=======
“The trick is in what one emphasizes.
We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy.
The amount of work is the same.”
Carlos Castaneda
==============

“That’s the thing about pain.  It demands to be felt”
John Green
=============

“Anyway, I wanted to end this on a hopeful, positive note, but, seeing as how my sense of hope and positivity is still shrouded in a thick layer of feeling like hope and positivity are bullshit,
I’ll just say this: Nobody can guarantee that it’s going to be okay, but — and I don’t know if this will be comforting to anyone else — the possibility exists that there’s a piece of corn on a floor somewhere that will make you just as confused about why you are laughing as you have ever been about why you are depressed.
And even if everything still seems like hopeless bullshit, maybe it’s just pointless bullshit or weird bullshit or possibly not even bullshit.
I don’t know.
But when you’re concerned that the miserable, boring wasteland in front of you might stretch all the way into forever, not knowing feels strangely hope-like.”
Allie Brosh
==================

I have written about attention as currency , how time is elastic (but important & finite), social media distractions and even focus. All of them are partially right and partially wrong when it comes to emphasis and its demands on us. I say partially because all make demands on us at the same time. So, parsing them out one by one is an excellent exercise, but also slightly disingenuous to reality.
Suffice it to say that Life, in & of itself, is demanding.

Well. Suffice it to say that whatever we emphasize has a nasty habit of demanding attention.
And, more often than not, in our analyzing of ourselves and what is around us we emphasize the ‘less than’, the ‘imperfections’ and the pain.

They all demand to be felt.

In other words. Many things in life demand to be felt. And maybe it is because of that we numb ourselves to as many things as possible figuring it is the only way to manage our way thru the onslaught of things demanding and demanding and demanding. Pay enough attention, or give them enough emphasis, and the clamor of their cries for attention seems deafening if you listen too closely.

Regardless. I imagine it depends on what one emphasizes.

Now. Here is where I will leave the beaten path in the discussion.

There is gobs of information and advice on how to selectively focus on the right things at the right time. Smart people, Warren Buffett , Shane Parrish, etc. have weighed in on this topic and they offer some great thoughts. But. Here’s the deal. Life for most of us every day schmucks doesn’t work like ‘selective focus.’ Oh sure, we may try. But the truth is life demands to be felt, even the shit you have elected to not focus on.
So therefore, it comes down to emphasis, not choice.

====
“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

Longfellow
===============

Personally I believe most of the advice ‘expert’ books/articles give people about focus/emphasis is absurd, if not impractically nuts. I’m not opposed to encouraging focus nor do I dispel the notion that one can improve focus, but, for the most part, most advice ignores how Life demands attention. What I mean by that is most advice isolates a decision/choice and suggests you:

A. Tune out the unnecessary/unhelpful, and
B. Tune in on the specific contextual variables which are necessary/helpful.

Conceptually fabulous. Reality-wise absurd.

Here are 3 reasons why it is absurd:

1. Life never stops. If you stop you inevitably have to catch up and, well, the doom loop of onslaught of the demands increases. In other words, what the experts neglect to share with you is that there is a price to pay for selective focus.
Emphasis is a moving target and you must focus on the move.

2. Life never stops demanding attention. Selective focus is risky. The demands Life will put upon you do not cease simply because you have decided to focus on something or decide what you want to emphasize.
Often emphasis is managing some things while focusing on something else. That’s the gig.

3. Life never stops offering demands OUT OF SEQUENCE. Life is not orderly. It may not be totally random, but its rarely consistent other than through its overall consistency of demands.
Life is like a restaurant with odd little waiters bringing things you don’t always like.

—————————
“Fate is like a strange, unpopular restaurant filled with odd little waiters who bring you things you never asked for and don’t always like.”
Lemony Snicket
————————————

None of what I just shared should suggest you shouldn’t seek to emphasize some things versus others. In fact. I tend to believe if you don’t figure out what to emphasize you will, well, just become numb. This is where life is particularly unforgiving. If you do not choose, Life will choose to bludgeon you day in and day out with things demanding your attention … and pain.

That is unsustainable. For anyone.

Make some choices. Choose things to emphasize over others. You may not always get it right, but my own experience suggests even your poor choices, while painful, are survivable. And maybe that’s my point. Life demand to be felt. If you do not choose what to emphasize and Life emphasizes everything, I fear that is not survivable. Ponder.

“Institutions form the incentive structure of a society and the political and economic institutions, in consequence, are the underlying determinant of economic performance.”

Douglas C North

===

Incentives, institutions and thinking are intertwined. What I mean by that is what the world incentivizes affects what we perceive as important, therefore, it effects what we think and about, how we think about things, and, inevitably, why we end up doing some of the things we do. That said. Incentives are everywhere – visible and invisible, overt and subtle. Its almost like, well, everyone wants to game us and how we think and what we do. Okay. They do. And, for the most part, we go along with it.

Now. There are gobs of great books on how business uses gamification to manipulate workers. Yes. I said “manipulate.” Business is infamous for suggesting everything they do is to motivate workers. Its bullshit. Motivation is intrinsic and incentives are extrinsic. Yeah. There can be some blurring on what I just said, but generally speaking, business, and we as a society, would be a shitload better off if we just looked around at all the incentives and thought about whether we really believe those incentives, and prizes/rewards, are actually good. To be clear. If we did businesses would shit, politicians would panic and society would be seriously discombobulated.

Anyway. Today I am focused on society. Everyday people and everyday life.

Incentives actually create parameters of behavior. Aiming for good grades or passing a grade or, well, our system offers us a shitload of ‘incentives’ to do things. There is even an entire industry to optimize our time (society has a weird incentive that if you optimize you are a better person). All of these incentives to ‘do things’ and ‘do things a certain way’ and ‘look certain ways’ are all ways to divide society into ‘those who do’ and ‘those who don’t.’ In addition many of those things are actually used to judge people and are used to assess ‘moving up the ladder’ in life.

And, well, yeah, we go along with it.

But I am gonna make this a bit worse.

If we are honest, one of the characteristics of incentives is actually the phenomenon of power as in ‘power applied’. The exercise of power, the submission of some to the will of others, is inevitable in modern society. Some argue that nothing would be accomplished without it (I do not agree). In fact John Kenneth Galbraith said that (but he said a lot of other things I agree with). But there is a core of truth to the idea. It is true of gamification, is true of incentives, it is true of the standard operating procedure of most businesses and, while often never discussed, it is true as a feature of society. Power and incentives are inextricably linked. So while we speak of free will and freedom of choice, we ignore the fact that incentives often appear in conflict with all of those things, if not our even our best interests. Yeah. Incentives manipulate; even against some of our best interests. This is a semi-important thought because in a natural state, a society will typically morph in the direction of not only the individual interests, but the collective interests because we intrinsically understand that good progress touches everybody. As a note what I just described is actually a characteristic of a living system and not a machine. But then incentives enter the picture. Incentives intervene in the cultural characteristics of communities of practice. Incentives push, pull, sometimes even bully, to guide social systems in different directions. Power uses incentives like society is a machine. And, just to be clear, social media does exactly the same thing. More often than not this all creates false narratives which everyone knows is not true or healthy, yet, the incentives to follow along are enormous. Possibly the worst consequence is it translates into a lost vision for common good and the capacity to see all humankind as larger than the sum of its parts.

Then we get to the present.

All these incentives floating around out there, the ones the systems offer up as ‘good for us’, are actually becoming more and more visible. And more and more people are becoming a bit more stridently vocal about them. Why? Well. even thought it is 2023 let me introduce you to Alvin Toffler and 1970:

For the foreseeable future, we must anticipate still more rapid value change. Within this context, however, a second powerful trend is unfolding. For the fragmentation of societies brings with it a diversification of values. We are witnessing the crack-up of consensus. Most previous societies have operated with a broad central core of commonly shared values. This core is now contracting, and there is little reason to anticipate the formation of a new broad consensus within the decades ahead. The pressures are outward toward diversity, not inward toward unity.

This accounts for the fantastically discordant propaganda that assails the mind in the technosocieties. Home, school, corporation, church, peer group, mass media—and myriad subcults—all advertise varying sets of values. The result for many is an “anything goes” attitude—which is, itself, still another value position. We are, declares Newsweek magazine, “a society that has lost its consensus … a society that cannot agree on standards of conduct, language and manners, on what can be seen and heard.”

Toffler, Future Shock, 1970

I offer up Toffler to suggest that as things break down a lot of people, and the system (and those in power), want it to stop breaking down. Well. They want it only to ever break the way they want it to break. So, construct, i.e., incentives, get ratcheted up. And it’s not like the prizes get any better its just that the penalties seem to be harsher if you don’t go along with the system incentives – you think wrong, you do wrong, you act wrong and the system, and society, relentlessly suggests that is bad – for you. Look. The system creators needed to stuff to get done so they crafted a system to ‘motivate’ people to do what they needed to do so that the institutions could get the stuff done they wanted to get done. And today is no different. They are worried their stuff will not get done so they scurry about telling people what is important and why the system incentives shouldn’t be abandoned. Sometimes they point out the visible obvious ones and sometimes the slyly nudge the subtle incentives around. Doesn’t matter. All incentives are used by people in power.

Keep your eyes open and your minds working.

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

“I don’t think any madman ever said ‘Why, what an ass am I!’ “

BBC discussion on Hamlet

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

Well, fortune favors the brave, sir.”

“I think that last night, fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent.”

Richard Woodman

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

Ok.

Success can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Winning can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Oh. As a result. Madmen who have had some success or wins can be, well, real sonuvabitches <asses>.

Regardless. Success and winning can be deceitful because it makes madmen not recognize what asses they are or how incompetent the incompetent are. Suffice it to say I have worked in businesses for over 25 years and I have never heard one of the random madmen I have come across admit they were an ass and I have rarely ever heard an incompetent ‘winner’ suggest they were simply the least incompetent that day <or any day that matter>.

Success has that effect on people.

But maybe the most dangerous effect is, for many people, once you have had some any loss seems like a threat to, well, survival. Or, as Clausewitz said:

…victory leads easily to overextension, which leads to defeat.

Uh oh. Defeat is not an option <to madmen & incompetents>. Business people in survival mode tend to shed themselves of any ability to rationally adapt as well as any ability to navigate the ‘unknowns’ inherent to any business world. Instead, most shift into a more desperate effort to fling themselves into any possible path to the next victory.

Ok. Survival may sound extreme, but I cannot think of a better word. Suffice it to say that winners think it is a life or death scenario and losing is all about a part of them dying. The ‘part of them’ may partially be confidence but, what the hell, that is a pretty significant part.

Anyway. Success or failure I do know one thing. Madmen will never say what an ass they are and incompetent people will always believe fortune favors the brave. Unfortunately, that suggests they are unchangeable.

Look. That alone isn’t so weird <or damning>. In general none of us are particularly good at changing <particularly in their business style & character & skills within business>. And THAT is important because far too many try to change themselves in order to ‘be a winner.’ I am fairly sure it was Peter Drucker who suggested it is significantly more effective to improve upon the way you perform – how you already do what you do <rather than try to fix the bad things you do>.

Uh oh. This means <gulp> madmen become more asshole-ish and the incompetent double down on their incompetence. If the mad and the incompetent seek some solace, I would note that most people do not really know shit about how they actually get things done.

Shit.

Most of us have no clue how other people do their voodoo <get things done>.

Shit. Most of us don’t really know what we are good at.

Shit. Even worse, most of us misjudge our strengths.

Shit. Even worser <I made that word up>, most of us who have had some success are even worse at misjudging their strengths.

Shit. The truth is more people actually know what they suck at <not good at>. Oh shit. But even then most people don’t get that exactly right. Holy shit. Suffice it to say we suck at judging ourselves. With all that self-assessment suckedness what do we do? Well, particularly in today’s world, you go the easy path — you simplistically judge off of outcomes/results <the successes & wins> avoiding any interest in scrutinizing any of the details of how you achieved the outcome.

In fact the details of our success becomes so unimportant in the scheme of things we create a mosh pit of all positive things which COULD have contributed to how good we were in that success. It is a crazy mix of ethics, values & integrity <inextricably tied to the results rather than the process embraced to gain the results> blended with a good amount of curiosity & perseverance & resilience <against the negative tides pushing against our inevitable deserved success> all sprinkled with the necessary “team player” <‘I thrive when I work closely with others’>.

Unfortunately, most of that self-reasoning is bullshit. The truth is this mosh pit simply cloaks incompetence, mistakes, errors in judgement and whatever ‘not-so-good shit’ <being a madman> by painting a positive coat of ‘something’ over them <”we weren’t as efficient because I wanted the team involved” or “we pursued this idea out of planned curiosity only to judge it was not the best path” … crap like that>.

Oh shit. This gets worse. Winning tends to concentrate one on doing more of what they perceived they had done to succeed rather than invest any energy on cultivating any additional skills, needs or improvements.

======================== 

“it takes far more energy to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than  to improve from first-rate performance to excellence.”

Peter Drucker

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

What makes that even worse is that translates into madmen concentrating more on ass–like things and incompetents focusing more whatever bumbling they had done.

Anyway. I have found <without any research> people fall into two buckets on this topic – those who focus on the win and those who focus on improvement. I would suggest the madmen and oblivious incompetent fall in the former bucket and the truly sane business people, with a chance of actually being good, fall into the latter bucket.

I say that because any pivot points in progress tend to become more obvious in reflection than in the actual ‘living’ within the moment.

Therefore, if all I do is focus on the win I will reflect with little true critiquing and most likely remain a madman and incompetent <this is actually called ‘objective blindness’>.

Therefore, if all I do is be slightly perpetually dissatisfied with my performance and critique, in a healthy way, I will most likely increase my competency and have progress.

The former says “fortune favors the brave.” Always.

The latter says “fortune was merely inclined to favor the least incompetent.” At least on occasion.

Lastly. I would suggest that madmen and the incompetent have one thing in common — lack of meaningful convictions <beyond success at any cost>.

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

“Convictions are not like gloves; one cannot easily change them.” …

General Petr Grigorevich

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

Well. “Convictions are not like gloves.” There is a keeper of a thought. Madmen and incompetents are incredibly good at treating convictions like gloves.

Shit. Their convictions are more like chameleons.

I end there because I wish more of us in the business world would keep all of this in mind. Especially the madmen, who are asses, and the incompetent <who win more often than they would like to admit … despite their incompetence>.

Sometimes you can be an ass and it is <generally> okay if you are aware enough to sit back and say “what an ass am I!”

Sometimes you can be an incompetent and its <generally> okay if you are aware enough to sit back and say “fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent this time.”

Who am I kidding? No madman has ever said “what an ass am I!” and no incompetent has ever said “fortune was merely inclined to favour the least incompetent this time.”

That’s only the kind of things we, the normal business people, do. Ponder.

——

“I had hoped to be disliked by most, not by way of rebellion, but by way of excellence, disdain for the habitual, and the common man’s inability to grasp this.

The act of being scorned?

I saw it as a victory, my irreverent boast against this world which could never fully quench me.”

Coco J. Ginger

——–

Well. I don’t know who Coco is, but this description on her blog is fabulous. And ‘my irreverent boast against this world which could never fully quench me’ may be one of the best thoughts I have read in years.

Regardless. While this is certainly a Life thought, her thought inevitably should resonate with thinkers, writers & bloggers everywhere.

Writers have to live with the words they write.

Once shared they can never be erased.

Thinkers have to live with the ideas they share.

Once shared they can never be replaced.

Why is that so important?

Well.

Couple of thoughts.

First. Most of us play it safe.

It isn’t really political correctness, or fear, it is simply because most of us are … well … common. That’s not any kind of criticism against anyone, it just simply ‘is.’ Most of us are pretty common in our beliefs and shared thoughts. What this means is that if any of us common people have a slightly uncommon thought, idea, or something to write it feels a bit unsafe. And it is (to us). That is not an indictment on any of us nor am I going to suggest the trite ‘step out of your comfort zone’ or any fortune cookie life wisdom. Living with something that can never be replaced should demand some thoughtfulness and if you elect to play it safe, it is your choice and not someone else’s.

Second. The passionate people, and people under stress I imagine, say things now that they regret later.

This happens a lot because we live in the moment and it is a reflection of how you feel in the moment.

And, you know what? … that is okay. Because we change moment to moment, circumstance to circumstance, and having the ability to articulate that moment is a gift. I would note that most of these people don’t say what they say to be rebellious they simply say it because they feel it at that moment. I would also note the great ones say it in a way that spans generations of moments.

Now. All that said.

Words, once inscribed, never change.

Sharing words that showing disdain for the habitual?

Sharing words that show irreverent boast against a world that can never fully quench me?

Personally, I often use “I have a lover’s quarrel with the world.” Compared to “a world that can never fully quench me” it sounds less than. It sounds combative rather than hopeful. I imagine it is a reflection of the fact I see the world as full but imperfect and I seek to change it. A world that cannot fully quench me is one that has no boundaries. She sees a horizon I cannot imagine but could only dream of.

I wish I had written this thought.

It is spectacular.

But I imagine I couldn’t.

For she also wrote this about herself:

—–

“I am torn open, unabridged, hot and a bit crazy inside.

This is the feeling which belongs to me, she has always been mine.”

Coco J. Ginger

—–

I chuckled. She is as Kerouac said “… the ones mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time.”

We need people like this to stretch us all. We may dislike people like this because they make us feel a bit uncomfortable in their desire to remake a world in their vision, but these people have purposefully chosen a path that many of us not only didn’t choose to walk, but we also could not walk it. Yeah. I just said that. Some people have this dna and some do not. And that is okay. Just as I pointed out in ‘play it safe’, you make choices with regard to your own life, someone else does not.

If you would like to visit her blog, it is called Courting Madness.

Her poetry is interesting. Her writing has flashes of brilliance. And, for the most part, she is sparing with words but never sparing on thought. But, most importantly, she is one of those people who know words and ideas shared can never be replaced within a world which can never quench them.

==

But how do people NOT see the huge

Bias against one over another?

===

Hypocritical!

==

If you would like to answer the question above, more often than not you find yourself doing a deep dive down the “lazy bias” rabbit hole of stupidity.

Here’s what I mean. Pick your culture/political/society version of this question (the big one in the present is obviously, again, Trump) and the obvious answer to this question is that most objective thinking people would not see this one thing as a huge bias against one over another. I don’t care about the question, just as a generalization as soon as you see this question, and attached to ‘hypocrisy’, I can almost guarantee it will be the beginning of a superficial dance in which objectivity will offer the same answer over and over again (“it’s not the same”) and the lazy instigator will offer the same answer over and over again (“bias” and “hypocrisy”). That is objective reality. Unfortunately, that answer would quickly gets you to the rabbit hole opening. The rabbit hole opening is “ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you say that that’s because you’re biased.” And down we go the hole.

• It’s because you hate X. Because you love X person.

• You are a Democrat. You are a Republican.

• You went to this school. You didn’t go to school.

• You worked for X Company, foundation, nonprofit.

• You believe X.

• You grew up in an X neighborhood.

• Bla, bla, bla, bla, ……

The list is endless. The rabbit hole has no bottom. Provide an objective point of view that doesn’t agree with what the other person is thinking and, well, you are biased. Their reasoning isn’t really reason, just some random causation/correlation linkage.

By attempting to answer objectively and entering into a full deliberative discourse and constructive conversation, we instead shift into some less-than-intellectual combat where a bunch of stupid Goliaths lumber after Davids wielding only sanity as a weapon. It is a slugfest of lazy false equivalence versus nuance and depth of reason, battling their way down the rabbit hole of stupidity. In the darkness all nuance gets lost and the lazy thinking cuts like honed steel.

It’s insane, it’s absurd and it’s lazy. It’s intellectual nihilism.

Look. Everyone has some bias. But bias towards truth or facts is not really a bad bias. In fact, one would hope more people had this type of bias.

Which Leads me to depth and breadth.

So the suggestion is that because of ‘this one thing’ a person loses all ability to objectively approach something. Absurd. It reminds me of something that General Mark Milley said “yes, I have read the Communist Manifesto, but, no, this does not make me a communist.” Absolutely. Some things are indicative of a bias that can warp a perspective. But simplistically suggesting that everybody loses their entire ability to objectively view something because of something they have done, something they have read or somewhere that they work is ludicrous. No. Lazy. It’s lazy because depth and breadth of experience is actually the hard work necessary to push thru some bias. In other words, I can instinctually hate something, but, depth and breadth of experience suggests the probability of a conclusion is of higher value than my hatred, e.g., I hate communism but I read Communist Manifesto so that I can be less biased in how I consider options with regard to the system I live in (democracy and capitalism). It is actually the fact someone has done these things, got that education, read these things and made these types of decisions in the past that actually make them more objective. Ah. But in the fantasy lazy bias argument world, all that objective increasing activity is simply a means to parse out some bias. It’s stupid.

Which leads me to false equivalence and conflation which distorts context.

Context gets distorted through whataboutism. In this lazy thinking context world, the differences between the ‘whataboutisms’ don’t really matter to the lazy faithful. In a victim-driven mindset the institutions are always the enemy and my faith is always under attack. Even more absurdly, the ‘reason’ is an alternative universe projection of an existing belief (an extreme biased view of something). It is a common-sense world view unhampered by any real reason and objective rationality. There appear to be no limitations to an objective reality therefore the most superficial aspects become ‘equivalent’ and some fairly disparate differences becomes easily conflated. Its, well, stupidity at its best. But where this becomes annoying beyond the stupidity is when the false equivalence is used to suggest hypocrisy. Now. Let’s be clear. The world, particularly in politics, is rampant with hypocrisy. In fact, so much so, well, you don’t need to create any false equivalence to point it out. But hypocrisy is a lazy technique for lazy arguments.

To end this rant.

I will not argue that defending against misinformation and misleading headlines is easy. It isn’t.

I will not even argue that some of our existing biases can skew our views. They will.

But I will argue that substantive reasoning can offer a pathway to objectivity, if you put in the work. Its not something for the lazy. But let me really clear on something. Trump has always been amoral, always narcissistic, i.e., operated as if he is above the system, always a pathological liar and always danced on the dangerous edge of legality. Yeah. Someone is now shouting at their computer “he is biased” and “what a hypocrite!!”

Oh well.

Those are objective truths and offer context for anything he is faced. Judge the system’s actions based on that and not some lazy bias argument. Ponder.

===

“Much like we cannot let the work of building better futures be contingent on feeling hopeful, we can’t let corporations or those in power control the flow and definition of hope either. No company or politician can hand you hope. We have to build it in and among ourselves as a beginning, not as an end. How does one change the future? How do we get to the tomorrows we want and not the ones we don’t? And a core piece of that question has to do with the way in which insects melt themselves into goo. Must we fully dissolve ourselves and our world in order to get to the futures we want? Do we have to burn it all down, destroy it all, and rebuild from that melted space? Or can we change more gradually, more incrementally, more like the hermit crabs, upgrading slowly as we go?

As Octavia Butler once said, “There’s no single answer that will solve all our future problems. There’s no magic bullet. Instead, there are thousands of answers—at least. You can be one of them if you choose to be.”

Rose Eveleth

===

“The unicorn is a lonely, solitary creature that symbolizes hope.”

Ally McBeal

===

The world sends out billions of messages, small to large, which puncture our hope. Some of the messages are intended to do so and some are not. Intentions aside, they all do. Because of that grind of stories we seem to face every day, I do believe a lot of people just seem to be more empty these days.

Well.  Certainly less full of hope if they aren’t completely empty.

I say this even to the people who are working hard to find a way to improve the world. I say that because even listening to smartish podcasts where brilliant articulators of issues thrive, more often than not you walk away a bit deflated. A bit discouraged. With a bit of a feeling that the meta issues are so overwhelming, well, what can I do?

In other words.

Hope punctured.

The truth is in today’s world we seem to get caught up in the everyday grind of the story of the day. And, yes, most stories don’t reflect the best version of people or the positive side of emergent issues.  What this means is that it can get fairly easy to step on to the slippery slope leading down to a belief we are in some shithole with no leader or steps to get out of it. And what THAT means <at least to me> is that far too many people are abandoning hope and we desperately need some people to offer us some good ole pragmatic hope.

Why do I feel so strongly about this?

I imagine lack of hope is kind of like entering a personal hell and even deflated, or deflating, hope is kind of like feeling like you are stepping onto the slippery slope into hell. Needless to say. This isn’t good for anyone.

I would be remiss if I didn’t say that the corollary to that is those of us with hope to give should share it whenever we can to get others out of that hell or at least off the slippery slope.

Which leads me to … uhm … unicorns.

Yeah. Unicorns. I thought about this because a friend of mine, one of the most delightful thinkers I know, and one of the best purveyors of whimsical thinking on serious topics, admitted to a bit of deflated hope.

So, unicorns is the topic today.

Crazy? Sure.  Sounds it.

Hear me out. Hopefully it also makes you think about the people who seem to keep a vision of hope and use it, however they elect to keep that hope at hand, to help them through the days and weeks.

So. This thought is actually grounded in an Ally McBeal episode. The show, in its oft absurd way, showed how sometimes people go to some extreme, if not bizarre, ways to hold on to some light in seemingly dark days. And while the episode was about the holidays, I thought it was pretty relevant to talk about hope.

What do I mean?

Well. I was going to try and write some whizbang words, but instead I found something that someone wrote on their blog <sorry … forgot who> that seemed to create the perfect reason for discussing why seeing unicorns is perfectly acceptable:

==

What has made it challenging for me to write this is the darkness that I experience through the world’s anguish at this time. I am not living in days of light—I am living in days in need of light. I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

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 our planet. I witness the kindest of people being too busy to adequately separate their own food waste and recycling from their trash to reduce the build-up of what is becoming our planetary garbage dump. I witness fires and weather destroying lives and property and then reflect on the consequence of our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately. In this season of cold, I see the homeless in our own community seeking shelter from the wet and the winter.

And even, perhaps, more sharply, I returned from Israel more aware than ever of the incredibly wide divide between the humanity we perceive and the inhumanity shown by the actions of the leaders in that troubled region.

Right here at home, I am troubled by the inaction of so many of us who speak words of reconciliation, words of peace, words of promise, yet continue to find enemies who need to be stopped rather than people who need to be invited into the dialogue.

Yes, all that is true, yet I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

==

Anyway. In the Ally McBeal episode I am referencing someone was fired for saying he saw a unicorn. Silly, yet the judge in the episode suggests “there are a lot of lonely people out there, looking for hope in strange places.”

Yeah. In the end the judge decides that those people can keep their unicorns.

You know?

It sounds a little crazy, but you know what? I agree.

Some people need to believe in unicorns. It doesn’t mean they are nuts. People need to find hope however they can and some people just see the unicorn as hope. And, frankly, why should anyone have any say in where a person may look for that hope?

For god’s sake, all people deserve hope and different people just get there in different ways.

And if someone elects to use a unicorn?

Well, geez, it could be worse, couldn’t it?

“who’s to say the ones who dream of unicorns aren’t the lucky ones these days.”

I know … I know … this sounds nuts … but think about it.

Supposedly people who see unicorns share some of the unicorn’s traits as in they may be lonely, but with virtuous hearts. Mythology also suggests that only pure spirits can approach the unicorn.

In the episode the character who saw it said he didn’t get close to the unicorn, but (here is the part that maybe makes you think a little) “but he won’t have another chance if he stops believing in the unicorn.”

Ok.

That is a bigger thought than just a wacky tv show. If we ask all people to stop “believing in unicorns” do people lose any chance of reaching what they hope for? If we ask people to stop ‘believing in unicorns’ are we asking people to abandon Hope?

Whew.

C’mon.

I know all of this sounds crazy <and it even looks crazy as I type it>, but don’t we really want more of these people in today’s world? Don’t we need just a bit more crazy-like hope in today’s crazy world?

In fact, maybe the people who see unicorns are actually the hope for the rest of us. Maybe they are the ones “where goodness reigns.”

Regardless. Maybe someone who sees a unicorn somehow just feels safer. And I have no right to not allow someone that right in today’s world. As I noted in my opening, the world appears to be doing its best to puncture our hope so maybe we need to create some thoughts that are ‘unpuncturable.’ Maybe we need the whimsical brilliance just to bring a tad of Teflon to our hopes and thinking and quests.

Here is an odd note to add from me, a pragmatic realist, I don’t know if I can explain it, but knowing that maybe someone out there can actually see a unicorn, well, maybe in a weird way they give me hope.

——————-

And, I’m afraid say it out loud because maybe if life finds out it’ll try to beat it out of them and that will be a shame. Because, we all can use a little hope sometimes, you know. That feeling that everything’s going to be okay and that there’s going to be someone there to help make sure of that.

There are people who can make you believe in things you can’t see.

And I think we miss that these days.

———————-

Look. It’s a hard time for everyone these days, but it is a particularly hard time for Hope & dreams right now. Unfortunately, far too many people are being encouraged to think of hope & dreams as some big, fluffy cloud that is surrounded by rainbows and unicorns. Because of that we tend to dismiss the ‘unicorns’ and tend to focus on the fact real horses, zebras and gazelles are dying.

Yes. We have some really serious issues we need to address and many of those serious larger, meta, issues can look overwhelming and unsolvable. But. To me … no hope = hell. And who wants to live in hell?  What I think I know is, well, hell doesn’t have unicorns. It doesn’t have the whimsical. It doesn’t have brilliant wizards. And maybe, just maybe, we should seek out the hope just a bit more often there. Ponder.

===

One day in 2017, Alexandra Rowland wrote “The opposite of grimdark is hopepunk. Pass it on.” A style of brutal nihilism had become a trend. It was a sort of dystopian darkness where nothing mattered and everything was void of hope. Enough was enough, so she put words to the something she longed for and learned she was far from alone.

“We’ve all been mean and petty and cruel, but we’ve also been soft and forgiving and kind. Hopepunk says that kindness and softness doesn’t equal weakness, and that in this world of brutal cynicism and nihilism, being kind is a political act. An act of rebellion.”

I imagine part of everyone’s life is imagining what they would do in a certain situation. What they may say, how they may act within a variety of “what if” situations. I would guess this is actually a healthy thing to do. Mental preparation may not be equal to trial & error preparation, but it certainly generates some mental imprints, some possible heuristic thinking, which could be helpful IF the imaginary problem becomes a problem in reality.

And then the ugly side of this rears its head.

Imaginary problems.

Imaginary problems can span from harmless waste of time thinking to harmful conspiracy theories which subvert thinking.

On the harmless side it just wastes time. I would say the most obvious example of this is managers who have nothing to do, but create problems that don’t really exist under the guise of ‘being prepared.’ In business then can often lead to paranoia, particularly when viewed through a competitive lens, i.e., “them” are out to get “us” (which business loves to do). And while that is business that attitude slips into homes and home discussions and community attitudes and then, well, the harmless actually becomes a bit harmful. That said. To be fair to business, or even the everyday life imaginary problem thinking, this shit has degrees of probability and if the least likely to occur could be catastrophic, well, it may not be a complete waste of time. All I can say here is I wish more people would ponder the probability of some imaginary problem to insure they invest the appropriate amount of thinking time against it. Of course, there is a correlation between the amount of time wasted on this and anxiety. What I mean by that is continuously obsessing over imaginary problems where you can see no attainable solution, fantasy or not, inevitably increases anxiety. This isn’t a societal issue, but it is certainly an unhealthy, harmful, individual issue.

On the harmful side it not only wastes the collective minds’ time but it can actually divert resources through tangible fantasy solutions. So, this type of shit doesn’t just suck up mental time it can actually suck up tangible dollars and tangible resources. What I mean by that is if an imaginary problem becomes large enough in the imagination of a large enough group of people we will, oddly, develop a real fantasy solution to that imaginary problem. Yeah. That’s as weird and ludicrous as it sounds. And before you shelve that thought as some ‘imaginary issue’ I would point out that over 25% of all Americans believe in some conspiracy theory. I would also point out that at one point over 50% of Republicans thought Obama was a Muslim (which begat the Sharia Law takeover imaginary problem which begat a variety of fantasy solutions which, well, you get it, begat some really unhealthy anti-Muslim beliefs). Needless to say (part 1), when a conspiracy theory, an imaginary problem, goes mainstream we demand a fantasy solution. Needless to say (part 2), when we develop fantasy solutions it comes at the cost of time, effort and money/resources applied against a real problem which needs a real solution.

I purposefully broke this down into harmless and harmful to point out that thinking about imaginary problems is a human trait – all people will do it. Therefore, the path between harmless and harmful is a very, very, narrow one at times. I think it is fair for people to discuss imaginary problems and even fairer to discuss them in terms of likelihood in an effort to pare down ‘imaginary to possible.’

That said. Let’s be clear. America has a conspiracy problem. We have an ‘imaginary problem’ problem. And because it is a societal problem it trickles down into daily, individual, problems. Doubt me? We have more fantasy solutions floating around then most sane societies would, or should, have. This is occurring in homes, businesses and government. That makes it a societal issue. That is not an imaginary problem. It deserves more than a fantasy solution of fantastical thinking. Ponder.

===

“Change your thoughts and you change your world.”

Norman Vincent Peale

===

This is about marketing communications <and good advertising>. And this is also about the globe, or let’s say, the people around the world and the interesting fact that often, more often then we may think,  we are pretty similar with regard to our quirks.

First. Let me say that any time a marketer can actually do something that may suggest that people are people, wherever they are, people like it.

Uh oh.

That may sound contrary to marketing 101 <and marketing experts> in that most everyone invest a lot of energy  expounding on ‘individualism’, personalization, and ‘treating everyone one-by-one’ and, well, you name it when it comes to making people feel distinct and special.

In fact. This rhetoric has gone to such an extreme that it seems like everyone suggests that ‘mass’ anything is bad.

This is wrong.

Well. Not wrong all the time, but in point of fact, we often like to know that our quirks are not just ours. We often like to know that while being ‘individual’ we aren’t so weird that, well, we aren’t weird.

Embarrassing? Sure. Weird? Nope.

It’s nice to smile and say ‘hey, I do that too.’

• *** note: Byron Sharp and Ehrenberg Bass have a lot of smart high falutin’ theories along these lines in How Brands Grow which is a smart companion to this piece today.

Second. I actually have an olderTV ad where they figured out a way to suggest exactly what I just described.

Chevrolet.

This is the one that suggests people in cars all around the world terrorize their fellow travelers with their singing.

Ah.

Singing in the car.

I imagine I have never really thought about it, but why wouldn’t everyone anywhere make a fool out of themselves … uhm … have silly fun … singing in the car.

Now I know <and I have Chevy to thank>.

Chevy suggested that the Chevy Cruze is ‘loved in 119 countries’ and have attempted, fairly well, to showcase that it is loved by not focusing on the cars, but on those who are in the cars — and the fact that maybe we’re not so different after all.

==

Chevrolet Cruze TV Spot, ‘New World’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWZIO6j-MQ

==

Is this a spectacular tv execution?

Of course not.

It is excellent not because people will be talking about it or it will become a viral sensation <although you could do a very fun viral campaign similar to what Pharrell did with his Happy song … Happy every hour>, but instead because people see themselves in it. It may not make me buy a Cruze <it will not>, but that does not make it an ineffective piece of communications.

It is good. And well done.

And I find it funny to know that people in their countries are just as ‘weird’ as I am as well as pretty much everyone I know.

Sometimes a great insight to develop great communications is NOT about ‘being different’ or ‘unique’ but rather in ‘we are not so different.’

Well.

That last sentence would drive a shitload of strategy thinkers to some heavy drinking <and lots of angst> and begin questioning their career. Strategy, or developing a good insight, is not some formula that anyone can pull out of some magical bag, or do, insights are called insights because someone sees something “in” that matters. Please note I didn’t suggest disruption or anything grandiose. All I suggested was that an insight is about having the sight to see something within life or people to highlight.

And not everyone has good eyesight.

In the end?

I say “well done Chevy.”

===

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,

it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us ….”

Charles Dickens (Tale of Two Cities)

===

This may be the most famous literary opening to a book of all time. Well. At least the first line.

I tend to believe everyone knows “it was the best of times … it was the worst of times.”, but I also tend to believe most people don’t know the rest. Especially “we had everything before us … we had nothing before us …”

My belief?

The thought you can have everything and nothing at the same time is a Life truth. Your experience of the moment depends on what you choose to focus on. Dickens has done an amazingly simple job outlining the contradiction, and tension, life gives us. I believe this opening sums up the contradictory nature of every year, and indeed every day, of our lives. How it suggests that good and evil, wisdom and ignorance, and light and darkness stand equally matched in their struggle. That while we truly have everything ahead of us at any point in life, life is simply an empty vessel to be filled with whatever that ‘everything’ may be.

It reminds you of the ‘perfect’ day (it was the best of times).

It reminds you of the imperfect day (it was the worst of times).

It reminds you of believing in dreams and the faith and trust that it will work out if you work hard and how you envision the outcome with all your heart and soul (it was the epoch of belief).

It reminds you of how incredulous life is in its abundance of splendour and surprise – both good and bad (it was the epoch of incredulity).

It reminds you of hope, hope for something good, or better than what is (it was the spring of hope).

It reminds you that sometimes hope is simply that, hope, and not a guarantee of reality or what will be (it was the winter of despair).

It reminds you that while we may want to always live life ‘in the moment’ and in the ‘now’ in an attempt to maximize what is …  lives and experiences and moments are built on duality.

I kind of think all of this is pretty important today as we seem to wallow in dystopia and fear. Its almost like we are ignoring dualities and submerging ourselves in only one aspect of “the times.” Sure. If we don’t experience the moments of sorrow or despair, we can’t fully appreciate the moments of hope attained and joy. But you can’t only focus on the despair and you shouldn’t disproportionately weight the despair.

Look. I believe people don’t have to revel in the duality, but possibly find solace, if not hope, within the duality. And possibly find joy in the contradiction rather than despair at the unevenness.

Failed dreams can beget new dreams.

New realities can lead to needed life changes.

Even in times of feeling like you have everything you desire <or at least a lot> you can still experience lack of something.

Regardless.

Many people have a view that a happy and fulfilling life should consist only of highs <or maybe better said … a significantly higher % of highs than lows>. , Or that a positive life should consist only of certainty <shelving fear and doubt in order to be successful>. Or should focus on success without failure.

This is flawed thinking in my mind.

Frankly it sets us up for disappointment.

Worse?

It probably sucks the life out of … well … life. It attempts to take the duality, or the importance thereof, out of Life.

No matter how you plan your day, year, or life, it will have times of the best, the worst, wisdom, foolishness, belief, incredulity, light, darkness, hope, despair, everything and nothing.

If you accept that fact, well,  it is awful hard to plan a life if that is the case. So maybe instead of planning we should just live it and enjoy the duality and the contradictions. That may sound a bit nuts in today’s world but i would argue it only sounds nuts because we are focusing too much on the despair and fear and ignoring the light, the hopes and dreams and the best humanity has to offer and actually gives on a daily basis.

Which leads me to end with another Dickens thought.

“In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.”

Great Expectations

So. Maybe being a hero is to choose, actively decide, to not live a cowardly life. Maybe step into life and society and communities and accept what is right, and wrong, about Life and still, well, do what is the right thing <when you know it is right> and not doing the wrong thing <when you know it is wrong>. Maybe step into life and shove despair off to the side and embrace hope and dreams and possibilities.

Simple thought, but a difficult thought.

Well. Maybe just a thought. Ponder. This seems important.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein

===

“The more stupid one is, the closer one is to reality. The more stupid one is, the clearer one is. Stupidity is brief and artless, while intelligence squirms and hides itself. Intelligence is unprincipled, but stupidity is honest and straightforward.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

===

“Dumbing up” is taking dumb, simplistic, thinking and attempting to make it look smart. While I would like to claim credit for ‘dumbing up’ it is actually the name of a World Party album.

Dumbing up is never positive and it is almost always counterproductive. But. It sounds smart. It looks smart (when it is delivered in meme form). And there is almost always a grain of smartness within it.

My favorite example continues to be when someone says Leonardo Da Vinci said “simplicity is the highest form of sophistication.” Why is this dumbing up? Well. anything that generalizes simplicity is dumb. Simplicity is no more, and no less, than understandability. Second. Da Vinci never said this. And that is where dumbing up makes it bones – by attaching the simplistic dumbish twisted good idea to someone or something which credibly could be categorized as insightful, brilliant, genius, smart.

Which leads me to say dumbing up is the key to simplicity, branding, short term versus long term, organizational design, well, any complex topic in the world today.

Why do I say that? One of the signs of dumbing up is the implication that they are doing it to make it more ‘understandable’ to everyone. Dumbing up implies you are the smart one, not them. Yeah. Once again this is the alternative universe in making something dumb look smart. Like “It doesn’t matter unless there are results.” Another one of those vapid inane ‘dumb up’ comments. I mean, seriously, what does that mean? Results can be whatever you want them to be so meaning is meaningless to anyone but the result you decide to use.

Which leads me to businesses and organizations.

We have been floundering about attempting to showcase some metaphor for how a business actually works. To be fair. This metaphor rummaging exercise has the objective of changing a fairly persistent belief a business is a machine. But here is where dumbing up comes into play. Businesses are about people. Period. As James Carse said “a business is what people do together.” Period. No metaphor. Just, well, people interacting (conversations, connectivity, collaboration all cascade out of that simple sentence). But then we get dumb from there. From here on out we attach ecosystems, biology, bees, forests, fungus, networks, and a slew of other metaphors to dumb up the idea.

And here is where dumbing up shows its negative value underbelly. Businesses actually hear and see all the metaphors and either (a) get confused as “all that mumbo jumbo” and revert back to machine (because it is easy and can be easily attached to performative bullshit) or (b) lovingly embrace and ignore the substantive shit that really matters (people creating something, and things, of value, that is valued by the market).  Simplistically, in business, “dumbing up” promotes superficiality and undermines genuine expertise and understanding.

Which brings me back to simplicity.

Simple” and “simplicity” are related terms, but they have slightly different meanings. Simple refers to something that is easy to understand, uncomplicated, or straightforward. It can also mean something that is plain, without unnecessary embellishments or complexities. Simple unclutters for the mind to grasp. Simplicity refers to the quality or state of being simple. It can be used to describe a wide range of things, from the design of an object to the style of writing or speech. Simplicity implies a focus on the essentials and a rejection of unnecessary complexity or embellishment. It is often associated with elegance, efficiency, and clarity.

In summary, “simple” describes something that is easy to understand or uncomplicated, while “simplicity” is a broader concept that refers to the quality or state of being simple, unembellished, and focused on the essentials. Yeah. What I just described is Occam’s Razor. Say what is essential – nothing more and nothing less – not the least. And I end there because if there is a dumbing up example , it is Occam. The ‘dumb uppers’ use Occam to suggest simple is least. Occam never said that. He said “say the least that says the most.” The difference between the two is the difference between being dumb and smart. Ponder.