth where people can be organized to change the system which changes society.  Radicals are effective at sensemaking. They narrate an idea which enables some common sensemaking in order to have effective collective and overall choicemaking. I would argue at the core of any revolution is the idea that within the status quo, the existing system, a person isn’t really free, doesn’t really have full freedom, and doesn’t really have the opportunity for full potential. Radicals are troublemakers in the sense they seek to break out of the existing cage. To be clear, I don’t think seeking freedom is radical.

===

“Every revolution promises paradise.”

William Stringfellow

Which leads me to ‘what is the solution revolutions and radical seek?’

Maybe the solution resides in making sense of the same planet, and community environment, we all live on and in. The reality is 99% of people have a reason for why they think the way they think. Maybe if we better understand what people think now about the world, where they would like the world to be and why the world hasn’t got there, we can begin having some pragmatic conversations about, well, the real world.

Let me say, while this is a sweeping generalization, the main way to connect with someone quickly is to do something or say something that appeals to “me.” Me as in self-interest, self-esteem, self-view and self-actualization.  That may sound like a selfish world view, but it really isn’t. It isn’t as cold & harsh as “what’s in it for me?” as the foundation for all attitudes & behaviors, but rather it is a nuanced world view of individual survival within a larger world – a world which can seem quite uncertain. If I think I am seeing the real world crumbling or spinning out of control in its orbit, and I only view people as far right or far left radicals where I am the only one who can think independently, I then see it as a threat to my interests and ultimately my survival <survival can be physiologically or culturally>. Therefore, I am going to want to be part of a world in which an orbit is established, general prosperity & fairness <however that world may establish it>  exists, and a place where it appears my world view and wealth survival is insured. To be clear. This may sound like ignorant close-minded thinking or simply stagnant status quo thinking or simply ‘conserving and no progress,’ but it is not that clear cut. There is a bit of tug of war between what to conserve and what to gain progress on. I say that because “what’s in it for me?” sounds too small for what I view as ‘alternate world thinking’ or even ‘revolutions,’ but any ‘radical idea’ always has to address ‘what’s in it for me’ to gain any traction. The pragmatic truth is self-interest always incorporates some progress because all people always want the future to be better than the present which demands some progress. And maybe I add that because I think far, far, too often radicals are seen as “I” people when in reality the true radicals, and the true revolutions, are collective self-interested people working together for a greater collective change.

Let me end with a Limits of Growth thought: systems pursue their own Goals. Yeah. Systems, and institutions, tend to pursue goals which are not necessarily good for the common wealth and mental well being. Radicals tend to point that out and revolutions tend to want to rearrange those systems. And maybe that is why we should celebrate troublemakers just a bit more. I think we all know the more a society postpones problems, the more likely it is to run into multiple simultaneous, and larger, problems later. In other words, postponing the problem makes it worse. Radicals don’t want to postpone addressing problems. Ponder.

————————

Come as you are, as you were

As I want you to be

As a friend, as a friend

As a known enemy

Take your time, hurry up

The choice is yours, don’t be late

“come as you are”: Nirvana

————————–

The world, and society, can make Life a bitch to live sometimes.

Be yourself … but behave like we want you to behave.

Think for yourself … but here is how we think you should think.

Be different … but remember we love consistency.

The world expects you to be an individual and even encourages uniqueness in a variety of ways and, yet, encourages a high degree of sameness, i.e., conformity. All the expectations create a shitload of personal conflict on what to do, how to act and what is right & wrong.

The lines in all of this are thin. Frightfully thin. And, yet, day in and day out we are often walking this thin line.

Life can also throw in an additional curveball.

While encouraging you to believe that the choice, and choices, are all yours to make, uhm, it also says don’t be late. In other words, take your time, but hurry up. Life suggests you make your choices wisely, but fast. Let us call this “patient urgency” or maybe even “make haste slowly“. As a consequence of this constant suggestion to hurry up, we tend to lean on past experiences.

Uh oh <part 1>. There is a gap between the actual experience and the memory of the experience. Experience, more often than not, is complex while our memory, more often than not, is simplified into some executive summary of the experience <let’s call it a memory imprint>.

Uh oh <part 2>. There may actually be a gap between the complexities in reality and our ability to realistically experience it. Let’s just say that we tend to view reality heuristically <mainly because of that ‘make your choice but hurry’ thing>, i.e., shortcut thinking. What this means is that we don’t truly see reality, but rather a simplified translation. Unfortunately, this simplified version naturally incorporates some blind spots and lots of mis-perceptions. In other words, we often see what we want to see, not what really is.

<note: there is a boatload of research on this>

Suffice it to say all of this makes Life complicated.

It makes being yourself, while trying to understand who you really are, complicated. And it gets even more complicated by the whole “don’t be late on choices” because it means relying on past experiences and judging off of past outcomes which, unfortunately, none of which are reflective of the here & now choice.

What does this all come down to? Us. In order to survive we recognize our only friend is us and our only enemy is us. We battle against … well … us … as Life looks on and chuckles.

We simplify only to find it is complex.

We seek consistency only to realize ignoring change is actually a threat.

All that said.

I loved the line “come as you are, come as you were.” Day in and day out we change little by little. We come as we are as well as come as we were basically accumulating and deleting day by day. If you think about this, I imagine a relatively intelligent person would start questioning why you would base any choice off of some past experience.

And therein lies the answer to why Life can be such a bitch to live.

Like it or not each choice is mutually exclusive. Each choice has some expiration time <of which is rarely printed on the choice>. In addition. Each choice is influenced by two people – the friend and enemy within you.

Sound fucked up? Well. All you can do is, well, come as you are and make your choice best as you can. Ponder.

===

“If the world isn’t sane, technology will not solve it.”

Jaron Lanier

===

“The new technology mimes the prime procedure of human learning and knowing.”

Marshall McLuhan 1968

===

The title of this piece is a play on Kevin Kelly’s book “What Technology Wants.” The alternative title to this piece was I thought a lot of wrong good things.

When technology first arrived on the scene, particularly in terms of ubiquitous networks, social media, emails, anything internet based, I felt like many problems would be solved, civilization would just get smarter, we would make better societal decisions, and the world would just become a better place. I never believed that everything would be solved and we would attain some utopia, but like many of us, I was envisioning a better world because of this ubiquitous technology. And while many things have improved, and certainly foundationally, we still have the opportunity to significantly improve globally and societally, some things have certainly gone wrong. In many cases very wrong. I’m not sure I got the following things wrong, but I certainly overlooked what could affect the arc of the goodness. So, to paraphrase Marshall Mcluhan, let’s now take a quick tour of the walls knocked over by technology.

The first thing I can point to is money. Somehow, I seem to forget that, well, ideas are usually beneficiary agnostic and typically created with a specific benefit in mind that the people who use them will seek to make money from those ideas. So, inevitably what happens is the sincerely good ideas for society that cannot make somebody significant wealth may not completely go away, but they certainly do not end up at the forefront. Therefore, the other ideas, regardless of whether they’re good for society or not, are wielded as tools of gaining wealth. And as we all know wealth is amoral. It does not care how you attain it. I’m not sure that I’m naïve, or was naïve, I think I felt like technology itself, and maybe even ideas, had more power than humans. I think this point alone should remind all of us that the future really is not about technology, the future is in the heads and the minds of humans.

The second thing I got wrong was most likely driven by the fact that I am not a technology person despite the fact I talk about how technology affects society, humans, progress, and economics. I did know the technology would be subverted into economic endeavors. It made sense to me mostly because I felt like many of the tools that were being developed could navigate the efficacy path and actually improve communication, work and information flow. But, as I pointed out in the first thing, as soon as technology enters into the economic sphere money subverts its use towards, well, money. But that’s not the point of the second thing I was wrong about. I thought that the knowledge evenly distributed, and information evenly distributed, would make the intellectual tide rise higher. And as intellectual tide rose we would, generally speaking, have better sensemaking skills, we would make better choices, and some of the better things for society would just become more obvious to more people. I’m not suggesting that I felt or believed that technology would make democracy ubiquitous across the globe, but I did feel regardless of an individual country’s ideology, within those constructs, better decisions and better choices would be made. The world would not be perfect, but it would certainly be better. My lack of understanding of technology itself and algorithms and what we now call artificial intelligence bit me in the ass on this one. Information was never evenly distributed and, in fact, incorrect information tended to be more amplified and distributed. And, worse, I didn’t recognize incorrect information absorbed would become an attractor for technology to actually feed more incorrect information to anyone who initially absorbed the former. And while I’m a student of Alvin Toffler, and I clearly understood his point of view with regard to cognitive overstimulation, I imagine I did not see his point with true clarity until reality struck. The reality that the ubiquitous information machine was just simply too overwhelming for almost everyone’s brains to cognitively to assimilate in any useful way in addition to the fact technology wasn’t going to help us along the way. I never envisioned technology would step in and amplify a significant number of incredibly crazy stuff which created the cloud over the incredibly non crazy smarter stuff which would have made a better society.

The third thing I missed was how innovation relentlessly pursued incremental consumer quasi-improvements and wants instead of actual needs. Yeah. At the core of this is of course making money. That said. I imagine I focused too much on the potential good things rather than the sheer quantity of the less-than-useful versus not-the-best-but-good. Technology innovations tended to be incremental, asymmetrical, and relentless. Their work was not done in giant leaps, but in relentless, small, almost unnoticeable, increments. Platforms were developed to absorb the onslaught of new technological widgets, but even the platforms became overwhelmed. Maybe that is one of my points. If the technologists were incapable of figuring out how to manage technological innovations, what chance did the everyday human have? As a subset in this was how I didn’t envision the speed of obsolescence. What I mean by that is in the race to get things to market even the really good things technology did and offered became obsolete in the blink of an eye. Because most of the technology was actually incremental it became incredibly easy to make them obsolete with other incremental improvements. This had cascading consequences on both business and people. Business, once they had made a financial commitment, their commitment was for the most part unmoving. Their commitments, for the most part, couldn’t easily absorb the new innovations so they simply, pragmatically, accepted where they were as an improvement from where they had been. They had to accept better, but not the best, all the while wallowing in the anxiety that someone, somewhere, was better. As for people, once they learned something, there was something else they had to learn – at speed. There was no time to develop an integrated routine. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out all of this is good things happening, i.e., truly better technology – with some bad consequences. Asymmetrical adoption, inconsistent application, shifting foundational knowledge, it was almost like quicksand of general cognitive stress and anxiety that we were always behind. My point is while technology has wrought a lot of wrong, the underpinnings are still good, i.e., there is a lot of wheat amongst the chaff.

Still. But. I thought a lot wrong about good things happening.

Still. But. I am actually suggesting my thinking wasn’t wrong about technology, it was more about size and speed. What I mean by that is small things are different than when they are large. A tribe is, well, a tribe, but a mega-city is a mega-city – made up of multiple tribes interacting, cultures within cultures and communities within communities. I forgot social dynamics. This isn’t about complexity, or complicated, or even chaos, this is simple social dynamics. Platforms started for small, like-minded groups. They had some set of shared expectations, but when the ‘small community’ grew past their original audiences into wider audiences, and often at exponential pace, money took over some of the internal ‘scale’ aspects and expectations were subverted and no one had any time to say “hold on a second.” Regardless. Any smaller community will be affected by interaction with the larger community – especially if that larger community spans the globe. Any smaller community will be affected even if they rage against the larger machine because, well, the machine has learned to feed off that rage (Liv Boeree).

===

“The universe has no single secret. It does not even hold a single nest of secrets to which some one study holds the key.”

Mary Midgley

===

Which leads me to what I want from technology (and, hopefully, what we all want).

The only way for “us” to bring about a better future is through some sort of technological humanism.

To make that case — ultimately a case for restraint and more considered progress – we should build an optimistic story of how humanity would use technology to solve problems and thrive and that it can be integral in bringing in about visions of a fairer, more equitable future. I don’t believe technology is “the savior”, but I still believe technology can be integral to a better future.

“Survival now would seem to depend upon the extension of consciousness itself as environment.” Marshall McLuhan 1972

Yeah. I’m writing this and I’m not a technologist, but certainly of a generation that was technological optimistic, curious and ready to implement, with best intentions and some pretty good tactical objectives, some amazing things.

I tend to believe, at that time, most people thought technology was created to solve problems and in solving those problems society and the world would just become better. That didn’t exactly happen and I would argue that somewhere along the way society’s natural inclination for dystopian thinking overcame any quasi-utopian futuristic objectives, i.e., we focused on the bad consequences rather than the good consequences, so that all technology was seen as having a negative effect. As usual, a healthy future is found somewhere in between.

To be clear (part 1). I always, unequivocally, thought move fast and break things was only the harbinger of some unforeseen, but inevitable, doom. To be clear (part 2). I don’t think we are residing in a world of doom, but we certainly haven’t attained the drastically improved society of people living in harmony that many of us envisioned would occur. Part of the issue, as I have noted a number of times in the past, is that many of us were confident a better society would simply emerge. We were wrong. Not that the good parts of society do not exist, but maybe because technology had a nasty habit of over-empowering the more nasty parts of society. Or maybe 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 and (b) show a scenario to society at large that they would incrementally nudge themselves toward somewhere within the 30000 decisions they make daily. This mistake was we treated everything as positively emergent. And in that space, I was wrong. Horribly wrong (a pragmatic business lesson lurks within there).

All that said. I imagine one of my larger points would be that rather than dwelling in the despair and the dystopian view of technology, maybe more of us should take a step back and remember the technology can offer all the positive benefits that we dreamed of at the very very beginning. Technology has never lost its ability to create a better society. Technology has never lost its ability to ensure a smarter, more intelligent, more critical thinking, public. Technology remains an incredibly useful and powerful tool to enable a better society. I say all that despite all the negative things that technology has wrought.

Let’s be clear though. The future does not really reside in technology. The future resides in humans. Decide what we want society to be, what we want civilization to be, how to be able to make people better thinkers, better sensemakers, better choicemakers, is a human choice. I am not suggesting a one worldview. I am not suggesting some global government. All I’m suggesting is that humans can decide what a good human should be. And then we design technology to enable that.

Even with all I have said today, while some technology has created some problems, we clearly are very dependent on the advantages and benefits it has provided. I imagine tucked in all the issues is a truth that the solutions technology provides outweigh the problems it has created. That doesn’t mean we should only focus on the benefits nor does it mean we should focus only on the problems, just that we should maintain some perspective.

Personally, I believe we society people and technology are in the liminal space – possibly the space defined by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock. What I mean by that is all the shock aspects that he outlined are exploding in this time in space that we live in. Or as Czech president Vaclav Havel said:

“It is as if something were crumbling, decaying and exhausting itself – while something else still indistinct were rising from the rubble.”

With that I will end with Marshall McLuhan.

“Perhaps the terrifying thing about the new media for most of us is their inevitable evocation of irrational response. The irrational has become the major dimension of experience in our world. And yet this is a mere byproduct of the instantaneous character in communication. It can be broad under rational control. It is the perfection of the means which has so far defeated the end, and removed the time necessary for assimilation and reflection. We are now compelled to develop new techniques of perception and judgment, new ways of reading the languages of our environment with its multiplicity of cultures and disciplines. In these needs are not just desperate remedies but roads to unimagined cultural enrichment.”

Ah. “Roads to unimagined cultural enrichment.”

I imagine I purposefully end on an optimistic note because in the end I believe technology has the means to offer more good than bad. Ponder.

===

“The worst type of crying wasn’t the kind everyone could see—the wailing on street corners, the tearing at clothes. No, the worst kind happened when your soul wept and no matter what you did, there was no way to comfort it. A section withered and became a scar on the part of your soul that survived. “

Katie McGarry

===

Ok. I almost called this “what is your soul’s value?” but ‘value parasites’ was too good a thought to pass on. Within the context of ‘what are you willing to sell your soul for’ I will explain value parasites later on.

This isn’t a religious post.

Nor is this about selling your soul to the devil.

Its nothing really that deep.

Ok.

Maybe its deep, just not that kind of deep.

This is simply about how far someone is willing to go to sell something.  Or maybe better said how far someone will go to get money, or fame or power or something they desire. This includes business (the company as well as the company you keep). You see money, fame, power as heaven and, well, find yourself in hell.

“Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.”

Mark Twain

Don’t get me wrong.

I like fame. But not all fame is equal. Fame in terms of recognition amongst valued peers is different than fame in terms of followers non TikTok.

I like money. But not all money is equal. Some money fills your soul and some empties your soul.

People who define themselves solely by money can argue this until they are blue in the face. In fact there is even a selling “event” called selling your soul.

“The live Selling Your Soul event in NYC is over, and we’re all rolling on a wave of vivid business-building bliss. It was a high-gloss experience, where we intimately unpacked Burning Questions on messaging, marketing + online money-making, the myth of work-life “balance,” fearless price-raising, prosperous collaborating, and getting Witnessed for what you’re worth.”

Attitudinally one of the owners summarizes it by “I make my own economy.”

But (to be fair). That same owner uses money to balance her principles compass: “I kicked off GirlUp with their first substantial donation, proving once again that lots of cash can = lots of impact. Philanthropy is the bottom line.”

I would argue with the owner in that philanthropy is not her bottom line. Her bottom line is money and she uses her money to create some semblance of balance to justify her attitude toward accumulating money. I feel fairly confident in saying that because her website is strewn with words & thoughts that her soul is defined by a combination of fame & fortune. For her, soul is not based on some moral or purpose-driven principles but rather by outcomes, i.e., fame and fortune. I will say this several times, but this is an individual choice and while I may believe this is ‘selling out’ many other people see this as selling to find personal value.

Regardless. I wish it were that easy for me. Because it is not.

I certainly recognize the choices. Who wouldn’t want to be recognized or have a generous income or a dream vacation home?

Face it.  We all do.

But at what price? And does the end justify the means?

And that is what I mean by emptying your soul or filling your soul. Because in the end you are judging your actions not by tangible things, but the intangible balance of self worth (I purposefully chose ‘worth’ because it is some combination of fruits of labor and self esteem).

I have seen how people justify their decisions a variety of ways:

• winning

Its all about winning. To them all winning is good and there is no such a thing as a bad win. People who define their soul by winning don’t see ‘bad wins’ and only see the alternative as being a loser. Unfortunately, they neglect any principles compass and forget how you play the game matters.

• money

the thought that everything leads to some magical pot of money that will erase all of their problems. These people believe that fancy cars, designer clothes and big houses will make life better. To these people there is no such thing as too much and ‘more’ defines everything they do.

• fame

the spotlight is a dazzling drug. Unfortunately, that spotlight can blind you to the wreckage around you. But to the one seeking fame that is the beauty of being in the spotlight – the only thing you can see under that glaring light is yourself. What can I say. I guess if you really want someone to worship you, consider becoming a benevolent dictator.

• laziness

these are the ones who play the roulette wheel of short cuts to fame and fortune. Sometimes they hit the big win, but more likely they keep losing (but blame the game). I will note the laziest thing you can do with your life is to graduate from an average college, get an average desk job and live out the rest of your life like an average person. That said. Anything beyond ‘average’ takes work, a lot of hard work, with no guarantees of growing wealth or fame, but you will grow, and travel a road that holds some of the most beautiful views in the world.

Oh. And the worst of all? Maybe it’s you want people to like you so you sell your soul to the highest bidder.

To be clear there is always social pressure to fit in, to be recognized, and believe in some form or fashion that you fit into the identity of a particular social stratum. The danger in that social pressure is that we become, as a sociologist suggested, “value parasites.” The people within the segments that I outlined above are typically drawing their consciousness from association with what they perceive as the dominant classes in society and in doing so cultivate a variety of fictional markers of their own identity. It is always within these social strata that people begin the quest for some symbolic capital to find significance.

Anyway.

In the end I know the decision I have made.  And that is always to be true to myself.  Tell the truth.  And seek good wins (not any win). And I have found I cannot work places that don’t feel the same way. Not really just because of me, but because it doesn’t create a corporate culture which I like nor a culture which I ultimately believe is healthy.

And lastly. And maybe most importantly to me. I worry ‘leaders’ (and I use that term loosely in this situation) simply do not recognize the repercussions of their decision to ‘sell out.’ And that is a shame.

“The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way.” 

William James

“Habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way” as the hell we make for ourselves.

Whew.

I do not believe ‘what is the value of our soul’ or ‘being directed by your inner principled behavior compass’ could ever be articulated better.

Look. We are all sales people in some form or fashion. Mostly that comes to life in the fact we sell our ideas, thoughts and attitudes. Conversely, the world and everyone else is trying to sell you, or sell you on, something.

Be yourself.

Say no and mean it.

Subdue that which tries to destroy you – the temptation to do what you know is wrong.  You are doing nothing, but being untrue to yourself if you get blinded by money or fame. In every decision each person has to hold on to the core value of what defines themselves at their soul.

These decisions either diminish or grow your soul. In other words, you either expand self or reduce self. Both, paradoxically, challenge what is at your ‘center.’ We all have scars on parts of our soul that has survived some of the crappy decisions we have made. And maybe that is my point. Be careful what you sell, it can scar you. Ponder.

I have “seek truth” in my office.

I believe in speaking the truth.

I believe the truth is the only path to a clear conscience.

I believe truth has consequences just as non-truth can have consequences.

And then a reader on enlightened conflict reminded me that even the truth can be twisted.

Rodrigo commented:

While reading this part: “And to some extent he is saying all the correct things. But he is not correct.” I remembered one of the best ads I have ever seen.

It is from a major brazillian news paper (Folha de São Paulo). I found one with english subtitles… it gives me goosebumps everytime I see. I am sure you will like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqA6HcxgcY

First.

It is a fabulous ad. But maybe more important is the lesson that lies within.

He is saying all the correct things, but he is not correct.

Second.

Truth is sometimes not the whole truth.

Context and perspective is needed to share “real & absolute truth.”

Truth is the sum of accurate information … not just some of the accurate information:

“I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.”

Margaret Mead

It is a tricky world we live in.

The ad reminds us it has ALWAYS been a tricky world.

Discerning the real truth among the seeming truth takes work.

A lot of work.

And I sometimes believe we people are lazy when it comes to truth.

Because we are just too lazy to attach facts to the soundbite truth we latch on to.

And, once again, I do not believe it is simply a present issue (albeit that is the one we should be most concerned with) it is a lifelong human issue, but seemingly a bit more ominous an issue in the present.

Truth and facts.

“The national argument right now is, one, who’s got the truth and, two, who’s got the fact. Until we can manage to get the two of them back together again, we’re not going to make much progress.”

This was Michael Adams, lexicology professor at North Carolina State University, discussing the neologism “truthiness”, defined as “the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts” in “Linguists Vote ‘Truthiness’ Word of 2005”, AP via Yahoo! News, (6 January 2006)]

Here is a fact. A truth I may add.

We all need truth goggles.

Because we all want to hear what we all want to hear.

And it is easy to take the ‘easy truth.’

But truth takes a discerning ear.

And it takes some work … by using a filter.

From Buffy the Vampire Slayer (who thought I would ever use a quote from there, huh?):

What do you want me to say?

• Buffy: Lie to me.

The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.

• Buffy: Liar.

Simplistic but a good lesson for all of us.

The good guys are difficult to discern from the bad guys.

Therefore truth is difficult to discern.

And if we cannot discern the difference between the good guys truth and the bad guys truth, how the hell can we discern the difference between 2 good guys truth.

What do I mean?

Well.  Think about the current American politics. Shit. Or Brazilian politics.  Or European politics.

Are these all “bad guys”? Certainly not. They mean well. They want good things (mostly). So how the hell do we discern the truth as they give us soundbite after soundbite.

There is even a website called Snopes (excellent) which is all about “sorting out the truth.”

Ok. In some warped way this bothers me. We need someone to “sort out the truth” for us?  Is it supposed to be this complicated? Isn’t ‘truth’ supposed to be simple?

Sorry Bruce, but it isn’t.

And maybe that just bothered me, but here is what scares me.

I have an increasing sense that the majority doesn’t care to learn the real truth.

Remember. At one point in the 2012 US election cycle 47% of US population could not name a Republican candidate. Uhm. 47%.

If we don’t care, if we are this apathetic, how the hell can we ever discern the truth?

So let me tell you what scares me the most when I think about this factoid (among others).

That Brazilian newspaper ad.

And where truth and ignorance collide.

If we cannot discern good guys from bad guys.

If we don’t even put the effort forth to learn who the good guys are from the bad guys.

If we cannot discern real truth.

If we don’t even put forth the effort to discern the real truth.

If we allow ignorance to overcome truth.

And if we allow someone who says all the correct things but is not correct to become a leader?

Well. Shame on us. All of us. We have permitted ignorance & indolence to win over truth.

I say all this because truth is important.

Not just in terms of self.  But in terms of the world all of our ‘selves’ reside in. it impacts how we live and where we live and what kind of world we live in. Let’s call that consequences.

Take the time to attach real facts to spoken ‘truth.’

Become invested in truth.

For ‘not being invested in truth’ has consequences.

Yeah.

I will say it again.

Truth takes work, but seek truth. It leads to goodness & better things. Those are good consequences. The alternative consequences are, well, bad (or not as good).

Truth. As Taoism will remind you … you have a choice. Which will you choose? Ponder.

“Choosing to be one who just wants to live to be old or instead being true.”

———–

===

“More and more I’ve become convinced that the great treasure to possess is the unknown.”

P. L. Travers

———–

Ok. We spend a lot of time in today’s world discussing a couple of things:

– Wealth:

accumulation and what is too much, who deserves what and what is valuable

It is natural to want to have a ‘treasure chest.’ And it is natural to look at other people’s treasures.

– Measurable outcomes:

objectives, milestones, tangible proof points

It is natural that in a world where pretty much everything seems in flux that we want to have some things that are tangible to measure progress and ‘what is.’

I begin there to suggest maybe because we are so obsessed with those things we over look that maybe the greatest treasure we possess is the unknown.

Uhm.

The unknown?

What could be … and what will be.

In other words – possibilities (not certainties).

I know. I know.

That is crazy talk.

Ok. Maybe it is a crazy thought.

How can something that isn’t real <yet> or something that you can’t articulate or hold or show be the greatest treasure?

This kind of suggests that curiosity is a valuable characteristic <not necessarily actual knowledge>.

This kind of suggests is what you don’t know is more valuable than what you do know.

This kind of suggests the highest value, and valued, things in Life aren’t what you currently have but something that could be presented to you n the future.

Regardless.

I imagine there has to be some balance (or at least proportional) between pragmatism and possibilities and between curiosity & knowledge <unknown and known>

That said. Within that balance, the liminal space or maybe the space between here and there I also would suggest resides a some sense of courage. Courage to accept the unknown, i.e., that there is nothing but this uncomfortable space called ‘the unknown’ <and some hope that something will be known at some point> and yet you can accept at some point that all is lost … and yet you forge on.

————-

“Nothing is lost if one has the courage to proclaim that all is lost and we must begin anew.”

Cortázar

————–

Yes.

I know.

It is quite possible I am making unknown sound daunting and with some taint of being lost or, worse, being nowhere, but in that possibility resides something. Something like … the bliss found in the unknown and the search and discovery of things yet to be known, uhm, possibilities.

Yes.

Yes.

I understand that the point of the quote isn’t really about residing in a world where one is completed blanketed in unknown but rather that there is a treasure to be found in things yet to be learned and explored and experienced. But I purposefully put an edge on the thought to make a point.

The point is that we put a really high value on ‘known’ in today’s world.

How much you know.

How much people can see what you know.

This means that we put a really high negative price toward what is unknown in today’s world. We make it clearly a personal deficiency or a ‘less than’ feature and often suggest unknown makes a person flawed in some way.

And both of those things are true from a societal judgement perspective.

Society does not make it easy to embrace unknown as a treasure.

Therefore to choose to think of unknown as a great treasure to possess you need to be prepared to often walk the path alone with many people pointing fingers at you <wagging usually> and many others deciding that you have failed in some way.

It is not failure. It is a choice.

A choice to believe that the Unknown is a treasure.

Ponder.

=====

“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.”

Henry Clay

====

ah. “When statistics get in the way of a good decision.” Let me get this out of the way upfront. I like numbers. I have an Economics undergraduate and accounting and statistics  accounted for several of my <of the few> good grades in college.

I like that if you weave your way through numbers they can tell you things that can inspire the ‘real’ thought.

I like the fact that numbers can sway an “I think” based opinion to a “here is what I know” based opinion.

That said. I purposefully used Henry Clay (so think maybe 1800 as to date of the quote) so that some contemporary statistical wonk doesn’t come out of the woodwork saying something along the lines of “statistics have only evolved in the last 20 years” or something crazy like that. “We have never had better data to make decisions from than today!” <with the exclamation mark> is a statement that was as true in 1800 as it is in 2000’s and as it was in 100 BC.

This is an eternal issue.

People have looked at statistics since the time good ole Adam started calculating how many apples fell out of the tree to figure out how often he was gonna get laid. Henry Clay just had the luck to be quoted on it.

So before I begin my rant let me say, yes, I get decision-making is a cognitive process where the outcome is a choice between alternatives. And that numbers can play a role. I also get that people have different preferences as to how to approach decision making and that there will always be a varying degree between thinking and feeling and numbers and experiential. And I do believe all decisions, at least the worthwhile ones, have to incorporate some sense of logical decision-making. Logic in that we seek to exclude <or marginalize> emotions <as well as personal biases> and try to use only rational methods <perhaps even mathematical/statistical tools> with the intent to isolate what is typically called the decision utility.

I get all that.

Oh. And, by the way, I hope no one tries to dump the whole your view is driven by whether you are “left brain/right brain” mumbo jumbo on me because science has already proven that is an urban myth. There is no right brain left brain.

And. There is no “numbers are facts” crap.

Yeah. On that last one.

==========

“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.”

Gregg Easterbrook

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

Sure. Numbers don’t lie. But they also don’t tell you what to do.

Now, in saying that, let me suggest why I believe this statistical ‘torturing numbers’ issue has been an issue for eternity.

The thought: many people don’t want to make decisions. Okay. Maybe people just get nervous with accountability and use statistics to make the decision; not inform a decision.

Why? There are boatloads of reasons, but suffice it to say that without using numbers you are getting paid (or at least judged) not just on decision-making skills, but on your judgment skills. That means accountability is solely on you (the person).

Think about that. But also think about this (as you get judged). The following is an explanation on decision making using statistics:

Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory

I’d like to start today’s lecture with a reminder about something I said a long time ago when we finished our survey of population viability analysis. Population viability analysis is best seen not as a way of garnering precise predictions about the fate of a population but as a way of ensuring that all relevant life-history variables have been considered, that they have been considered efficiently, and that we have a reasonable sense of the trajectory that the population is likely to follow if current trends continue. It provides a way of structuring our thinking about the problem. That’s precisely the way I think we should regard the approach to decision making that I’m about to describe.

One of the most difficult tasks facing conservation biologists, as I have emphasized repeatedly, is that decisions must often, perhaps usually, be made in the face of woefully inadequate data.

<ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>

So. From that incredibly dry mind numbing analysis of statistical decision theory they dropped this little bombshell in toward the end of the ‘how to use statistics’:

There is the recognition from statistics that there are two types of errors we can make in evaluating an hypothesis:

–          We may say that something is happening when it isn’t (Type I), or

–          We may say that something isn’t happening when it is (Type II).

Say what?

=====

“The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.”

Robert Heinlein

(I wish I had written this in response to the statistical theory thingamajig)

Ok. What that means (to those of you solely dependent upon statistics). You may use the statistics to prove something is or isn’t happening and it may not be happening or it is happening <anyone now wonder why statisticians are avoided?>.

Anyway. I will back off the ‘accountability through numbers folk’ for a second. Trying to give statistical-using people the benefit of the doubt, let’s think that maybe when you are stressed out, frankly, any option seems pretty good — especially one which seems factual (numbers seem more factual to people despite the fact that once you start combining them they become less factual). I imagine it is like someone dying of thirst and drinking from whatever looks like the safest pool.

Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.

And, unfortunately about this stress theory of mine, when the adrenaline from the stress wears out, you realized that the statistics you leaned on for the decision YOU made — were all bullshit (or someone points out they were bullshit when you actually invest some energy trying to explain them later).

And you are screwed. Screwed because of statistics (although people will inevitably try the “but the numbers told us what to do”).

Ok. Here is the good news (relatively speaking). You can do something about the stress decision making leaning on numbers thing.

Most people, given enough experience, become aware that stress can do a number on your decision-making skills.

How do I know? Well. Of course someone has done a study on it. Scientists have some statistical based thinking about exactly how stress screws up your ability to make decisions. According to ScienceDaily, psychologists Mara Mather and Nichole R. Lighthall (who completed a review of the literature on stress and decisions) they found that, even though you’d think being stressed would turn people into pessimists and therefore more careful, stress actually makes us focus too much on the upside of our decisions. Says Mather, “Stress seems to help people learn from positive feedback and impairs their learning from negative feedback.”

Uh oh. That sucks <maybe you cannot do something about the bad stress decision making thing>.

Nuts.

I guess my point in bringing up the study is that maybe under stress it is easier to grab on to statistics to make a decision <all the while thinking positive thoughts> and therefore avoided the judgment call on your own.

Uh oh (again).

Look. I was wrong. You can do something about this judgment thing. Judgment isn’t easy, but at some point you are accountable <or you should be> and hiding behind statistics just won’t hack it.

As Yoda would say “the answers are within you.” The key to making a smart decision is giving yourself the time to gather all the information you need <and, yes, that can include statistics> and move forward with whatever proactive thinking method approach you have some confidence in and make a decision.

A daunting decision doesn’t have to put you in an analysis paralysis death grip.

Use a logical decision-making method to help you evaluate your choices and pull the trigger.

And make a decision.

And not let statistics make the decision for you.

Here is the net on statistics: It helps us formalize and categorize our thinking to make sure that we have considered all relevant possibilities.

Quantitative analysis should be viewed as explorations of possibilities; not hard predictions.

I believe being able to use numbers, and statistics, to explore possibilities is truly a skill <or an art>.

Not everyone can do it. Ok. Well. That’s not true. Anyone can do it, it’s just that not everyone can do it well.

Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.

In fact, just to circle back to the main topic of this post, let’s call it, well, judgment.

Yeah. Judging numbers. This means learning how to weigh the importance of one number versus another as well as learning which numbers are unimportant. To be honest, not many people have mastered that art.

But. That doesn’t mean everyone should get bogged down in statistics and numbers because if you do, yup, you can torture any decision you want out of numbers.

And, frankly, you are lying to yourself if you believe that is a decision. That is simply being a coward (in the decision making world). You have deferred decision to ‘numbers.’ And inevitably you are deferring accountability.

Sound harsh?

As harsh as this?

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

David Ogilvy

Harsh.

Sound like truth? Yup. Suffice it to say everyone should use numbers and statistics to inform decisions, but, inevitably, all good decisions demand some level of judgement. Ponder.

===

“Do you admire men of principle? That would depend, I suppose, upon what set of principles you’re speaking of.” Well. Don’t you find that principles inject an almost moribund inflexibility in the people who subscribe to them?”

The Hollow Men

===

“People do not seem to realise that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

===

I know optimists, pessimists, utopians, dystopians, skeptical, cynical and everything in-between. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that the bleak in the world seems more appealing to far more people than the hopeful. Regardless. Ralph has a point. Your opinion of the world is a glimpse into your character, or at least, how you go about your own business of the business of living life. And maybe that is something to reflect upon a bit. If you buy into the thought of an indifferent but bleakish, more unkind than kind, world, more than even thinking about doing or not doing, we should be thinking about the world in which WE reside, exist, survive or get the life sucked out of us. In other words, how we control our environment, i.e., the context in which we will have to make all those 30,000 daily choices. Uhm. In this case context is mindset.

So, the thought here is if the world is indifferent than it is also malleable to context – not the overall arc. In other words, you can shape, in some form or fashion, your situation. Not everything, but some things. In fact. I would argue that this is also a sliding scale in that in some situations you can control a shitload and in others you are hanging on for dear life to the few things you can control. But. Control is control and, especially if the world in indifferent, controlling some shit is better than controlling no shit.

Which leads me to controlling your attitude.

Here is a weird thought. Many people find the thought of the world being indifferent, well, an uncomfortable thought. So, they actively seek out narratives to explain the world in some weird ways. While the truth is that the world is increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to ‘see’ causes while there are hurricanes of effects buffeting us, we seek simplicity and simple answers. Its natural. But if your ‘simplicity’ is always zero-sum world, dystopia, greed, all the bad stuff, your simplicity is like exponential gravity and the arc of your world resides in a pretty dark place. I am not suggesting you immediately swing into some Pollyannish head space, but if you don’t believe things can be better, well, it is unlikely to get better.

“because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.”

Which leads me to failing.

In my mind, having an opinion of the world and your opinion of failing, or failure, has a direct connection. In Choose the Right Word by Hayakawa (almost my bible of word descriptions) “failing” fell under Flaw <wow … I could write an entire book over that little insight>. Flaw has a variety of aspects: blemish, defect, failing, fault, foible, imperfection, mar, shortcoming.

Regardless. Failure is a reflection of a flaw.

An imperfection (which seems okay).

A defect (which seems not okay).

Is failure a reflection of a defective product <product being, well, us – human, person>?

That seems harsh. Ok.  Maybe extreme. But. Maybe a bit true with regard to the context of opinion of the world. Yeah. In terms of “truth to oneself and how you shape your opinion of the world” think about this:

‘imperfection’ points more often to a lack that may be a matter of opinion

(Hayakawa)

Failure, on the other and, suggests a more severe shortcoming that has more severe consequences.

How ‘bout that? That kind of suggests if you have a failure in seeing the world in a positive way it will, well, have some severe consequences. That said. I do believe we should be better at understanding we have failings and they have consequences.

Now. Notice. Hayakawa never, anywhere, attached “negative” or “bad” adjectives to consequences. He simply points out that failures suggest shortcomings leading to consequences.

And that, my friends, is a Life truth.

We fail. The world fails.

It does not mean you are a failure nor does it mean the world is a failure.

And that is where I will end because I tend to believe if your opinion of the world is grounded in that last sentence, I tend to believe not only your own character will be just a bit less bleak but the world will inevitably be a little less bleak place to live. Ponder.

————————————

“every one of us stands alone on the heart of the earth,

Transfixed by a beam of sun;

And suddenly it is evening.”

Salvatore Quasimodo