—

 

“If it matters to you, it’s not stupid.”

 

=

via tea-storm

Ok.

This is about eliminating “that’s stupid” from our vocabulary. What inspired me to suggest this?

The quote above that I saw on tumblr.

What do I really believe about my ‘eliminating stupid’ idea? Well. Realistically … this suggestion has about as much chance as an ice cube in Hell.

However.

Conceptually … this suggestion has a lot of merit. Especially if you take it out of the external world and think about applying it internally – as in … with yourself.

So.

Let’s take a minute and talk about the internal aspect — the “me, myself & I are stupid” type shit we tell ourselves in our own heads. I would suggest that far too often we think something … and say ‘how could I be so stupid?’

But.

Most times it wasn’t stupid. Most times thinking about something is simply iterative. It gets you from point A to point B … and on and on and … well … you get it. It just gets you … ‘on.’ <as in ‘forward progress’>

If it matters enough for you to have thought about it … well … it really does  matter.

And it is not stupid. Value is in the thinking.

Look.

Trying to put a value on an individual thought is not only a slippery slope … but … well … stupid.

Ok.

Better said? … Worthless.

I say that because the Truth is an individual thought can rarely be assessed in a non-contextual way. In and of itself it may look of little value … it may even look stupid <in the moment> but in the grander scheme of things each thought is smartly leading to real thinking <and a real thought>. And real thinking is where individual thoughts can be made or broken. And, frankly, where you – your mind and how you think about yourself – get made or broken.

But suffice it to say … everything matters if it matters to you.

Ok.

But let me go to the external context for a minute. Huh? … How often do we say ‘that’s stupid’ when someone says something?

Alright … try this on for size.

We probably say it much less often than we think it. But does that make it any better?

Regardless.

Let me suggest … we think it a shitload of times.

Even if we are open minded, and being open minded, it is a knee jerk reaction <mentally>.

But.

Here is a Life truth you need to consider before you even think “biy, that’s stupid.”

Someone has chosen to speak a thought.

Someone has ‘braved’ the real world and opened their mind <and soul>.

So.

I would argue <and will> … if it matters … truly matters to that person … it is not stupid.

Additionally.

And we are stupid if we don’t think it matters.

Okay.

Maybe we aren’t stupid but rather displaying a fear or reluctance to make the effort to understand them.

Yup.

Fear they may be right <and we are wrong>.

Reluctance to change what we believe.

Therefore maybe WE are the stupid one.

Anyway … we just need to be more careful, or thoughtful, with regard to ‘that is stupid.’

I often believe this issue occurs because we have a habit of defining ‘smart’ in the wrong way. We judge smart on outcomes … and not process.

Yet.

Things are often not as they seem … people who seem to be doing something smart or stupid … may not be smart nor stupid.

Things, in a grander sense, are often not as they seem.

There is always more & changing information.

There is always more context to be gained.

There is often more to the story than what we initially hear.

So … in order to not be stupid you need to be … well … smart … as in being smart means not avoiding thinking.

Being smart means thinking things through.

Being smart is trying to find the real answer not the first answer.

Being smart means trying to understand what matters and what doesn’t.

Being smart means not jumping to conclusions.

Being smart is thinking “I don’t know” or “I am not sure.”

What’s not being smart?  Saying ‘That’s stupid.’ Why? Because “that’s stupid”, more often than not, is typically a reflection, a sign, for stopped thinking.

Yup.

A stop sign for thinking.

Lastly.

If none of that really mattered to you … take a second and think about how the words ‘that is stupid’ taste in your mouth <or mind>.

If they are words you savor … well … you are the stupid one.

Ok.

Maybe you are just an egotistical asshole.

Or worse?

You are being a shithole to yourself <if it is words you say to yourself in your mind>.

If the ‘you are stupid’ words just don’t feel good … or taste very good when spoken?

Good.

And think about it.

In the end.

Everything matters if it matters to you.

And. If you truly believe that?

From here on out … assuming that what someone says, and thinks, matters to them will help you become smarter as you think about what they actually said <and why they said it> rather than simply rejecting it.

Yeah.

Simplistically … believing everything matters may actually make you a better person.

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

“I’ve accepted that everyone in my life is bound to hurt me but now I have to figure out who’s worth suffering for.”

—–

Bob Marley (maybe said this)

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

Well.

When I saw the Marley quote the first time I thought about … well … ideas.

Ideas — thoughts about what to do as well as thoughts about oneself.

Uhm.

I would suggest that ideas … and thoughts about yourself … are inextricably linked together. I say that because behind every good idea, and bad idea, is some relationship between you <the idea creator> and someone else <a possible idea destroyer>.

Behind every good idea is a good friend.

Behind every bad idea, and thought, is a bad friend.

And you know what?

It could be exactly the same friend.

Friends have an incredible knack for exploiting the cracks & crevasses in ourselves.

Why do I think this happens?

People, humans, individuals, are much much better at destroying something than they are creating something.

It’s not that we enjoy destroying <although there is some inherent satisfaction in taking shit apart> but I just think <know> it is easier.

Why the hell wouldn’t do something that was easier?

That’s why in business there are a shitload of people that can destroy ideas, people, thoughts, process, systems & institutions and a significantly smaller group of people who know how to build, create and navigate taking an insight into real action.

There are derivates of this thought like … “easier to criticize than …” … “easier to edit it than create” … “easier to find reasons to not do than to do” and, of course, “you have to break the pattern to create a new one.”

But at the core of all the snazzy little catch phrases is the fact 80% of people <at a minimum> know how to destroy and only 20% <at best> know how to create.

People just are better at dividing & destroying rather than effectively combining & creating something that ‘holds’.

But.

……….. Pierre Pauselli …………..

The biggest thing you have to accept is that some people do it because it is easy and, unfortunately, some people do with a sense of focus, ferocity and frequency that … well … it just isn’t being done because it is easy but rather it is being done because they <a> gain personal satisfaction, <b> derive personal value and/or <c> are one of those people who simply enjoy destroying and dividing because it makes them look smarter (‘bigger’) in their own eyes.

Building self-value off of the easy path is kind of like admitting you are willing to be the tallest midget. The easy path, the ‘knee jerk’ path, only can help you reach a certain height.

A height? Yes.

But let’s say it can only attain a ‘rolling hill’ type height and not a Mount Everest type height.

The hardest paths in Life & business are the ones which offer the highest prizes – the monumental type wins <which offer you the highest self-value prizes also>.

Ah.

But my <c> … the ones who simply like destroying.

===========

‘I stopped holding on to people. I stopped revolving my world around them. If they stay, great; and if they don’t, others will come along and replace them, just like others would replace me.‘

—-

unknown

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

Look.

Everything ends <at some point>.

Everyone is gonna hurt you <at some point>.

Nothing ever goes perfectly <at some point>.

Shit inevitably happens <at some point>.

Even creators are pretty damn good at destroying.

And creators don’t always create what they want to create.

Everyone knows how to destroy.

Not everyone either knows how to create let alone even how to create.

These are the Life truths no one sits you down and warns you about when you are a kid. In fact … many of these are mostly associated with the foibles of adulthood.

I don’t know why we don’t tell kids.

Maybe we want them to keep some of their childhood innocence or some stupid shit reason.

Shit.

I don’t know why we don’t tell adults.

Maybe we want them to keep some sense of the belief that anyone can create, good can come from destruction and ‘constructive criticism’ is a role of the ‘wise.’

Destroying shit is easy and you just should accept the fact that people will be more naturally inclined to do it … and not be disappointed or ‘suffer’ it.

Other than the assholes who seem to thrive only in destroying, most people are feeling their way through business and Life ‘becoming & unbecoming’ and part of that is learning what to destroy and how to create.

Saying that … well … I would say that you should probably very rarely treat someone as a finished human being.

And you should just accept the fact they will disappoint you on occasion and that is just a part of Life <and business> you just … well … suffer. Its aggravating and sometimes painful … but it is what it is.

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

“It is not fair to treat people as if they are finished beings.

Everyone is always becoming and unbecoming.”

 

—-

Kathleen Winter

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

Now.

THAT said … well … remember the ones I pointed out who only know how to destroy and actually seem to thrive on it?

Those you don’t suffer.

….. intelligence.org Nate Soares ………..

Especially in business.

In business you accept that people will hurt you and your ideas but there is absolutely a difference in types of hurt and the ‘destroyers’ should be insufferable.

Those who have no clue how to create anything and destroy aren’t worth a shit.

And you shouldn’t accept one sliver of suffering them.

Yeah.

I know.

In business some of these assholes actually make it to some senior position under the guise of ‘needed contrarianism’ and they aren’t really a contrarian … they are just simply someone who has no idea how to create anything.

And, yeah, you have to suffer them <at least for a while>.

But.

Here’s the good part.

You can make them suffer.

How?

Create something they can’t destroy. That kills them.

Anyway.

In the end.

Everyone is going to disappoint you at some point and a shitload of those same people will also hurt you in some way.

The truth is, in business & in Life, managing decisions is all about a thorough understanding of the decision’s hierarchy of needs & understanding the attributes surrounding those needs … and doing so in some finite amount of time … then decide that which generates the most rewarding outcome.

Uhm.

“Generates.”

Not all people can do this.

And, maybe worse, some people find ‘the most rewarding outcome’ is … well … not an outcome, nor ‘generating’, but rather destruction.

Just think about that for one last time.

If we all truly seek a rewarding outcome in which ‘rewarding’ is multiple in dimension — a rational reward and an emotional reward – it would seem to me that we would only suffer the people who desire this kind of outcome.  Or at least only suffer those actually interested in generating a rewarding outcome.

Destruction is not a rewarding outcome to anyone but the destroyer.

We should never choose to suffer destroyers.

Be wary … very wary … of those who you struggle to find any rewarding outcomes associated with them but only find they thrive on destroying things.

And remember …

Behind every good idea is a good friend.

Behind every bad idea, and thought, is a bad friend.

And 90%+ of the people will attempt to kill your idea and it will be up to you, and how you feel about yourself, to create the possibility your idea will not be destroyed.

======

Richard Lugar <Indiana senator for 35 years>

It takes courage to declare dozens or even hundreds of positions and stand for office, knowing that with each position, you are displeasing some group of voters. But we do our country a disservice if we mistake the act of taking positions for governance.

They are not the same thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a different vision than your own.

======

So.

This is a followup to my battlefield of ideas society version — on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is being discussed at the Supreme Court level in the United States.

Here is the one thing I have not heard discussed, yet, when debating gerrymandering – a desire to create battlefields of ideas.

Let me explain.

Inherent to gerrymandering is a lack of conflicting ideas to debate. When there is no ideology to compete against the one which will … well … win … then the only ideas which are discussed are the ones that people already deem to be worthy already <this is an ideology discussion and not a battle of ideas>.

This creates an environment in which a citizenry gets trapped in the same doom loop of existing ideas and ideology never to be freed to view new ideas <or unearn the ones they currently have>.

Gerrymandering is driven by politics in America which is an eat or be eaten world.  I could, and will, suggest this is not only not healthy for democracy it is also unhelpful to progress.

====

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.”

―

James Freeman Clarke

====

I would be arguing to the Supreme Court <and most likely would be laughed out of the court> that democracy is about progress and gerrymandering is not about progress. My rationale for that argument is that lacking any real battle of any ideas there is no progress.

But, maybe more concerning, is that if you do not battle over ideas the people, the citizenry, become intellectually hollow. I am not suggesting everyone needs to be an intellectual but I do believe people should be more invested in a better understanding of facts, ideas & pragmatic realities versus ideological opinions & perceptions of truth.

Look.

Simplistically … I think this is what people want in a candidate from an economic & success standpoint:

1. Correct identification of the actual, major problems.

2. Plausible, workable solutions <ideas>.

I am not sure we want Politicians who deal in the pragmatic reality of governing and how it matters to the everyday business & person … but that is what we need.

Without a battlefield of ideas, which gerrymandering eliminates, we don’t discuss what we need … we end up discussing what we want.

That is bad.

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for an environment which is capable of sustain our children’s children.

I listen to the rantings of politicians discussing what is right and what is wrong <with regard to citizen assistance> and then witness hurricanes, wildfires and poverty destroying lives and property and then begin to question our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately.

Gerrymandering should be discussed not as a structural democratic decision but rather a societal “idea debating structure” discussion. We should be discussing that we want a voting construct which actually FORCES a battle of ideas so that we, the people, can be sure we actually GET the best ideas.

I want to listen to the rantings of politicians who are caught up in ideas and the battle to articulate their ideas so that … well … we are here because we have a better idea.

What would I do?

Back on February 1^st 2016 I offered this thought:

• Stop districting voting blocks.

Having republican voting blocks <districts> and democrat voting districts is crazy.

Make a politician win the popular vote in the area they will be representing is in that district. All the people.

I don’t want a republican county or a democrat county … I want a ‘people county’ selecting by popular vote a person to represent their county interests.

Oh.

If you do this, it permits you to choose ALL politicians by popular vote <President included>.

In almost every Gallup poll since 1944 only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state <about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided>.

Regardless.

Politicians designed redistricting so that politicians could benefit. This is political reengineering at its crudest and worst.

What bullshit.

If we are truly a Republic <which USA is> than the people should design district policies and idea <so that they encapsulate their needs and wants – schools, taxes, infrastructure, etc.> and then by popular vote select a representative who wins the battlefield of ideas.

Remove districting as a variable.

I don’t want a district predestined to select a specific party.

I want voting districts to become battlefields of ideas not partisanship.

—————————

That was just a thought.

I also believe we should have mandatory voting.

If I truly believe I have a societal problem in that people are not invested enough intellectually in the ideas that matter to them and to the country then maybe I should enforce some involvement.

Do I believe everyone will be an engaged spectator in the battle field of ideas?

No. Of course not.

Do I believe MORE people will be an engaged spectator in the battlefield of ideas?

Yes. I surely do.

In the end.

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult me with superficial promises and silly diatribes that stoke fear.

What I would like is someone who doesn’t insult the intelligence of any and all people and a political system which not only does NOT encourage this but actually penalizes politicians who pander.

What I would like is for political campaigns to become battlefields of ideas.

I would also like a leader to … well … lead in this discussion.

And … well … Trump is not that leader. He continues to not want to battle on ideas but rather try and win battles by process & procedure <and pandering and superficial promises>.

Frankly, this does nothing to improve society or true understanding of what is right or wrong.

And … well … Obama was that kind of leader. He continued to battle on ideas. He didn’t always win but he battled on ideas. Just as a reminder <because there is some untrue criticism of Obama with regard to Fox News> this is what he said in an interview with Bill O’ Reilly:

What Obama actually said about Fox:

Asked if he was unfair to Obama, the president responded to O’Reilly: “Of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway.”

“This list of issues you asked about – they’re defined by you guys in a certain way,” Obama continued. “But this is OK. If you want to be president of the United States, then you know you’re going to be subject to criticism.”

I bring up the Obama/Trump comparison to state that while I wish we had a president who would encourage a battlefield of ideas … we do not.

Therefore I think the entire gerrymandering discussion takes on a completely different hue. It shouldn’t be about who wins from a political party perspective but rather who wins on the battlefield of ideas.

The only way I know to do that is to drive debates in a geography which demands some aspects of centrist-type ideas and , inevitably, to a more centrist position where people begin to understand compromise, the trade offs of ideas and neighbor’s wants & needs and wh0 & what represents a greater good rather than “what I think.”

And the only way I know to do that is to eliminate gerrymandering and use whatever basic districting which creates a mish  mash of … well … parties, races, incomes, whatever … and force a battlefield of ideas.

=======

 “The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea.

We are here because we have a better idea.”

—–

Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria

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

“It’s no longer the case that technologies of communication merely accelerate the public discourse, they now ensure that every possible public discourse happens simultaneously. It’s not one damned thing after another. It’s every damned thing all the time.

And so in place of a deliberative democracy, in which we as a people could acknowledge, and even tolerate, our differences while working through complex tensions at a pace consistent with social cohesion, we get a no-holds-barred battle royale in which all things are always at stake — in which we’re fighting every culture battle, past, present, and future, right the hell now.”

—–

Daniel Foster

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

Ok.

I tend to believe everyone knows that we are in a world in which ideas are getting the shit kicked out of them.  For the majority of people ideas float on the superficial surface of our awareness waiting for us to pick one out when it catches our eye.

What that means is rarely do we do any deeper dive to see what else may lie under the surface.

This is happening for a variety of reasons … but the one that bothers me the most is the overall lack of interest in ‘deliberative discussion.’

It seems like in the battlefield of ideas it is a kill or be killed world in which we instantaneously shoot one death ray, attempt to deflect the one which was launched at us, and assumes, in this assault, only one walks away alive.

Ideas do not fare well in battles like this.

The battles in which ideas thrive are the grind it out battles. The ones in which there is an ebb & flow with strategy and strategic maneuvering and there are … well … strategic compromises made in order to win or achieve the objective.

As I have said before … to truly win on the battlefield of ideas you actually need to suffocate bad ideas, suffocate objections and suffocate ignorance not by shouting <which just adds oxygen to a room and an idea> but rather by squeezing the air out of the idea.

But in order to do that you need to engage in deliberative discussion and … well … not be a coward.

Battles are for neither the lazy nor the cowardly.

Deliberative discussion means you just cannot randomly pick up an idea off the superficial surface and walk away.

You need to engage … well … deliberately. You need to step onto the battlefield of ideas <either as an engaged spectator or a deliberate contestant>.

And maybe this is where I get most grumpy with ‘we the people.’ While we may have a shitload of good excuses it almost seems like the majority of people deliberately resist the invasion of ideas.  This almost takes as much effort & energy as actually deliberately participating in the invasion of ideas.

This grumpiness on my part made me revisit something I wrote back in 2016:

The conflict of ideas does not have to reside in any open debate. You don’t even need another person. Ideas invade in any number of ways. They plant themselves in boxes you have forgotten you even had. They grow to a point where you cannot ignore them anymore and begin to battle existing ideas you have. It becomes … well … a war between learning and unlearning … new and old … what you knew and what you know.

I imagine my point is that we are on the battlefield of ideas whether we choose to deliberately be there or not.

In general, I this means we are failing society if we do not deliberately participate in some way.

In general, this means we are failing society <and ourselves> if we deliberately  curb the ‘art of the idea battle’ by deliberately deciding to  curb the art of critique & criticism <which is at the core of the deliberate discussion>.

This is almost societal malpractice on our part because criticism has a role in an effective battlefield of ideas in that it tends to hone the point of attack and … well … sharp edges break through ignorance & well-formed opinions.

Some would call this “the ability to unlearn.”

But ,maybe more importantly, by avoiding this battlefield of ideas we have ceded the ground to not only the cowards but also the assholes. The ones who do not seek to battle over real ideas but rather simply to win an opinion <note: opinions CAN be ideas but real ideas are rarely just opinions>.

Look.

I have nothing against my idea winning <in fact … I like it a lot> but I imagine my point is that the bar for acceptable good behavior to win has dropped significantly.

Studies show it.

Shit.

Just watch the people around you or watch some tv and you will actually see it.

And this lack of acceptable behavior affects how we battle. And, well, that matters because a battle poorly fought means ideas lose or suffer and opinions <and assholes> increase their odds of winning.

Anyway.

I think we all know that Life isn’t just solely about winning and losing … and this is even more relevant on the battlefield of ideas.

I think we all know that some basic good behavior isn’t something that needs to be dictated but rather it is simply something good for common humanity within a population with a desire to have better things and do better things than we are doing today … and this includes better ideas.

I think we all know that behaving well, at least relatively speaking the majority of the time, has a reward that may not always show up in pride, power & pay but rather almost always in dignity, honor & … well … certainty … and this is important in the actual battle of ideas.

I would argue that the three things I just outlined matter a shitload because if we do this then we will … uhm … treat ideas more fairly and less divisively … even as we battle over them.

If we do these things,it tends to lead people to an overall belief, and understanding,  that the idea is fairer for the greater good & society, that the institutions <and the people battling the ideas in the institutions> will treat them more fairly and the world, in general, will end up treating them more fairly <because the ideas are fairer and better understood>.

Ah.

Better ideas better understood –that is the outcome of not only behaving better on the battlefield but permitting a real battlefield of ideas.

I do believe we are behaving more badly.

Suffice it to say that if everyone took one step back and viewed the battlefield of ideas and the behavior on the battlefield and viewed the wide spectrum of current behavior from good to heinous, well, it just doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Not only are there not a shitload of pretty ideas out there being battled over but how we are battling ain’t so pretty either.

Frankly, we are acting more like assholes every day.

Even the people who are trying to stand up against the assholes.

And in doing so while societal discourse suffers the largest loser in all of this assholishness are the ideas.

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

“Only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

———-

Barak Obama

===========

Lastly.

With all of this assholishness behavior floating around and ideas suffer … you have to hunker down and understand it’s not personal … it’s about ideas.

I know. I know.

Conceptually this is a tasty high road we like to offer everyone who sits at the idea table.

Realistically … well … this one is difficult to swallow.

On the battlefield of ideas while the ideas can often do some mighty hand to hand combat far too often the messenger gets personally attacked.

But.

Here’s the deal.

I could care less if I turned on the TV and saw Bruce McTague sucks on every channel I went to. Sure. It would sting but, well, at least in the good ole USofA I have the right to speak my ideas and have the opportunity to rationalize my ideas … and others have the right to criticize … me & my ideas.

It’s not personal.

At least it’s not if you believe it is a battlefield of ideas and not a battlefield of ‘messengers’ or personalities.

We need a battlefield of ideas. And we need this battle to be fought every week, every day, every hour and possibly every minute.

Why?

The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — the appropriate response is a better idea. We are here because we have a better idea.

We deserve not only better ideas but the best ideas. And the only way I know to get the best ideas is … well … to have a battlefield of ideas. The world, and society, would be a much better place if we actually stopped battling over meaningless things and battled more over the truly meaningful things — ideas.

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

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

——

Frederick Douglas 1850

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

“The ultimate test of man’s conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.”

―

Gaylord Nelson

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

Ok.

Because of the business I am in <marketing advertising & business strategic consulting> I am constantly inundated with the hyperbole associated with “new and unique.”

So, I admit, I am always skeptical of “worst ever”, “best ever” and “whatever superlative you want to toss out” ever.

That’s why I almost always step up to the plate when I hear someone suggest how the world is changing like it has never changed before.

Or that our situation has never been worse.

Or something is better than it has ever been before.

I admit.

I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.

I often seem to create a maelstrom of conversational misery when I state things like “change is the constant companion of every generation” … or say something like “it isn’t any more difficult for this generation … it is just different.”

Or even when I pull out the quotes I used to open this piece.

Frankly.

Most people my age think I am nuts when I say it.

Shit.

Most people any age.

Or think I am out of touch with what is happening around us.

Ok.

If I were sensitive, I would care.

Or more likely I would care if I didn’t find quotes like this.

“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind.  … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”

Sure sounds like something you may have heard recently from some pundit on TV.

But.

This is mid 1800’s in a speech in NYC.

It is a fact that each generation has faced some radical change and thought process and attitude shift.

Yup.

I could argue <and I have> that the more things change the more they stay the same.

They stay the same because … well … we move on, we progress, we improve upon what is. Inevitably, as that happens, each generation gets “left behind” as another races toward what will be.

Think of it as tectonic plates in which friction occurs as the new plate slowly <and sometimes quickly> surges over the older plate.

Yeah.

The older tectonic plate.

The one that is supposed to be smarter.

The one that is supposed to know the best.

The one that “got us to where we are today.”

The one that suggests “why throw away what appears to be good.” 

Well.

The one has someone scraps of truth in what they are thinking.

Pieces or parts smarter and know the best?

Yes. Sure.

On the whole?

Nope.

Why?

You don’t know what you don’t know … and if you hunker down on only what you do know … well … that is called “stagnant.”

Ok.

To be fair.

A minority of those being left behind actually enjoy the change an the friction and the conflict. These are the ones who empower the youth. Fuel it. Guide it. Not restrict it. Those few get to enjoy the ride toward “what will be.”

But they are a minority.

On the whole the majority of any older generation holds on for dear life to what they know and makes them comfortable. And it would possibly be okay of they did that and remained silent … but instead they complain and gripe about what is lost within the following generations and, ultimately, go to some fairly absurd lengths to try and slow change.

It is too bad.

For by focusing on what is lost they neglect to have the amazing opportunity to see what is gained.

But.

Regardless.

In the end.

Change comes upon us whether we want it or not.  As Frederick Douglas said in 1850 … ‘you cannot ignore the intellect of the world.’ Change is our constant companion <and mostly a friend> … at all times we face “a change has come over the affairs of mankind.’

True in 1850.

True in 2017.

True in 2150.

This doesn’t mean that we are not slow to change … because we are. Change in mankind is like turning a full tanker ship.

Part of this slow change is actually a reflection of mankind’s survival DNA.

And if you want to debate the ‘slow change’ than maybe accept thinking of it more like Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. The small rise up disrupting and destroying the status quo and that of ‘the big’ … and through their destruction <eating away at the status quo> they begin recreating what is into what could be and what will be.

Now.

I am not suggesting all past experience should be ignored. But it is a fact, a truth, that the older generation needs to be able to let go of some ‘beliefs’ in order to free the change that is inevitable in the affairs of mankind.

I say that recognizing this is not a truth because they were wrong in the past but rather because they are wrong ‘now.’

Effective change demands a healthy dialogue and relationship between the past perspective and a new perspective.

And this is where the current affairs of mankind tend to fall short … they lose perspective as time goes on because they have cocooned themselves within their successful behavior.

Regardless.

This post all comes down to several overarching thoughts.

Each generation faces radical adversity.

Each generation facilitates extraordinary change <typically beneficial as a whole>.

Each older generation is extraordinarily reluctant to release that which is comfortable to them <and what they “know” … or believe to know>.

And, lastly.

We older folk, manager types, should reflect upon this.

Why?

Because we are managers.

And we are managers of those who will foster the abilities of those who will beget what will be better than what we have done or created.  That doesn’t diminish what we have done. And we should embrace the fact we have created an environment for others to go farther than we were able to go.

We wonder why managing young people <call them millennials if you would like> is so difficult?

Well.

It is because we are holding them back <in general>. It’s like trying to tame mustangs in the Wild West. Except we, unlike the savvy old cowboys, don’t reflect on the beauty of the wildness of the mustang as we try and tame them. We simply see the wild untamedness and believe it is a shame they are so wild.

Older managers, to be successful, need to admire the beauty of the untamed.  And not seek to break the mustangs but rather guide their energy to enable them to take the herd to the heights it deserves.

And maybe even more important … older managers need to remember they are not the mustang’s mothers & fathers but rather we are savvy cowboys seeking to guide energy.

Anyway.

Is this poetic metaphor a bad one? Maybe.

But certainly something worth thinking about.

A change has come over the affairs of mankind … uhm … the more things change the more they stay the same. This is not anything unique … this is called “progress.”

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

 

“Those who stand for different causes during different generations often experience the same oppositions and the same difficulties as those of the previous and the next generations. That is the basis of history repeating itself.”

 

―

Criss Jami

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

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

“One is often unconsciously surrounded by one’s own personal reality.”

―

Pawan Mishra

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

“To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”

—–

Amos Bronson Alcott

===========

“People who have had little self-reflection live life in a huge reality blind-spot.”

―

Bryant McGill

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

Ok.

We all have blind spots about our self.

And I mean “we” as in everyone — 100% of us.

And they are almost painful to watch occurring in anyone – particularly in someone you like. With someone you don’t like? It still makes you sit back and think “what are my blind spots?”

Oh.

That sitting back thing.

Judging the events of the past we have a tendency to fall victim to what behavioral economists call “the hindsight bias.”

It is unhelpful because it implies that if we were just smarter in the present, we could see clearly enough into the future to avoid stupid mistakes. But that is rarely the case. The data available in the present are wildly contradictory, and many outcomes seem plausible.

Regardless.

We also have psychological blind spots – aspects of our personalities that are hidden from our view. These might be annoying habits like interrupting or bragging, or they might be deeper fears or desires that are too threatening to acknowledge. Although it’s generally not pleasant to confront these aspects of ourselves, doing so can be very useful when it comes to personal growth, and when it comes to improving our relationships with others – there is undoubtedly something we do that, unbeknownst to us, drives our significant others, roommates, friends, or coworkers a little crazy.

I thought about this mostly because of Donald J Trump. while I have never met the man he seems oblivious to reality – the world and himself.

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

President Trump in a new AP interview boasted that he has delivered CBS its best ratings “since the World Trade Center came down.”

After being asked about his relationship with voters and lawmakers across the aisle, Trump pivoted to the high viewership numbers his national TV appearances bring in: “It’s interesting, I have, seem to get very high ratings… You know [Fox News Sunday host] Chris Wallace had 9.2 million people, it’s the highest in the history of the show. I have all the ratings for all those morning shows. When I go, they go double, triple. Chris Wallace, look back during the Army-Navy football game, I did his show that morning. It had 9.2 million people. It’s the highest they’ve ever had.”

He then bragged about his ratings on CBS’s Sunday show Face the Nation:

“[Host John] Dickerson had 5.2 million people. It’s the highest for Face the Nation or, as I call it, ‘Deface the Nation.’ It’s the highest for ‘Deface the Nation’ since the World Trade Center.

Since the World Trade Center came down. It’s a tremendous advantage.”

He then immediately transitioned to railing against “fake media”—save for Fox News—treating him “unfairly.”

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

Whew.

Trump doesn’t seem to realize that his ratings get a big boost because people don’t want to miss it if he says something asinine or just plain stupid. He is oblivious to the fact that ratings are not an objective indicator of quality but rather indicative of interest <or entertainment>. And, as 99% of us know … interest does not necessarily equal “quality, trust or likeability.”

NASCAR wrecks drive ratings but they don’t convey a positive attribute.

Everyone in marketing, those who do it professionally, know the difference between attention & interest as well as why it is important to look at the relationship between positive approval, an negative approval, and the interest scores <and you are a fool if you do not look at those scores>.

Anyway.

I feel sorry for people who are oblivious to their blind spots.

And, yes, oblivious is different than ‘do not see.”

The difference between the two are in fact the ability to be aware, i.e., totally oblivious is to be not capable of awareness.

‘Do not see’ means you could be aware but you choose to not be aware <what you elect to focus or not focus on>.

==========

“The worst bullies you will ever encounter in your life are your own thoughts.”

—-

Bryant H. McGill

===========

I imagine this raises the painful reflective question “are we even capable of seeing ourselves as who we really are”?

Yikes.

That’s a painful question.
Psychology has thought about this question a shitload and they use words like discrepancy between self-awareness <representing how we see and describe ourselves> and external perception <representing how others see and would describe us>.

This comes to Life in a way I believe 99% of us can relate to … times where someone perceived you totally differently than you perceived yourself “oh, I am not that way at all”>.

Or maybe think about it this way.

You meet someone and assess and create a perception and … well … it is totally different than the self-awareness of that person.

We all do this crap.
Psychologists have even designed a “window into your soul” called the Johari-Window. It is one way to illustrate the difference between self-awareness and external perception. It represents a graphic model illustrating conscious and unwitting personality– and behavioral characteristics developed by the U.S. social psychologists Joseph (Jo) and Harry (hari) Ingham. The Johari window looks like this:

——

—–

The “Arena“ represents that part of our personality and our behavior which we are fully aware of. The part of ourselves we display openly and without hesitation when in the company of others or how we would describe ourselves if asked.

The section “Façade” covers everything we hide from others because we believe that it should remain private. It includes secret wishes, for instance or thoughts we don’t feel like sharing. Understandably the extent of this area varies and depends on the company we happen to be keeping at the time. When we are with our partner or possibly our best friends it may be very small because we share more of ourselves with people we trust than with those with whom we may not be all that close. Regardless, with every person there is always something left over that is private and he/she alone knows about him/herself (and that is just fine!).

The area “Unknown” covers everything in our subconscious and therefore is not immediately accessible but still has a considerable impact on our thoughts and behavior: unconscious fears, repressed conflicts, traumata, urges, instincts and much more. According to Sigmund Freud this part covers 80 – 90% of everything determining our everyday behavior.

Even if we don’t want to go all that far, everyone knows that there are many situations when rational and conscious thinking and behavior play a very secondary role and that another part of us somehow takes over. The process of falling in love is an excellent example – or have you ever totally rationally and judiciously chosen your partner? We are unaware of our subconscious just as it is not obvious to others (well, the consequences sometimes are). We will never be able to get to the bottom of it ourselves, it would take considerable therapeutic reflections to come even close.

The last Quadrant, the “Blind Spot” is different. Although we can’t spot it on our own (just as we can’t see our face without a mirror), others can see it quite well and are able to tell us (acting as our mirror, so to speak). Even though we are not aware of it, the “Blind Spot” harbors habits, preferences, dislikes, prejudices and the like, all things that are clearly apparent to those with whom we deal. At best their reports will provide us with information about ourselves, in that way reducing our “Blind Spot” and therefore helping us to work on ourselves. If there is something in my “Blind Spot” I would like to change, others have to make me aware of it first. Alternatively others may discover competencies and skills in it of which I did not think to be capable.

In addition to this window if you google “oblivious” you will see there are gobs of psychological writings and ‘awareness offerings’ available if you ever want to professionally explore you blind spots.

Here is what I know.

We are all oblivious to some extent — some more than others.

Being oblivious to some extent can be dangerous.

Lack of self-awareness is never good.

I think 99% of us know we have some aggravating flaws & personal quirks … we are not oblivious to them instead we simply decide to overlook them as the ‘imperfections that make us who we are.’ At the same time … those same 99% of people do have blind spots — the shit they cannot see that others see.  That takes a little self work to get a grip on if we choose to accept this.

Oh.

And then there are the 1% …those who are completely oblivious to what they do and how people see them.

Let’s call them the ones inflicted with is the malady of the ignorant <to be ignorant of one’s ignorance>. I am not sure they are redeemable.

I say that because to be completely oblivious either takes a shitload of work or you are just an arrogant egotist or you have some mental disorder that permits you to constantly live in some alternative universe in which you are the God.

I do my best to avoid the 1% and realize, as part of the 99%, I should do my best to improve my own sight of myself.

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

“Confidence isn’t walking into a room with your nose in the air and thinking you are better than everyone else.

It’s walking into a room and not having to compare yourself to anyone in the first place.”

————-

Unknown

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

Ok.

I have never seen this quote before.

I loved it … walking into a room and not having to compare yourself to anyone in the first place … what a great thought.

It implies confidence is a calmness.

It implies confidence is a stillness.

It implies confidence is … well … something and nothing <at exactly the same time>.

Huh?

It is something in that it centers a person so that they can withstand whatever damage Life may decide they are due that day.

That tangible pillar to hold on to is something.

It is nothing in that it is not words or any specific action or behavior but rather an intangible attitude that resides somewhere between “sure enough to be” and “unsure enough to not be too much.” That intangible is an empty space where the only thing that keeps you from falling into nothingness is the ‘something’ part of confidence.

Maybe it is easier just to say it is a comfort in knowing getting it right all the time is not the objective but an intent … an attitude.

======

 

“A little damage makes people more interesting, right?”

 

—-

Catherine Hapka

===========

It is not really about being worried what people think about you but instead worrying about how you feel about you.

It is not really about being worried how people will judge you because you will inevitably judge yourself in the harshest light and harshest terms … more so than anyone else ever could … so you don’t even have to think about their judgement.

I am fairly sure that it was Hemingway who said “nothing hurts if you don’t let it.”

And maybe that is where confidence resides.

It is a willingness to be damaged but not hurt.

Anyway.

I loved the quote I used in the opening.

I have written about confidence, and the bullshit positive pseudo-psychology tries to sell you, before and tried to showcase the fragility & strength of confidence.

I, personally, do not believe you instill a belief of confidence in yourself but rather it is something that grows from within <if you let it>.

Confidence is the calmness which permits you to be the only hero that matters … your own.

Gosh … I loved that quote.

=========

She needed a hero so she became one.

———-

Unknown

=====

====

humansofnewyork:

“I lost some of my mojo. I don’t know how it happened. I had mojo in college. I had mojo in grad school. I was studying Real Estate Development at NYU, and I remember feeling like there was nothing that I couldn’t do. I felt so powerful. Back then somebody asked me how much money I thought I could make, and I remember saying ’40 million.’

But something’s changed.

Life beat me up a little bit. And these days I’m wondering if I have what it takes to put together a single deal.

I’m not sure exactly how it happened.

But somewhere along the way, all my confidence got replaced by questions. Are you smart enough? Do you have enough resources? Who are you fooling? There was a time when I believed that I could do anything.

Now I’ll believe anybody who tells me that I’m not qualified for a job opening.

But I’m going to start changing the narrative. I’m taking this as a sign from the universe that I’ve got to get my mojo back. “

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

So.

I was scanning a tumblr site and came across this post above.

I imagine most of us run across some version of this, bigger version or smaller version, at some time in our Life.

In fact … I tend to believe anyone who actually understands you have to work for happiness, and that it just doesn’t happen, faces this at some point.

Why am I so sure about this?

Because happiness requires work. Because happiness comes at a cost. Because Life, in general, is a struggle between what you want and … well … getting what you want.

Happiness is the outcome from the struggle and the cost you have paid in the struggle.

And, no, this is not any of that insipid trite advice you can find … well … anywhere on the internet.

This is not ‘no pain no gain’ nor is it “if you believe in happiness the <fake> law of attraction says it will come” or even “you’ve just got to want it enough” type happy horseshit.

This is about a real thing … a personal thing – your mojo.

Call it confidence. Call it belief in self. Call it instinctual behavior.

Call it whatever you want.

But it is your mojo.

And you can go thru the pain, you can ‘believe happiness is your due’ and you can ‘want it enough’ but what gets you to where you want to go is your personal mojo.

I say that because everybody wants something. And almost everyone is willing to invest in the struggle to get what they want.

Almost everyone knows that is the cost for what you want.

So with everyone understanding that and pretty much everyone progressing toward what they want … well … what gets you there … and what keeps you from there?

Mojo.

Human behavior and research clearly shows most of us everyday schmucks handle positive experiences well … and negative experiences not as well.

The former feeds our mojo and the latter starves our mojo.

Therefore, our mojo is more likely dependent upon how we handle being challenged by whatever bad feelings we face <doubt being the most insidious> … and how well we are able to navigate the struggles.

Now.

Struggles and your mojo.

Mojo is a tricky thing.

“One of those days” can seriously gouge your mojo.

Or maybe it doesn’t … and it takes a slippery slope of one “one of those days” … and then another … and then another … until you found you have slipped down the slope far enough that all you can see is a darkness of doubt and nothing of your mojo.

But.

I could argue one never really loses their mojo <see Austin Powers as proof>. It is always there but sometimes doubt creeps in and smothers it for a bit. You just have to figure out a way to let it breathe again.

I am not suggesting it is easy and I opened with this quote because while it is hopeful < I’m going to start changing the narrative> it is not guaranteed that this person will refind their mojo.

What I can guarantee is that somewhere along the way … well … somewhere along the way, your confidence, a part of your confidence, will get replaced by questions.

That is Life. That is reality.

Reality steps in front of your dreams and, Life being Life, it knows not to fuck with your dreams … it fucks with the engine that drives you toward your dreams.

And your engine sputters … and maybe it doesn’t run as well as it used to … and maybe, sometimes, it just stops running.

Just know the engine didn’t die.

The engine didn’t blow up.

The engine can still run like it used to.

In fact … your mojo is sitting there just waiting to start up and run another race.

You just have to figure out how to get it running again.

Happiness, getting what you want, getting where you want … is, and will always be, a struggle. But with your mojo … well … any struggle can be overcome and any realistic objective can be reached.

Stop asking if you still ‘have it in you’ after one of those days and just accept that you do have it in you.

Anyway.

What I hope is that maybe one person, just one, reading this post today will take this as a sign from the universe that I’ve got to get my mojo back.”

That would make it a good day for me.

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

“Religious wars are not caused by the fact that there is more than one religion, but by the spirit of intolerance … the spread of which can only be regarded as the total eclipse of human reason.”

————–

Charles de Secondat

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

Terrorism.

Hate crime.

Religious intolerance

Extreme intolerance, in general, of other views.

Shit.

Let’s just say some level of extreme self loathing.

I don’t really care about the label we may, or may not; put on the killing spree some nutjob went on in Orlando.

But here is what I thought about as I listened what was being said about the killer … functional nutjob.

He was an abusive husband, he showed some questionable enough behavior to be questioned by the FBI, he expressed extreme intolerance for gays … and he has had a steady full time job with a security firm.

A steady job.

And a steady job where he carried a gun.

And a steady job in which you assume day in and day out he went to work, did his job, got along for the most part with his fellow workers and left at the end of the day most likely after shooting the shit with some fellow workers.

And a steady job in which I will assume if we scanned his annual reviews he was … well … steady. Not the best employee, not the worst employee but most likely the type of employee most organizations have … the ones who show up, do their work, have some friends in the office, doesn’t really make any waves and get the steady evaluation grades which the standard employee receives.

But he was a functional nutjob.

Now.

I am not suggesting that all my points on a steady employee equals “functional nutjob” because most of those steady employees are good hard working people carrying around the normal everyday foibles all of us every day schmucks have.

But.

Within that steady employee group there are spouse abusers, some who harbor extreme intolerant views, some deviant behavior and … well … pick your poison.

There will be some who you are pretty happy you don’t know all the details in their personal life.

There will be some who give you a glimpse of some extreme intolerance for something or an extreme non mainstream point of view.

But day in and day out they function, in general rub elbows with coworkers in a reasonable way and the rest of the people know they can count on them to show up and get shit done.

What I am trying to say is that while these functional nutjobs do not represent the majority of the work force … there is most likely a meaningful minority scattered among the daily work force.

If I had to offer a number … lets maybe say 14% … that’s kinda close to the % of people who voted for Trump <I am not suggesting his voters are all functional nutjobs>. Regardless of the % populating our world … 99% of them remain functional nutjobs.

I can honestly say I have only worked with one co-worker who I truly believed was capable of going out to his car and coming back in with a gun when he got fired <he was mostly functional but clearly a nutjob>.

But he was the only one I noticed. I assume that while I worked with some functional alcoholics, some functional drug addicts … I most likely also worked with some functional nutjobs.

For the most part nutjobs keep their true nuttiness to themselves <they most likely recognize it isn’t really a mainstream perspective>. But whether they share it or not … it travels with them wherever they go.

And I would assume nuttiness is just like any strong real mental belief system … some days when it gets challenged you kinda get grumpy. We, the rest of us, don’t get worried <hell … we may not even notice> until the nutjob gets angry.

And that is where motivation for the anger matters.

Religion.

Intolerance.

Perception of being marginalized.

Rejection.

Self loathing.

Pick the motivation.

The nuttiness of the nutjob means that the mind is already fertile ground for some mentally disturbing thoughts & voices.

 

It, ultimately, becomes a problem regardless of motivation.

 

It’s a problem [when] a young man who walked into a church in South Carolina and murdered nine people who offered to pray with him. It’s a problem when an angry young man on a college campus decides to shoot people because he feels like he’s disrespected. It’s certainly a problem when you have organizations like Isil or al-Qaida trying to actively promote violence.”

 

President Obama

 

I imagine it reaches a point where this voice cannot be reasoned with. The voice is immune to listening and immune to any rational dialogue. Evidence seemingly is only found I what is already believed, and perceived, therefore the unthinkable action becomes a viable option.

Some may call it being pushed over the edge.

I don’t.

I just think it is a functional nutjob who has found the motivation to make some statement about what they believe.

Regardless. It was a horrible act. Done by a horrible nutjob.

Politics drives me nuts.

Political rhetoric drives me nuts.

Was he Muslim? Yes.

Did he have a military type assault weapon? Yes.

Was this terrorism? I don’t know under the real definition … but it clearly terrorized.

Did he commit a hate crime? On this one … Clearly yes.

Was he mentally ill? I don’t know … but listening to his ex-wife he surely had some mental issues.

Was he an immigrant? No. he was an American citizen.

Was he a nutjob? Absolutely.

In a country in which there are over 320 million people I think it is fairly rational to suggest there are functional nutjobs scattered throughout the country.

The entire idea that we can eliminate all nuthobs is … well … silly. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be strident in our pursuit of safety for all in society. But it cannot, and should not, come at the expense of the liberties & freedoms which make USA who and what it is.

I imagine I am saying … we cannot let nutjobs win. We cannot let nutjobs dictate what makes America great.

I imagine I am also suggesting … stop calling it radical Islam, stop calling it terrorism, stop putting any label on this other than “nutjob who shifted from be functional to dysfunctional.”

And that is the bottom line.

This loser, this once upon a time functional nutjob, went out and delivered an immoral act killing innocent people acting as a dysfunctional nutjob.

===

“We work in the dark – we do what we can – we give what we have.

Our doubt is our passion, and our passion is our task.”

―

Henry James

=====

I admit … I like doubt <on occasion>.

Yup.

Rather than have blinding confidence all the time I like a world viewed through a filter with some doubt.

Look.

Maybe we shouldn’t look at doubt as an insidious feeling inside of us … maybe we should simply accept doubt as one of our ongoing valuable partners in Life.

For it is often through the filter of doubt we gain some uncertainty, curiosity, mild skepticism, and some resilience to absorb problems and weave our way thru the Life puzzles of ambiguity.

Doubt makes new from what is … it shapes what could be … and creates expression and even encourages us to challenge smartly <not foolishly> and celebrate <with understanding that it is but a moment in time>.

As we manage to work our way thru the maze of inherent dangers in Life, let’s call this ‘the work in the dark’, to … well … simply stay afloat in the tidal wave of everyday shit <and everyday shit people> doubt can become an anchor … or it can be the life saver.

Doubt may be the muscle which forces us to see the truths that enable us to make our way through the maze.

===

“The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth.”

–

—

Pierre Abelard

====

Maybe doubt has an underserved bad reputation. Sure, when doubt leads to indecisiveness it is a definite hindrance … especially in a world in which confidence and decisiveness is valued to inordinate levels.

But, let’s face it; doubt can be a good thing.

Conceptually it is highly correlated with intelligence because doubt translates into awareness of alternative thought and exploration.

Doubt can also insure some quality of character <because the line between confidence and stubborn arrogance is razor thin>.

Doubt can also provide smart hesitation … avoid the wrong step and the wrong path because there is this niggling doubt which forces you to looking at things honestly to see if the next action was the best action.

Regardless.

I would like to point out that Doubt is not really the problem. It is actually how we respond to our doubt … in this case … paralysis.

And the root of paralysis really isn’t doubt but … uhm … the old “self” word.

What a tricky little bugger.

Oh.

If only the brain had one specific muscle called ‘self’ <which had esteem, interest, attitudes, actualization, etc.> which we could exercise and strengthen and focus on.

Nuts.

No such thing.

The entire brain is an intricate wired mesh of muscles & things & thoughts all working together to create our sense of self.

There isn’t just one thing we can isolate for self-doubt.

I read somewhere that self-doubt is the opposite of what is known as “self-efficacy.”

Self-efficacy is the belief that you can successfully use your skills and abilities to achieve a desired result.

And if that is true than maybe doubt isn’t a bad thing … it is a counterbalance to this self-efficacy thing. It balances us out.

What helps me out on that thought is the fact that people with perfectly good self-esteem have self-doubt … and people with perfectly bad self-esteem also have self-doubt ,although not always>.
The point? Almost all of us experience self doubt.

All that said.

Here is what I love about the opening quote — doubt as our passion.

The fact that doubt can drive us … be the engine to improvement, enlightenment, curiosity and being the best we can be.

Yup.

This means that self-doubt serves a real functional purpose.

I have written a shitload about doubt … and what I do know as a Life Truth is that someone can’t simply banish self-doubt from the mind. Whether we want to or not … it will always remain there somewhere in your brain <and thinking>.

This also means I know, as a self-evident truth, that any article that tells you that you can … is lying.

It’s about balance.

Yes.

Balance … even when bringing confidence into this discussion.

There are a shitload of articles about how more confidence means better performance.

Wrong <wrong, wrong, wrong .,,,,,.  >

Too much self-confidence can result in a lack of focus and drive <you have falsely assumed you will be good enough and do not work as hard as you could> and this inevitably creates increased opportunities for mistakes.
Doubt can not only increase how much effort you are willing to invest … in addition it keeps you aware of things you may be missing <instead of the sometimes blind confidence>.

Anyway.

Don’t doubt that Doubt has a role in being the best you can be.

I sometimes believe we all lose our grip on the distinction between the bad and the new … what I mean is that when things feel bad we automatically think we have done something wrong or that something is actually going wrong … when instead it just may be we are in the flux of change and something new.

New always creates discomfort and it would behoove us to discern the newness from the badness <which permits doubt to rear it ugly head>.

Ok.

Lots of words today simply to say “I admit … I like doubt <on occasion>”.

=== Other things I have written about Doubt <and overconfidence>  ====

about doubt Parts 1, 2 & 3

—–

solid confidence and overestimated ego