“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.

————————

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.

=====

“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.

——————-

“Have more than you show,

Speak less than you know. “

William Shakespeare

——-

“If you say I’m great, thank you very much.

But I know what I am.

I could be better …  you know? “

Keith Richards

—-

“I exist as I am, that is enough.”

Walt Whitman

=========

Ok. I hate egotistical people. I hate arrogant people.

Ok.

Hate is a big nasty word. Let’s just say I have less patience for someone who is overflowing with confidence than someone who appears solid and tends to be more silent. For once I will begin with my point <so you can stop reading after this if you want>.

First.

I do not believe you can coach confidence. I believe you can only help people manage self-doubt. In other words you either decide to manage how to live with whatever demons you may have inside or decide to mask them on the outside <with confidence … or arrogance>. In fact I could also argue that if you learn to live with the demons inside it can actually make you a much better person than the people who brim with bombastic confidence <the ones who have only learned to mask the demons>.

Second.

I tend to believe we confuse what is important on this whole confidence thing meaning that maybe it isn’t really confidence, but instead we should focus on words like ‘dare’ or ‘courage’.

Ok. That said.

To me confidence is not, and never will be, a character trait.

To me courage is, and will always be, a character trait.

Courage is doing things despite the fear. Confidence is faith <in your abilities and yourself>. Courage is going forward even when you don’t feel that faith. It is about taking action in the absence of certainty that the task can actually be completed, if not completed well.

Third.

Labeling  behavior justifies it. Huh? Think of this like a warped version of ‘personal branding’ where once “he who shall not be named” is named you are almost encouraged to live up to your label/brand.

Yikes. Did I just type that? Yup.

In today’s world we have become masters labeling everything. It permits us to “slot” things in our heads and in the world more easily. In this case we have come up with labels to justify our self professed abilities. The big umbrella label is this thing called ‘confidence.’ I would suggest that simply by labeling it, well, it really becomes arrogance. And we all know <I think we do> that arrogance is often a mask for insecurity or some other emotional difficulty. Arrogance, or overestimated ego, can be cloaked in a variety of labels maybe the most famous, and insidious, over the last generation is “type A” personality.

Whew.

Type A has become not just a label, but a fucking badge for people who think highly of themselves. I read a fun little book recently called “Assholes” which reminded me that regardless of the context associated with this badge “I’m type A” most often precedes some asshole attitude or behavior.

–

the categories encourage and launder shitty personalities – and that’s largely unhelpful. It’s possible, one would presume, to be overachieving without being the jerk who yells at the guy working the double shift on minimum wage … or to be decisive and effective without being totally full of yourself.

–

People who self-identify as type A use the term as a synonym for success. To be clear. That is bullshit.

–

“Hey, I may be a bit maddening at times, but it’s only because I have higher standards than you.”

–

The corollary to this standard Type A assholedness is that anyone who objects to ‘type A’ somehow simply becomes something ‘lesser than.’ Suffice it to say that this type A label is a fabulous example of how overestimated ego assholes use information incorrectly to forward their own agenda <in pseudoscience ways>. We should note that over the years type A, and all the other letter personality types, have been warped by pop culture:

——-

… this is not at all how the term “type A” was initially intended to be used.  It first reached the mainstream in a 1974 book called “Type A Behavior and Your Heart” and its 1996 follow-up, “Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment”.

These books were not written by a psychologist but by a cardiologist, Dr Meyer Friedman, who described the type A category in mostly negative terms, as a group of angry, thoughtless people whose behaviour put them at heightened risk of a heart attack.  You know who else was type A in this schema?

Hitler.

——

Let’s just conclude point three by saying that labels are often fancy packaging for something less than what a truly humble confident capable person aspires to being.

Fourth.

The line between true confidence and overestimated ego <arrogance>can be a very fine line.

Can.

Thinking you can do something and believing you can do something is a very very fine line and confidence or arrogance are things people use to drag themselves over the line. Regardless, it can wear on you mentally by wandering this line. I say that because whatever tool you use to drag yourself over the line is often a mask for insecurity, or maybe not full on insecurity, but simply underestimating ‘self.’

Uhm.

That’s called ‘self doubt.’

Uh oh.

As we all know self doubt is evil and sly and has the ability to slip inside who and what you are and eat you up from the inside out. Regardless. With any degree of self doubt playing a role in this formula, confidence <or full blown arrogance> is not the solution. It isn’t because that would simply mask the real issue. The solution is facing self-doubt and learning to have a relationship with it <because you will never eliminate it>.

I read a survey somewhere suggesting something like 85% of us believe that we’d be more successful in careers if we were more confident. And 60% believe that greater confidence is one of the top two changes that would most enhance our career success <more than a better team, additional training or knowledge, or more time for actual work>.

Suffice it to say that most people assume confidence is critical for career success.

They are wrong.

Dealing with your inner critic is what is most critical to success. Confidence means having the courage to argue with your inner critic. Arrogance means you ignore your inner critic. Confidence means that at least I THINK I have a chance of out arguing my inner critic.

In fact. Confidence can lead to maximizing a healthy inner critic.

Self-doubt can be insidious, but it can have some practical aspects. Practical in that it suggests you are approaching the edge of what you can do or at least what you may feel comfortable doing. It makes you stop for a second and assess the edge of the comfort zone. In addition your inner critic has an uneasy relationship with truth. Many times it is not really telling you the truth and yet a part of you feels sure its words are true.

Confidence permits you to separate the ridiculous from the practical. Confidence permits you to listen, assess, and step out of a comfort zone and make some progress. On the other hand arrogance means you just blindly step out of your comfort zone.

Yeah.

Arrogance blinds you and confidence means living life with open eyes. Please note, while I made some very clear distinctions in discussing this ‘fine line’, it is a fine line. And any time someone suggests that confidence and arrogance are worlds apart I would suggest that they truly do not understand the issues at hand.

Anyway. I sometimes wonder if the self-help “business” has added to our levels of arrogance. There are so many self-help books and self-help “gurus” espousing a selfish and preposterous “believe and you will get everything” mantra or “fake your confidence to get what you want” it almost seems to suggest an arrogant belief in entitled success.

Ok. Let me spend some time on ‘overestimated behavior’ and why it can happen <and it happens pretty much to all of us>. Well. Overestimating is easy to do because we base future behavior <or success> on past success. That’s it. And, unfortunately, far too often the answers we had yesterday are not ‘the’ answers necessary for today or tomorrow.

As stated earlier confidence is not static.

——

“Confidence, like art, never comes from having all the answers; it comes from being open to all the questions.”

Earl Gray Stevens

—–

“Thoughts aren’t facts.

Just because we think something, does not mean it’s true.”

Lucy Elizabeth

——-

Confident people accept the fact they don’t know the whole truth … heck … the whole of anything, and are comfortable, or ‘quasi-comfortable’, with partial glimpses of things.

——

“No human being is constituted to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and even the best of men must be content with fragments, with partial glimpses, never the full fruition.”

William Osler

——-

I would suggest that confidence is actually a state of mind. It’s the feeling of self-assurance that arises from the appreciation of your abilities and qualities. You believe you have something, or a combination of things, to offer, i.e., knowledge, skills, and/or maybe some experience. I imagine it is kind of knowing that you can get the job done, but that doesn’t mean we do not overestimate on occasion as we vie the next job to be done.

Uhm.

To be clear it is often a constant struggle to not overestimate your behavior and instead simply seek to do the best you can <and while it may not actually be ‘the best’ it is a job well done and you don’t overestimate what you know based on a job well done because you always recognize there is ‘more knowledge’ to be found>.

All that said. Just so everyone doesn’t think I didn’t do any homework on this assignment let me bring in some research on talent or confidence and what drives success. To me this brings to mind the chicken or egg discussion as well as perception versus reality.

Huh?

Well. While I am going to share some research let me suggest one thing first:

First.

Perception versus reality. False confidence <you don’t really have the ability> supports the ‘fake it until you make it theory’. This is about creating a perception of confidence. And anyone rising up thru an organization, good or bad, has to do this or they die in an organization. You almost always assume responsibilities on the way up that you have no clue on how to do, but you figure it out. After a while this experience <actually doing it> either creates a sense of overblown confidence or a realistic ‘I don’t know what I am doing but will hunker down and figure it out’ attitude.

The former is bad.

The latter is good.

Second.

Chicken or egg (or The Halo Effect). Does confidence drive success or success drive confidence?

Well. Research studies on drivers of success inevitably judge confidence against … uhm … well … success. I would suggest that success breeds some confidence. If you don’t experience success in any amount that matters, your confidence lags. Basically, as I suggested back in 2013,  confidence. alone, isn’t worth shit (https://brucemctague.com/confidence-is-worthless ). Sorry. That’s just the way it is. There is a correlation between experience <doing something> and confidence. Therefore confidence is not an attitude, it is actually something you do.

That is “understanding reality.”

That is “understanding what your strengths & weaknesses are.”

For example here is some research:

=

– According to Medical News Today, confidence, not talent, is a driver of success. Researchers at the University of California (UC) Berkeley’s Haas School of Business found that those who were more confident experience more success than their peers, despite their talent.

<what they fail to note is that of two people with disparate talent but similarly confident … the ‘more talent’ has more success>

=

– According to a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology those who appeared more confident achieved a higher status than their peers. At work, “higher-status individuals” tended to be more admired, listened to, and had more influence over group decisions.

<what they fail to note is that if the ‘appear confident’ was not matched with good decisions or actual behavior they no longer appeared confident but rather looked ‘overestimated ego.’>

 =

Business News Daily also published studies on confidence that suggested confident employees have more fruitful careers than their peers who aren’t as self-assured. Their research discovered a correlation between confidence and career success and also revealed that those who self-reported higher levels of confidence earlier in school earned better wages, and were promoted more quickly.

<what they fail to note is that the confidence is also linked with ‘courage’ and ‘courage to try’ both of which reflect “you are more likely to have success if you get in the game then if you do not”>

=

What does all that mean?

Is confidence really the key to greater success?

<nope>

Confidence is inextricably linked to tangible doing. With no link it is not confidence; it is empty arrogance <or overestimated ego>. We always need to remember that confidence is not static. Our confidence to perform tasks can increase and decrease. Some days we even feel more confident than others. And how we perform our tasks can create the overall ebb & flow. Assertiveness, confidence and self-confidence are linked to these tasks <action> & behavior. As people become naturally more assertive in actually doing things confidence follows & develops.

——–

“On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

George Orwell

———–

Anyway. I do wish more people were reminded that confidence, the frame of mind or ‘believing’, is only a part of the equation and in fact percentagewise it probably represents the smallest fraction <albeit a powerful little fraction> and that performing, doing, taking action is really the majority of success. I do wish more people were reminded that true confidence is paid off with a deed and typically a deed done well <not just completed>. Therefore if confidence isn’t backed up by actual skill … well … you’re delusional and that equals an overestimated ego <or arrogance>.

In the end.

To me the line between confidence and overestimated and overblown ego is defined by the deed. And even then some arrogant asshole is going to misconstrue the quality of the deed they did, versus the reality of ‘lesser quality than what they attribute to it, simply because we all have our blind spots, and arrogance increases the depth of the blindness.

— 

“When we define ourselves by what we can recognize, by what we can comprehend- rather than, say, by what we can describe- we are continually under threat from what we are unwilling and/or unable to see.

We are tyrannized by our blind spots, and by whatever it is about ourselves that we find unacceptable.”

Adam Phillips

—

Arrogant people are constantly tyrannized by their blind spots.

Confident people see the blind spots, accept they are there, use innate curiosity to eliminate or limit the blind spots, and keep on aspiring to do better each time. And maybe that is the truest of distinctions between arrogance <overestimated ego> and confidence. Curiosity every day. Why? Because curiosity leads to learning more and learning leads to skill acquisition. Getting better each and every day, getting into the “know more” business rather than the “here is what I know” business. And embracing curiosity doesn’t have anything to do with confidence or arrogance, but courage. Courage to accept what you do not know, publicly & privately, and proceed forward ‘forthwith.’

<I just wanted to use that word>

Arrogant people with overestimated egos are cowards.

They don’t have the courage to face what they do not know.

They don’t have the courage to admit their best is not really the best … just a skill that gets the job done in the here & now.

Arrogant people have to be blind to their blind spots because if they were not the truth would kill them. Ponder.

=======

“If the truth shall kill them, let them die.”

=

Immanuel Kant

Today, August 1st, is the anniversary of when MTV was ‘born. In 1981 it shared its first video and the VJs (video jockeys) became a thing. It seems like only yesterday that I was in graduate school glued to the TV late at night watching MTV videos while trying to figure out the solution to the next random B-school case study. For its first 10 to 15 years I was an avid MTV watcher (I started slipping away as they played less and less music videos).

Whew (again.) Hasn’t MTV come a long way from the days of hour-long video marathons to hardly playing a music video anymore? (said slightly wistfully)

But. Criticize MTV all you want. You will still find it difficult to deny its powerful influence on pop culture and music.

Martha Quinn, Nina Blackwood, Alan Hunter, Mark Goodman & J.J. Jackson were the original VJs. Each with a distinct character and style. They gave us the stories and introduced us to the bands as well as the videos.

And Yo! MTV Raps. The original show showcased a balance of hip hop and an introduction to rap. It was truly interesting because original hosts Fab 5 Freddy, Doctor Dré and Ed Lover didn’t yet have quite enough content to populate the show’s segments so videos from other “black” genres like reggae, funk, R&B and soul were peppered-in to help hip hop’s development in culture and expand its scope. That meant you could see Digital Underground’s silly (but awesomely danceable) “Humpty Dance” beside Public Enemy’s political anthem “Fight The Power” to DJ Jazzy Jeff Fresh Prince slick teen rap/hip hop as well as the funky style of A Tribe Called Quest.

Rock blocks.

Bon Jovi’s hair.

Madonna rolling around the stage during the original MTV awards show singing “Like a Virgin.”

Oh.

And all the music video memories the show created for an entire music loving generation.

Here are some of my favorite MTV memories:

• Duran Duran “The Reflex” watching the wave crash over the stage while men who looked prettier than most women played the awesome song.
• Me out on a date at Celebrities (a bar/dance club) in Greenville SC where everyone stopped to watch Michael Jackson Thriller on the big screen over the dance floor.
• The haunting voice of a little child followed by the voice of Andy Partridge as XTC sang the quirky “Dear God.”
• The randomness of Men at Work and their  “Down Under” video with a vegemite sandwich and the fact one of the musicians has a stuffed koala bear tied to his leg the entire video.
• The fact you could only see Rough Trade perform their awesomely rough and dark “All Touch” video late at night. “All Touch”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpraodUSyjA
• Axel Rose doing the snake dance during a very well produced and edited “Sweet Child of Mine” video.
• Peter Gabriel with his wacky claymation videos.
• The artistic and unstoppably catchy “Take on Me” by Ah ha.
• The culturally defining “Addicted to Love” with an impeccably attired Robert Palmer and his female entourage (I had only known Robert Palmer from the song Every Kinda People)
• Alice in Chains unplugged. Spine chilling. ‘nuf said.
• 10,000 Maniacs Unplugged may have been one of the most underrated Unplugged shows of all time.
• How if you got bored with INXS singing “Need you Tonight” you would have missed the INXS version of Bob Dylan’s flip card trick at the tail end of the song with “Mediate.”
• Cindi Lauper having the wacky obnoxious “Girls just want to have Fun” with the poignantly tight thoughtful “Time after Time” (which remains a timeless song on its own) being played in the next block of music videos.
• And, of course, Bon Jovi’s black & white ode to being on the road … “Wanted Dead or Alive.”

So.

Those are my MTV memories. But. Here is the Guardian’s bets 30 moments:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/aug/01/mtv-30-best-moments

I only haggle with the Guardian in that before MTV started not doing music videos they had 30 definable video music moments.  And THAT is how I believe MTV was truly defined.

“I want my MTV” as a catch phrase and before everyone could hum the ESPN sportscenter musical phrase EVERYONE could identify with the MTV music jingle over the weird logos on screen they kept throwing up there.

Now, of course, MTV doesn’t play any music videos.

But that’s okay.  Time moves on and the channel has figured out different ways to impact this generation & culture.

And yet, on their birthday, I will be nostalgic for the music videos.  The cheesy campy ones that you couldn’t tear your eyes from because it was music video and it was all new and watchable and you couldn’t wait to see what came next.

And it was great.

Thanks MTV.

===========

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value. 

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.  Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & effect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No.

The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. Generally speaking, that is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and inevitably some more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

Generally speaking, this is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

That said.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’ gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

• 1. The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.” Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

• 2. Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline, but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. And, to reprise the end of point 2, someone weaves a great narrative to destroy, but forgets to offer an alternative.

Simplistically, this is the story that everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” And, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed.  It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because, that said, it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then, well, there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

I am certainly not suggesting a citizenry with ill-informed vague outlines creates a healthy society. But informed versus ill-informed is a topic for another day. For today I am suggesting the majority of people navigate Life and the complexities of the world mostly using vague outlines.

Look. Life is restless. Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines. Ponder.

=======

“Memory is a crazy woman that hoards colored rags and throws away food.”

Austin O’Malley

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

“You remember too much,”

my mother said to me recently. Why hold onto all that?

And I said,

“Where can I put it down?”

Anne Carson

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

I am not sure what it is about people and the past, but … whew … the past should come up with a new name because it seems to reside in the present more than it does in the past.

Maybe we should stop referring to past regrets, memories, decisions, moments, whatevers, and simply refer to them as eternal things.

Maybe then we could just accept when they happen, in the moment, that they will be our constant companion from that day on.

Maybe then we could stop with the incredibly silly advice of “you need to let that go” or “what’s in the past is done” <as if these trite-isms will magically make the past disappear>.

I say all that because no matter how much anyone tries to convince us and coach us, and no matter how much we, personally, try to convince ourselves and coach ourselves, we cannot leave a memory, in particular, our memory behind.

Sorry. Harsh truth. We cannot really ‘put it down’ and then keep walking.

And, you know what?

That’s okay if you just frickin’ accept it rather than fight it every step of the way <investing energy every step of the way>. In fact. I could argue that if you take on this mindset, you never really leave anything behind, BUT, you actually learn how to set it aside in the appropriate moments. And, in my pea like brain, that is what matters. I honestly like my memories; even the bad ones. They make up who I am today and represent some aspects of who I was yesterday. I attain more each day and rather than discard some I have found that human memory space, unlike a thumb drive, does not have limited space. It all fits in there.

Good, bad, boring and exciting. They all fit in there.

And I like the fact that when I want to, and when it may be good and helpful to do so, I can trawl through my memory banks and think about a memory or two.

But they don’t overwhelm me nor are they constantly whispering in my ear.

I think by me accepting they are eternal they know I am not trying to kill them off so they are comfortable taking naps and long sleeps in the comfort I am not going to grab a pillow and suffocate them in their sleep.

Sure.

Sometimes they wake up and say “pay attention to me” or “well, I am awake, what are you are doing and what have you been doing while I have been sleeping?” and sometimes, just sometimes, I am glad they wake up when they do and make me pay attention to something that maybe I had stored away and forgotten. And, yeah, sometimes they wake up at inopportune moments & times and demand I pay attention to them when I would much rather prefer they would just shut up.

==========

“The past is never where you think you left it.”

Katherine Anne Porter

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

I am fairly sure you really cannot leave a memory, or the past behind. I do know for sure that if you do try and leave it, uhm, it will never stay exactly where you put it.

Huh?

Think “context.”

I may place a memory in some drawer labeled ”sad regret” only to go back at some point and find that drawer empty and open the drawer that says “empowering self-enlightenment” only to find that memory tucked in there now. Yeah. Time, context & experiences can actually move the past into different slots than where you may have left them.  I imagine in some way you are actually reinterpreting the past because of all the experiences since then.

Anyway. Here is the weird thing about ‘the past’ that maybe should make you sit & ponder a bit. The past is not some stone placed somewhere on your Life path. It actually exhibits characteristics more like a loyal pet. It will follow along sometimes slowly, sometimes fast, sometimes behind, and sometimes beside.

Look. I am not a psychologist nor am I some Life coach just an everyday schmuck who has had a shitload of experiences in Life and figured out trying to ‘leave behind’ some past memory & experience truly has a snowball’s chance in hell of working. So I figured I would try just bringing the along for the ride as I accumulate them to see how that went.

And it has worked out pretty well.

Regardless. What I do know is that your past is never where you think you have left it so you may as well bring it along. ponder.

===========

“And the dangerous thing about excuses is that if we recite them enough times, we actually come to believe they are true.”

Robin Sharma

========== 

“There are moments when one can neither think nor feel, she thought, and if one can neither feel nor think, where’s one?”

Virginia Woolf

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

Well. Making excuses is natural.

We all do it.

Sometime big excuses and sometimes the little shrug of shoulders type excuses. And, regardless of the shape & size of the excuse, we all hate it afterwards <at least those people who accept responsibility>. I sometimes think of excuses like I do the slippery slope of mediocrity.

What do I mean?

Once you step on to the ‘excuse slope’ it is a slippery one. It is tough to get off. And while most of us make an excuse with good intentions of ‘just this once’, excuses are quite tasty in the mouth once we have tasted one that worked.

Okay. Maybe I didn’t get that right.

Maybe what makes excuses so horrible is that the more time you chew on one the less taste is has … getting to a point where you taste nothing, think nothing of it and feel nothing. What that means is you start popping them like breath fresheners. All the while in your mind you are taking personal responsibility, but in reality … over time … the common theme in your Life becomes something outside of your control is always being blamed.

I actually did some research on this and you can go back several thousand years to get some insight. It was Aristotle who identified the seven reasons people do things <4 are voluntary, and have moral implications, and 3 of them are involuntary, and do not>.

‘Thus every action must be due to one or other of seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reasoning, anger, or appetite.’

Aristotle further stated that all actions are due either to emotion or reason and either seek pleasure or act to reduce pain as compulsion for our actions.  Well. You may not buy everything in the model, but, our “excuse muscle” fits right into this decision framework. That said. While you may not be able to control circumstances and control what other people do, or not do, and you may claim you actually have no control over your own actions <yeah, sometimes we can be manipulated> you have control over something big — you can certainly control your attitude.

And that is where excuses have gone a little off the rails.

The thing about excuses in today’s world is how we have this nasty tendency to mitigate the excuses themselves <not just our actions>. Yeah. We make excuses for our excuses.

This is a change from the past. In the past we all pretty much knew that we should assume personal responsibility for our actions and results of our actions <or non-actions> and we battled against the recognition that much of what happens is based on extenuating circumstances and things beyond our control. That is reality. We see it, understand it … and yet suck it up and say we are responsible.

No excuses.

We apologize. We move on and try the best we can to say it will not happen again, sometimes even promising <albeit knowing that promising some shit is silly because … well … the reality truly is that we are the victim of  shitload of circumstances we have no control over>.

Regardless. We assumed responsibility because that is what the honorable thing to do is and you just do the best you can moving forward.

But today? Today the excuse part of our brains seem to be dipping into a different segment of ‘mitigating circumstances’ – addiction, childhood, physical urges that cannot be controlled and crap like that. Our excuses get tinged with an aspect of ‘things we just cannot control’ versus ‘things out of my control.’

This is bad. Really bad.

So bad it permits me to circle back to both of my opening quotes. If you say these excuses enough, it becomes reality — whether it is reality or not. If it becomes reality to you, then it makes it extremely difficult for someone on the outside to point out that it is not reality. And finally … this means you really do not think or feel anything because you have ‘excused yourself’ into a place in which you have no responsibility for not only what you did, but how you may truly feel and think about it.

In this scenario you have purposefully placed yourself outside of not only what happened but, uhm, you.

Yeah. The ‘you’ who did whatever is not the real ‘you’ who would have wanted to do something else if permitted. That’s kind of screwed up.

The mind then warps Aristotle’s thoughts into a universe in which there are no real rational choices. In this universe almost anything can be excused as a ‘non rational choice’ because, well, it is driven by some subconscious irrational ‘thing’ inside you.

Maybe worse?

This also puts people in a really dangerous spot. Dangerous in that you can also attribute ‘rational thought’ to only the good things and not the bad things.

Look.

We all make excuses. It is unfortunate attribute of humanness. In addition. We all live in an ‘excuse enabled world”. One in which so much shit is truly out of our control that there is a readymade excuse within reach at any time – and many of these excuses are truly viable ones.

But that said we all need to stay off the slippery excuse slope and purposefully, rationally, accept responsibility if not all the time — 99% of the time. And we need to hold people accountable for their actions and not accept excuses.

Yeah.

That last part, other people, can be tough in today’s world because that demands you discern between a real rational excuse <real addiction, real psychological challenges, etc.> and a made up excuse.

Even with that said. I do believe we need a good strong injection of personal responsibility into how we all live our lives these days. The past “did something wrong or not right” – “assume responsibility” – apologize <unequivocally> – “promise to do better/not do again” formula doesn’t really seem to be used as often today. And it should.

We use too many excuses — even the valid ones.

In the end.

Why does it matter? If we completely abandon this formula we may not only start believing our excuses, the real and non-real, but worse: and if one can neither feel nor think, where’s one?”

One ends up making so many excuses you lose touch with life. You simply become a balloon being blown here & there by Life accepting that is just the way it is. Well. That sounds horrible to me and it should to you. Stop making excuses and seize Life by the throat <Beethoven>. Ponder.

“I am a strong person. But every once in a while I would like someone to hold my hand and tell me things are going to be OK. “

Unknown

——–

Well. We so often talk about ‘strong people’ as being these pillars of granite, solid and seamless in moments of need or challenge, unflinching in the face of whatever it is they face. But more often strength is not a solid piece of granite. Shit. Many times its not even anything solid. It may be a shield or a shell or it may be that the person has the ability to put a strong hand forward and stop what needs to be stopped. But in all these cases strength is neither a complete solid wall nor does it not have some weakness or maybe some fragile aspects in which to balance everything. 

———

“It is one thing to be brave in front of others, perhaps for fear of being branded a coward and becoming diminished in their eyes, but another entirely to be brave when there is nobody to witness your courage.

The latter is an elemental bravery, a strength of spirit and character.”

John Connolly

———-

Oddly strength is, well, a paradox <or in some sense a contradiction>. It is about setting unequivocal limits and yet having no limits. It’s about adapting, yet unwavering.

So. Let me discuss this limit thing for a moment.

Emotionally strong people do not really need constant action and excitement or even a crisis to define themselves and their lives. This suggests they naturally just put some limits on things. This is not to suggest that they don’t enjoy excitement in their lives, but they aren’t ‘doing’ junkies. This means their ‘strength’ is usually defined by some self awareness. Awareness with regard to some character type things <which are embodied in actions and behavior decisions>.

Let’s call these our ‘limits’:

–           just don’t do some things

Suffice it to say we all do things that we don’t enjoy doing, but we should never do things that we don’t want to do. There is a nuance in that, but an important nuance. The strong self aware understand that nuance and almost always manage to figure out what they need to do — not at the expense of ‘what they don’t want to do.’ This translates into that when it comes to character defining decisions there is always a line. The line isn’t about what you enjoy doing or what you like or dislike … it is about … well … character. And being able to live with yourself and look in the mirror.

–        saying “no”

Suffice it to say … if you can’t say “no,” you will get taken advantage of. I will not suggest you won’t be taken seriously, but I will suggest that if you cannot say no you will forever live on the slippery slope of credibility and trust.

Saying “no” reminds people that they cannot control you. Only you control you.

–             it’s really about plateaus … not limits

Face it. There are only plateaus, and they are not meant for you to stay there, but only resting places for someplace beyond. Please note I did not say ‘someplace higher.’

“Up” is overrated.

It is more important to move anywhere <mentally, physically, career, Life> than it is to move ‘upwards.’ I’ve always believed in pushing yourself further and taking on new challenges. I believe this because I tend to believe there is no such thing as that infamous trite cliché ‘being the best you can be.’ “Best” is a relevant thing … at least to the moment. Maybe it is better said that ‘best’ is contextual.

There is always room for growth and change and new possibilities of being the best you can be.

Anyway.

Strength is tricky. It is partially inbred as an attitude, but it is also forged thru the furnace of Life.

—–

“Sometimes you don’t realise your own strength until you come face to face with your greatest weakness”

Susan Gale

——-

And maybe that is why strength is never solid. Because strength is often about weakness. The chinks in your armor define your strength … uhm … not your theoretically solid seamless armor.

Which leads me to my final thoughts.

Strength is nothing more than doing what it takes — with character. In order to be strong we will inevitably embrace some different variations of our self. This naturally happens as we encounter knew things and new ‘weaknesses’ we never knew we had. Within those variations are some aspects of solidness, but other aspects are adaptable and resilient in their ability to morph to the situation.

And, in the end, I imagine strength in a person can be defined one way:

———

“I endure.”

E. Lockhart 

————

Ponder.

==

“There’s nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.”

Thornton Wilder

————

Well. There are a couple of things to think about with this quote.

–      What we think is not always what everyone thinks

This sounds basic. But, boy oh boy, we forget this – all the frickin’ time. In fact not only do we forget it we actually do so while remembering it.

Huh? What do I mean?

Well, c’mon, how often have you sat there and said ‘no one has been thru what I have been thru and can understand this’ or ‘no one understands how I think’ and, yet, when we look around and assess what people are doing <and thinking> we sit back and go ‘whew, I bet they’re thinking this …’

It’s kind of crazy.

It’s kind of hypocritical.

Suffice it to say whether you think you are normal or think you are abnormal what is happening inside your head is very often different than what is happening in the outside world. In other words … it is very very likely what you think is not what everyone thinks.

Next.

–      We should listen more

In business, in personal life, does not matter; we should just listen <without preconceived filters> more often.

I am fairly sure that it was Henry Miller who said “the street howls with the truth.”

Smart man.

Listen to the howls.

So let me share some observations for business.

I am an avid trend watcher, people watcher and behavior studier. I listen by watching. People give you massive cues <clues?> as to what they are thinking and why they do the things they do. You just have to listen to the music of their Life and find the beat of their individual drum. I say that because far <far> too many business people say “we need to do consumer research and hear what people say.”

Well.

You may.

But you may not have to.

In fact. Even if you do the research, if you are not a good listener, every dollar you spend on that research is wasted.

Regardless. Listening isn’t just with your ears, it is also with your nose and eyes and all your feelings.

People’s lives talk.

You may not understand the language immediately, but if you listen closely … really closely … you will understand.

Why is it so hard? Why do you have to listen so closely?

==

“I do not think I’m easy to define. I have a wandering mind.

And I’m not anything that you think I am. “

Syd Barrett

==

People are not easy to define. Most people are difficult to ‘slot.’

Yup.

Sorry about that.

I feel especially sorry for the people who think they are good at assessing people. The majority of them are, well, not. At best they are simply good judges of their own bias.

Anyway. We desperately WANT to slot and segment and cluster people because it makes it easier for us. But as soon as you do you stop listening. Yeah. That bias filter thing again.

Shit.

All I really know is that we need to listen more. There is nothing better for you than eavesdropping on the world on occasion. Ponder.