====

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper. “

—

T.S Eliot

====

“This is the way simplicity ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

—

Bruce McTague

===

Simplicity may be one of the most complex concepts in the world and, yet. we relentlessly discuss it in simplistic ways. “It seems simple …” may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

Simplicity is anything but simple.

I tend to believe we make simplicity, well, simple because when viewed in hindsight we pick & choose what seemed like something that changed in a blink of an eye because of some simplicity.

We look backwards and point at what appears to be simplicity and say “yes, that’s it.”

But.

Simplicity, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – 1st, security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the 2nd common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity — sense of stability AND movement.

The two are opposed. Yet, in a “simple world”, if you have one, you can’t have the other.

In addition. Simplicity is at its best when the decision, or act, is a reflection of staying true to oneself <or the organization/business> and when the decision makers are in their element <not being asked to collaborate or be involved if & when it is not their strength>.

Uh oh. This means simplicity, which should be reflective of the situation at hand, is rather a reflection of two very personal things:

• Attitude: safe and risk
• Self compass: true to oneself <strengths>

And therein lies the foundation of complexity. We live in a world of collaboration and anything but individuals and individuality in business ideation & implementation . Basically, simplicity is being demanded by the whole and implemented by the parts. Aligning attitudes and desires is difficult. And so is insuring aligning in strengths in today’s idealistic view of collaboration.

And maybe that is where simplicity faces its most difficult contradiction – facing the conflict in aligning making bigness small <in vision for the whole> and capturing the importance, and bigness, of the small.

Here is what I mean.

The whole thrives on overarching simplicity while the parts thrive on the underlying simplicity of details <which are inherently simple individually but complex as a collective whole>.

Even suggesting that there are two levels of simplicity implies complexity.

But most importantly we, in business, take ideas, big & small, and try and forge them into their most simplest strongest honed forms  all the while seemingly forgetting that … well … it is not just an idea, but the people involved that matter. Inevitably the idea needs to impact people’s attitudes & behaviors. And we would be silly to think that even the idea itself, as it is forged by each individual blacksmith, isn’t being crafted with some individualistic attitudes & behaviors.

In addition even if whatever you are trying to simplify sounds simple in your own mind <as an idea simplifier> the idea is more likely to be impacted by other people and other constituents. Many “simplicity arguers’ would argue that involving so many constituents makes simplicity needlessly complex … and they would be right … and wrong.

Yes. It makes it more complex.

No. They are wrong in that it is not needless. The complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>.

All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture them in a meaningful single word is not only silly but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation short. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest. Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part.

In other words … simplicity IS the complexity.

Simplicity is the watchword of the day. But we don’t want to give up our freedom to choose — we want options, we want products and services that fit our individual circumstances.   All those choices give us the antithesis of simplicity: they give us complexity. So how do we get simplicity without giving up choice?  We need simplicity and complexity together, we need simple complexity.  What we want is SIMPLEXITY.

Source 

Simplexity is actually a term used in the mathematics of complexity theory. A woman named Susan Abbott hijacked it for the Marketing and Customer Experience world. Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, authors of The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, came up with the term in this context.

Maybe it is because of his ‘simplexity’ in everything we do and own <which we love> hate at exactly the same time> we tend to want to attach ‘more’ to simplicity. I wrote once before that great simplicity seems too bare and that simplicity is not defined in how you say or communicate something, but rather how it is accepted.

Suffice it to say, great simplicity seems to beg to remain less <which too us hasty perfection-oriented people seems not enough>.

Simplicity tends to not end with a bang but rather a whimper.

Ok. I am going to end with a business point here.

What I just shared is also what I believe is the reason why businesses comfortable in a project based relationship, rather than an annual contract based relationship, are doing well.

Huh? Go back to the desires of the whole versus the desires of the parts point I made earlier. There are certainly business opportunities for the whole & the parts. Some call this a belief that simplicity sells, but you need complexity to scale. However, philosophically, what links any business success discussion to a whole OR parts discussion is the success of components rather than simplistic vision. Not to degrade the value of vision, but success inevitably is grounded in the grind, the confident steps taken in the interest of progress and actual “doing-type stuff.” And that is where “visionary consultants”, sometimes called “smart tree planters”, get it wrong. They envision a rich green plush forest and all the while inadvertently complicate the actual planting of the frickin’ trees.

In the absence of anything else, shit still needs to be done. And each part needs to be done well without sacrificing the wellness of the whole. The business world, and businesses in general, is ever increasingly interconnected <internally & externally> and ignoring that, simply thinking that if my part does my part well that the whole will succeed is … absolutely and completely flawed thinking.

The parts are always, always, connected in some way with the greater whole.

So therefore a project always needs to be done well and done correctly, the true winner in the project world is the one who recognizes the greater whole and can seamlessly slide its successful part into the greater whole. For a project based company the value rises up … successful project management, successful project integration into the rest of the puzzle and ultimately, even in some small way, successful involvement of the furthering of the greater vision of the whole. It is ground up value building with, I imagine, the ultimate intent to gain additional business relationship assignments up the value chain.

All that said. I believe I am simply suggesting that businesses in the project business not only build value with business partners the easiest way <pragmatically> but also build business relationships in the simplest way <through parts rather than whole>.

I also believe in today’s business world that despite some mental angst a hirer of a supplier/partner has when viewing project relationships versus long engagement relationship a hirer business actually prefers the concept of initially hiring on a project basis <seems like a trial period> and maintaining on a project basis <seems like an ability to eliminate at any point type flexibility> and extending on a project by project basis <seems like less risk because they have proven before and more value because project implies “not taking the work for granted”>.

Oh.

And a project sounds so much simpler than a long term relationship. Uhm. But if I have been working with you on a project basis for over 5 years isn’t that a long term relationship?

Geez.

Just one more example of how simplicity is complex.

Business and Life tends to rush toward the complex simply because it most likely offers us the perception of ‘more value’ and additional control and ‘something better’ and, yet, we yearn for this faux Utopia found in a place called ‘simplicity’.

But. Simplicity, in its heart and soul, is made up of two opposing attractive qualities: safety & consistency + risk & new.

In the end. I imagine we all simply seek simplexity.

===

“Men rush towards complexity, but they yearn towards simplicity.

They try to be kings; but they dream of being shepherds.”

Gilbert K. Chesterton

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

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

“I struggle to think of anything more miserable than living a life in the wretched hollow of the in between.”

–

me

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

Ok. This is about Life and, well, having quoted myself to open this piece:

What if that is all there is?

What if life is made up primarily of the inbetween?

And what if it is actually more important than all the other shit we focus on day in and day out?

What if the in-between is the big epic holiday from Life?

——————–

For all we could and should being

In the one life that we’ve got.

Everybody says that time heals everything.

But what of the wretched hollow?

The endless in-between?

Are we just going to wait it out?

Imogene heap (Wait it Out)

——————–

Think about it. If life is a journey <not a destination>, then isn’t the completion of that thought that you are always in between? In between where you were and where you will be <or you are going>. Kind of like living Life constantly in a liminal space.

Geez. That doesn’t sound good. In fact that sounds horrible <to me>. And I imagine to people who have specific aspirations and goals and things they target as “success in life” it is even worse because I bet it sounds an awful like nonsuccess, lack of focus and wasted energy. It sounds like either not knowing where you are supposed to go <which is something that everyone is telling you is the key to happiness> or you are stuck someplace that isn’t moving toward where you want to go.

None of that sounds good. But isn’t inbetween <in this sense> about finding your way? Finding ‘home’ mentally’? Where home, in the sense of ‘where I am going’, remains elusive mentally and physically. Doesn’t it mean you are in the search for, well, whatever it is you are searching for?

That means we are all supposed to be searching <gulp> all our lives.

Ok.

That was generalization.

How about thinking about this as living inbetween on the majority of things all our lives.

Majority? Would it be okay to be in between on all the <85%> things, but ‘where you meant to be’ on the 15%? That suggests you are anchored on the important, or some, things.

Is that good?

Well. As I noted above for me that is still miserable <or at least sounds so>. Not knowing something as important as that seems like it should be in the minority of the time and not the majority <meaning it is okay to ‘not know’ for periods>.

And yet. If you have ever been to a tropical island I would suggest many of the people there live long periods of their life in between – by ‘in between’ I mean simply meandering through Life.

The majority seem to have left something behind but … well … haven’t made any decisions with regard to gaining anything more ahead <tangibly>. In my rat race words they still have not found what they are seeking.

Here is the crazy thing.

They, for the most part, are quite content.

They seem to smile more <good> and maybe bathe less <not so good>.

They may wear the same shirt a couple of days in a row … and it isn’t some fancy designer shirt.

They don’t wear socks and they seem to be in less of a hurry <but almost always seem to get places on time>.

And … well … they seem to smile more.

This all makes me think maybe it is just me. Maybe I am trapped in the American ‘can do’ or ‘should do’ attitude and missing out on what life has to offer when you spend it in the in-between.

I do know that when I am around people who are peacefully existing in the inbetween I seem to wander there into that wretched space. And it doesn’t seem so wretched then. And I wonder. Think. And then it is painful <becoming wretched again>.

Why? I want to know where I am going. I want to know what I should be doing. And I want to be doing something purposeful for someone.

Oh.

Yeah.

But they seem to smile more.

Maybe part of growing up is learning how to be comfortable in the in between and not “being successful” and “having something to show.”

Maybe.

But it seems strange to me.

It seems so far out of my natural DNA the thought of it makes me reach for another cocktail just to calm myself.

Oh.

But they seem to smile more.

I admit. When I see them smiling and they talk to me about their own in between, oddly enough, it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland:

———————-

Alice:                    “would you tell me please … which way I ought to go from here.”

Cheshire cat:     “that depends a good deal on where you want to get to.”

Alice:                    “I don’t much care.”

Cheshire Cat:     “then it doesn’t matter which way you go.”

Alice:                    “so long as I get somewhere.”

Cheshire Cat:     “oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.”

————————-

Look.

I imagine we all reach some crossroads in our lives. Some moments when we question where to go from here.

I am an older guy. I’m supposed to not only know where I am going but I am also supposed to be well on my way to be there <wherever or whatever ‘there’ is>.

Sometimes I feel I have visited ‘there’ already and, well, shit. It wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

That said. Frankly, lately I wonder about what I will be “when I grow up” <which I imagine is the mature view of ‘where am I going’>. Therefore I do spend some time in that wretched hollow I call ‘the in between.’ And, yup. it is wretched to me.

All my life I have improved businesses, organizations, people and projects. And I love doing that. And I imagine along the way I have improved myself <at least one would hope that was a byproduct>.

At the moment I am doing none of those things <at least on a 100% basis which is what I am used to>.

So what happens next?

I define myself by doing. Unfortunately, in doing that it makes you think — what happens when you stop doing?

Well. I have to stop worrying about how I “did” in the past and just keep doing what I have always believed has created some ‘value’ in Life — just not in the way I used to where organizations counted on me.

Being a salaried employee is comfortable. Doing and providing value daily, if not weekly, is comfortable … at least to me. I don’t know that I am that different from the majority in this sense. Many of us, most of us I believe, like feeling productive. Heck. Most of us like BEING productive <in some form or fashion>.

It is funny. I had this discussion with someone sitting at a bar in the islands. Someone who was comfortable with the inbetween. Mostly comfortable because they defined their Life differently and, frankly, from a pragmatic standpoint had figured out a way to do something that paid the bills without the ongoing stress of where next month’s  money is going to come from.

Anyway. Lastly. Here is what I think about in-between and people and today’s culture.

Sometimes people need to be pulled out of the in-between because they do not belong there. They cannot get out on their own.

Wow. That certainly goes against all of today’s “you have to be a self starter” or “you cannot count on anyone but yourself” or “no one is going to do it for you” philosophy being expounded, and pounded, into today’s culture. I say this because I think of this the same as the slippery slope of Life. The in between, just as the slippery slope, is difficult to get off of or out of without a helping hand. This isn’t about not being strong enough or not being enough of a self starter … or not even not being qualified or ‘good enough’ at some work talent … some people just get stuck.

And some of those people are simply better at being in the game than in getting in the game.

I know I tell people to get in the game all the time. Take chances and take some uncomfortable risks. And I am not backing off of that. But there is a difference between doing that while actually in the game then when you are out seeking to get in.

For example, myself, put me in the game and I will play like every second is the last second of the game. I take calculated risks and am relatively fearless in a business environment. But I am also relatively clueless about getting in the game if I am on the sidelines. It is a different skill and a different attitude. This isn’t about avoiding anything … or avoiding choices <or inability to make the hard choices> and it is not even about being lazy; it is simply a different Life skill.

Whew.

This in-between thing can be quite wretched for many of us I imagine.

All I really know is that the conversation I had made me think and the next day at the same bar I had this scribbled on some napkins for them to read <they all bought me drinks after reading>.

I don’t share many things I write personally but try this one out as I ponder ‘what I will be’ and what I will do because I feel like I still have something to offer <professionally>.

And I am currently squarely residing in the in between.

And it is a really uncomfortable place for me.

In fact … I am relatively sure the inbetween is the wretched hollow in Life.

——-

Napkin scribblings at a bar in the Caribbean after a pain killer <or 2>. Oh. This is also probably my first published piece in that the bar owner liked it so much it is now posted behind the bar.

Here you go:

‘tomorrow I was nothing’

tomorrow I was nothing

yesterday I was no more than today

today I was believing that which is was not.

in some little place in between everything i hold on to “I believe in me.”

but

makes you wonder

if we ever reach a day

when we can discern the difference

between

that which is

what was

and what will be

and what we believe,

even in me.

so are we destined to suffocate

in the silent seconds

strewn in the wretched hollow

of the in between

where the only thing seen

are question

after question

after question

of the difference between

what is, what was and what will be.

oh, so i ask Life to wait on things

things that seem practical to the wise

as i wait

for wisdom with closed eyes

hoping all will appear on our fingertips to touch

that which is right from the wrong

and what we can feel may lie unseen in the in between

where it all becomes real

regardless

can you count the Mondays

Life thinks of calling me

and doesn’t?

because in the hollow of the in between

I know that i am you and you are me

and in the grey

in between decisions

seek the light of what is right

despite the fact you sometimes doubt that which is

and aim to the left

where darkness beckons.

in the end

departing the wretched in between

is simply what it is

and always comes back to what was.

so don’t blink

or you may you sink into the in between

of what you think

rather than what you should know

for tomorrow was nothing

and yesterday 

was holding your dreams

and today is what is.

——

<please note: I wrote the original for this in 2013 in a very pensive mood while relaxing on an island in-between – pun intended – working on business projects remotely. It is now 2018. I may still wander in the inbetween on occasion and, yes, it is still a wretched place, generally speaking, for me>

Thanks for reading <sometimes don’t think I say this enough>.

————–

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own.

And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it.”

==

Audre Lorde

————

“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

==

H. L. Mencken

———–

Well. This could be about either business or Life … but let me stick with business for today.

I have worked within so many industries and seen so many different businesses I can’t really keep them all straight. And maybe because of that breadth of experience I have realized that there is no formula for success that is easily transferable.

What this means in a practical sense is that I don’t have a formula to offer when I walk into a new business <because I would have to have dozens and my brain doesn’t work that way>. Yet, everyone, every business, seeks a formula for success. This can be frustrating <for the business and for me>. They do this despite the fact they know in their heart of hearts that most business situations are contextual and dipping into some past developed formula more likely than not is simply not going to replicate whatever had happened in the past that made the formula look so appealing.

And, yet, again and again … businesses seek some elusive formula to apply to their business – to start it, to make it more efficient or even on how to plan tactics.

Here is what I know from having walked through hundreds of business front doors. Business seems to demand order from its thinkers, doers and leaders.

Think about it. Inevitably no matter what conversation you are having … innovation, ideation, process, production or even organizational culture you will find yourself mired in some aspect of ‘order.’ And we wonder why there is so much angst and conflict in business? That is your explanation. The world is not a naturally orderly place and yet we constantly seek to put it in order.

Day in and day out almost everything a business does is about finding some order in a world that demands non order, non tidy, non linear, like thinking.

This is a crazy, sometimes stupefying, discussion of a desire for a winning formula … and a refusal to follow a formula at exactly the same time.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been pressed by a business to show proof that an idea, or something, has worked in the past … only to have another past ‘formula’ be rejected as ‘not relevant for us.’ Frankly, the inconsistency with regard to using something in the past is maybe the most consistent discussion I have in business.

Look. There are certainly some guiding principles that can help insure, or limit, your stupidity moving forward … but formulas don’t exist. What constantly still catches me a little off guard when formulas are being requested <or some derivative of a formula> is that we all know each business, each business situation and each organization is at minimum slightly unique.

Every relatively smart & experienced business person knows this. Therefore a past formula runs the risk of trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

Oh. But then we inevitably slide into the infamous discussion of “let’s just use the parts that apply to us & our situation.” This is another ‘formula but not-formula’ head scratcher.

Most past successes are a confluence of factors intertwined into some uniquely messy tangled ball of string. It looks messy <albeit far too many business consultants portray it as simple, or linear, or anything but tangled as they

straighten the string out to show a flawed construct> and it is … well … messy.

Therefore trying to pull it apart and using one aspect as a “successful foundation for our future success” <see: “formula”> is flawed logic. There are rarely, very rarely, neat & plausible solutions to what a business faces in the here & now. If you are shown a ‘formula for success’ and it looks neat and it seem plausible … it is most likely wrong.

Ok. What I am now going to say is going to sound painfully inefficient.

A business has to create its own way of doing things. It has to create its own formula. It can certainly contain some aspects of things that have been done in the past but those are simply ingredients from which you will build your own formula. And, to be clear, if you start bolting together different formulas to create a successful business … you are simply creating a Frankenstein which the village people are going to end up killing with simple pitchforks & torches.

Your business formula for success will have to be yours. And, yes, you do need some type of formula. Business does demand some order. Without it there is only chaos.

Now. ‘Borrowing’ order <see: “formulas”> seems like a nifty short cut to minimizing risk as well as creating a foundation on which to build upon. Unfortunately, it is often not that simple for a couple of reasons.

<1> Rigidity. Using someone else’s formula is like inserting an immovable part. It is a rigid component inflexible to any organizational adaptations … or external adaptations. Customize the formula and you run the likely risk that it fails <because a successful formula is a formula for a specific need>. Leave the formula rigid and you run the likely risk the organization loses some flexibility to respond to external circumstances.

<2> External adaptations. Because the business environment in which a business competes in is a fairly unorderly world and order constantly chafes with disorder. Formulas in today’s business world look significantly different than formulas of the past in that the past had more rigid aspects and the present has more fluidity.

Anyway. I would like to note that last point as possibly the biggest struggle a business leader has in managing a business – getting comfortable with the constant chafing and recognizing when it is no longer simple chafing and instead a real open wound.

In the end. Let me end where I began … you cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own. And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it.

Most businesses have their successful formula already in hand. More often than not they don’t need to look elsewhere for a formula. They just cannot see it yet … they cannot see they have their own fire.

That’s what I do.

Painfully, but what I do. Make them see their fire and believe in it. It comes down to assessing the ingredients that reside in the business owner’s mind, in the business culture and what the organization itself is capable of … and building that fire.

And, even then, rarely is there some simple formula which becomes their elixir for success. It becomes almost like the core molecule on which additional molecules can be attached or removed as the business organism interacts with that wacky disorderly business environment.

Success in business is never easy. It only looks easy when looking at someone else from afar or looking to the past. While businesses demand order the business environment conducts itself in a less than orderly fashion. That sentence right there explains why there is no formula for success and that we have a non-formula world.

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

“Those who tied the knots are responsible for untying [them].”

—–

Chinese Foreign Ministry

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

So. We talk a lot about “business problem solvers” or “disruptors” or any number of ‘problem/solution’ type things in the business world.

Well. Maybe we should talk more about the knots.

Knots?

I have eased my way into a number of new responsibility positions throughout my career and one of the first things you start doing when you settle in is scan for the knots that are inherently strewn throughout the business.

Sometimes these are nicely tied knots someone has developed and set in place to hold together a process or system or principle to insure it holds something important together.

Sometimes these are nasty tangled threads created by someone who didn’t know their ass from their toes, or by the system itself <think of a lawn hose by the end of the summer> or sometimes they are representative of well-intended actions by a variety of people over time <trying to improve or fix something>.

And, while those are all “sometimes”, all times, all businesses, have knots.

That said. I can also say that untying knots is not for the faint of heart. To do so well is to be part safe cracker, part surgeon and part Navy Seal.

Ah. But not everyone views knots the same – in how they occurred and what needs to be done to untie. I would suggest how you view a knot depends on whether you believe in cause & effect <a linear action model> or in a more ambiguous “a cause can create multiple effects’ model.

Let me explain a little.

When I started in the business world we spent a shitload of time discussing cause & effect, stimulus & response and … well … a lot of behavior based on a linear ‘if this, then that’ type model.

Not so much today.

In today’s world almost all situations <internal process as well as consumer/buyer behavior> are ‘knotty.’

I often show a picture of an atom in attitudes & behavior discussion but I like the knot metaphor also.

Uhm. Yes. This type of thinking, unfortunately, increases the likelihood of ambiguity. Ambiguity is not one of those things the business world tends to happily embrace.

To be clear. There is a lot to be said for teaching young business people cause & effect basics. I liked growing up & learning the business world encased in a cocoon of certainty type thinking. Linear type thinking gave me some clarity and it certainly permitted some fairly easy conclusions and recommendations. Unfortunately I also found, over time with experience, this increases the likelihood of … well … a shitload of bad things – wasted energy, misguided efforts and monies being funneled into activity generating less-than-desired outcomes.

But. It had been linear logic and, therefore, provided some certainty to base the recommended recommendations on.

Certainty. Certainty is something we all crave in business. But we may crave it for a slightly less obvious reason then you may think. Linear permits us to more easily get the one thing almost everyone wants – a way to get out.

Yeah. It’s not really about solutions or answers, simplistically, it is awareness that there could be a way out.

Just think about it a little.

Most of us when faced with some situation, issue or problem just want a way out of that situation, issue or problem.

And, yet, we spend gobs of time talking solutions and most likely invest far too much time & energy extrapolating out “what if scenarios” in seeking what happens when we untie the knot and move forward. It’s quite possible we should be investing more energy, instead, on looking at a knot and simply seeking the best way out of the knot. And that is where linear thinking kicks nonlinear thinking’s ass.

With ambiguity, the way out is not only less clear but, at times, it can seem like a crapshoot –what is behind door #1, versus door #2 … as well as door #3?

And who the hell wants that in any business decision making situation?

Which leads me back to knots. As you move up in management, and Life I imagine, you either get better at seeing the knot and seeing how to untie a knot — or you remain a linear cause & effect decision maker.

I would suggest the world can use both; however, the world <business or otherwise> cannot exist solely with cause & effect decision makers. In addition .. each group and drive the other one frickin’ crazy. But, suffice it to say, we need knot un-tiers.

Being an “un-tier” actually consists of two aspects — one attitude and one expertise.

Attitude: personal responsibility.

You own the knot. This is a metaphor … a metaphor for a problem and owning the problem.

We all inherit problems. And the most successful of us look at them as knots, not ‘some simple fix <do this/get that>. The most successful of us don’t sit around bitching about the knots, whether they were there already or created by someone else, but go about assuming responsibility for any and all knots and go about untying as many of them as we can. But here is the thing about this responsibility. We own the knot. We do so because we know that once we are in a position to get shit done … all that matters is getting shit done. And you know you have the responsibility to do what needs to be done to get shit done. It does no good to say “not my knot.” You have a job … they are all now your knots.

I would note that untying knots is kind of a “go big or go home” type venture. I say that because in business once you begin untying … well … you have to keep going. Knots, good and bad, exist for a reason … so eliminating, or rearranging, a knot will have consequences — stopping is not an option.

Expertise: ability to navigate the interweaving that binds a knot.

Untangling is part vision and part deft touch. Anyone who has ever untied an ‘impossible knot’ knows that you cannot simply tug & pull … you have to ease one aspect and pull another and maybe even push in other place. Deft. And as you do so you have the vision ability to see the unseen parts and get a sense of where one ‘weave’ has appeared and where it has come from, what it crosses and if it is actually entangled with another weave.

———

—–

I would suggest that this is partially an ability to navigate some ambiguity.

Ah. That phrase ‘navigate ambiguity’ leads me to one last thing. Cause & effect thinkers can be a cleverly dangerous group of business thinkers to work with. Using the business knot as the example … the most dangerous thing a linear thinker can do is offer everyone the false linear cause & effect conclusion.

Huh? Think of this knot as like shoelaces. The knot is there with the aglets <the small sheath, often made of plastic or metal, used on each end of a shoelace>. The linear thinker, incapable of untying the knot suggests the knots doesn’t matter because if I have the left aglet, and the right aglet, they suggest “I can clearly see the ultimate cause & effect” <see image to right as example>.

That is wrong. And dangerous for making a business decision.

Not to put this too harshly but that logic is like saying “I love all jelly filled donuts” not knowing some are filled with shit.

All that said. I will say that once you have tied a knot you do assume some responsibility for it – keeping it, explain it or even untying it. I mention this because a lot of us leave positions, jobs & companies and far too often leave a knot behind with no explanation. Maybe we are embarrassed to highlight a knot or maybe we just start thinking “not my worry anymore.”

Well. It doesn’t really matter what you think … you own the knot and you have a responsibility to talk about any and all knots with anyone who may someday want to untie it. Regardless. I would also remind everyone — knots are created to be untied.

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

Originally published September 2017

===========

“We tend to hold ourself accountable for things we never did.  Hearts we never broke. People we didn’t hurt.  Souls we didn’t crush. “

—

coral-vellichor

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

All these years I’ve been looking at the wrong side.

—

(via madelinemharris)

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

Ok. Accountability, or responsibility, is always a good business topic. And, yes, I am a big personal responsibility person. But in business, within an organization, responsibility tends to be more shared responsibility than simple personal responsibility. I thought about this during a discussion on Distributed Leadership/Holocracy/etc type business models. These discussions tend to revolve around flat, flatter & flattened operating models. The point being everyone agrees there has to be some leadership roles and, yet, not be hierarchy or command/control.

Anyway. To be clear. I believe there is a strong relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. The stronger the shared responsibility attitude & behavior within leadership & mentors & role models the stronger the development of personal responsibility muscle occurs in everyday schmucks like me. Conversely, if you are surrounded with lack of shared responsibility examples <or even those who espouse ‘selectively chosen shared responsibility’> the value of personal responsibility diminishes to an individual, therefore, they see less value in exhibiting personal responsibility.

We don’t talk about this relationship enough. Far too often we flippantly suggest “people should take responsibility for their actions.”

Well … no shit Sherlock. But if your role models or leaders are constantly passing the buck when the shit hits the fan to save their own bacon <and image> then what the hell … why would you not do the same?

Yeah. Sure. Everyone has to pull their weight and do their job and do what they say they are going to do … but very very rarely does an individual perform in a vacuum in a business.

This happens more so even in management. It drives me a little nuts when I hear some leaders discuss “delegating.”

Somehow delegating equals “absolved of responsibility.”

This is stupid irresponsible thinking.

My belief that it is stupid thinking is rooted in some common sesne I am fairly sure the US Military says:

 

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

In other words … you can give others the power to do things … you can delegate … but, no matter what happens … if something goes wrong … the final responsibility always lies with the one who has delegated authority. Sticking with the military as my guidance … this means if your business has an initiative that has gone SNAFU <“Situation Normal: All Fucked Up”> the blame … and the ultimate responsibility for the mistakes <fuck ups> falls … uhm … up.

The leader assumes responsibility. This is shared responsibility. In other words … this is leadership.

Once you become a business leader past a mom & pop management style business you have to face the concept of shared responsibility <and some embrace it and some reject it>.

Despite the fact you have delegated authority that ‘authority’ does not represent a discrete event and period in time. You bear the responsibility for the cascade of events, decisions and actions leading up to the ‘authority giving’ which means everything you have done up until that point provides the context for the delegating … yeah … you own the arena in which you have placed the delegatee.

But this gets exponentially worse <if you are thinking about becoming a business leader>. You actually also share responsibility for the consequences — intended and unintended. This is different than delegating authority <although it relates to it> and owning responsibility for the action … this goes beyond to the actual ripples from the decisions & actions.

Now. Some leaders have a nasty habit of assuming responsibility for the decision and the effect of the decision — within a finite period of time. The weakest leaders try and tie “that was out of my control” or “I wasn’t there for that” as soon as they can to a decision they make. The strongest leaders worry less about any carnage that has been left behind, but rather start worrying about any carnage the decisions & actions could possibly create for the future.

The truth is that business leaders should take a moment and remember the wise words of an American Indian. Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota leader who led his people against the U.S. Army and later as his people transitioned from life on the plains to the reservation, stressed that when Indian people made a decision, it should be done with the welfare of the next seven generations in mind.

In a short term world where most business leaders are trying to make quarterly goals and just try and keep their job … thinking with the welfare of the next 7 generations seems … well … impossible. I imagine the real point is that most good business leaders assume some responsibility for the generations to come.  Some people may call this ‘long term strategy’ and some others will call it ‘keeping your eye on the horizon’ or even ‘having a vision’, well, I am no Harvard Business guru and all that high falutin’ stuff seems unnecessary. To me it is much more simple. You make decisions accepting the burden of responsibility for what will come and may arise from your decision.

You share the responsibility for what will, or may, come. And if you do that? Damn. You will do good and be good. And if you do not do that? Damn. You may get a shitload of attention and applause in the moment and a shitload of attention and anger in the future.

Why do I say that?

Because if you don’t really believe in shared responsibility and flit from one decision to the next in a transactional “responsible only to the moment” way you will end up rushing from issue to issue, reacting without a plan or a strategy or <worse> no care of longer term affect, creating carnage yet to be seen <because that type of leader tends to seek only the cheers in the moment>.

Just to point it out … with no plan that means anything can happen and a leader can justify anything. Because with no plan to measure a decision against anything can look right … and unpredictable can be touted as ‘flexible to the situation.’

All of this fits a short term leader in a short term world.

The people are few and far between these days who weigh their responses and assess long term affects. In today’s world it almost seems a race to be the first to judge or comment on a decision or action and far too many leaders actually manage to the public race to comment rather than the longer term assessment.

This is scary stuff for anyone to do but a business leader? Dangerous.

Even the best short term decision makers, if forced into a gauntlet of short term decisions, will struggle to insure at the end of the gauntlet they have kept walking northwards as they had been looking down the entire time. More often than not North will not be the direction you are facing nor will you have actually moved any closer to the North star.

I am not suggesting this longer term shared responsibility attitude is easy. In fact .. it is really really hard. In fact … it almost means you have to embrace a little “impossible” into what you actually make possible.

Huh?

In general I have always liked logical thinking <no matter how random the logic may be> but I always love it when someone combines some unexpected logic. Generally speaking the best unexpected logic actually comes from those who do the impossible … thinking of the impossible and seeing possibilities — the impossible being “knowing for sure what will happen in the future.” They make the spectacular leaps/chances, accepting responsibility and sharing responsibility, so that business can make the needed changes or just do the semi-risky things that keep a good business doing good things <things that may push against the borders of the status quo>.

Yeah.

Spectacular errors can only happen if you take spectacular chances. I am not fond of irresponsible risk taking and decision-making, but I am fond of doing ‘the right thing’ even when it may appear to be going against the stream. Sometimes that means a spectacular success, sometimes a spectacular error. But always something spectacular. And, I will tell you, what more could you want to say about your life as a leader but that you have done something spectacular? Especially if that ‘spectacular’ actually happens a generation later which permits you to sit back and say “I did the impossible … I viewed the future well.’

Anyway.

Shared responsibility is the burden of any good leader. They tend to be the leaders who understand they cannot really be sure what is going to happen to them over time, they weigh the risks to the best of their ability and let the chips fall as they may. I tend to believe their attitude is one of “you don’t want to act more fearfully than you have to.”

Good leaders have a tendency to hold themselves accountable for anything, everything and everyone … in varying degrees depending on the anything, everything and everyone. And, maybe most importantly, I tend to believe they understand that there is a relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. And, practically speaking, you will never be viewed as a true leader if you do not.

Well.

You know what? To end this thing today let me offer two other words, typically associated with responsibility, obligation and duty.

Obligation refers general to something you are compelled to do by regulation, law, promise or morality. I think good leaders feel obligated to assume shared responsibility.

Duty, more so than obligation, springs from an internal moral or ethical impulse rather than from external demands.

I think good leaders feel a duty, not just obligation, to assume shared responsibility. Shared responsibility … not only do I believe we should discuss it more often <because it will foster better value in personal responsibility> but I also believe we should be demanding it of our leaders more often.

“But the brain does much more than just recollect it inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes, it generates abstractions. The simplest thought like the concept of the number one has an elaborate logical underpinning. “

—

Carl Sagan

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

I am constantly trying to communicate something incommunicable, to explain something inexplicable, to tell about something I only feel in my bones and which can only be experienced in those bones.”

—

Franz Kafka

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

This is about ideas and thinking. I am a scribbler. And a sketcher. And a pencil guy. I carry around a stack of index cards & constantly sketch out thoughts for people. My index cards are strewn around the world. I am sure some are used for dart boards, some for a good laugh & some actually was a seed for some idea.

I purposefully used the word “seeds” because I think we would be much better off if we thought of ideas that way. Why? Well. Seeds die or remain underground or get eaten by some squirrel if it isn’t protected, nurtured, watered and pampered in some way to insure it flourishes.

And while there are gobs of articles highlighting ideation process and such , to me, all that matters is an idea doesn’t die with poor articulation. A good idea poorly presented dies. Even great ideas poorly articulated die.

Now.

A shitload of people will want to talk about PowerPoint & presenting & a whole bunch of shit that just gets in the way. Those are simply ways to do it. What matters is how you do it.

Which leads me to the Feynman technique. It is essentially explaining a concept or idea to yourself, on a piece of paper, as if you were teaching it to someone else with little background knowledge. This is all about it’s all making sure you understand it and can you explain it if not simply simple enough to be understood.

I had no clue who Feynman was when I start taking out a piece of paper to find out if what I was thinking made sense on paper. Over time I have found an index card does it for me. it forces the constraint I need to either, well, get it or not get it. If I can’t articulate my idea or thought on an index card I mentally decide it isn’t worth a shit as an idea. Ok. Maybe it is but I know I haven’t figured out a way to articulate it so that it will not die.

Look.

I am not suggesting I am a great idea person or thinker but I am suggesting creating a process to elevate all people’s thinking does not necessarily benefit the smaller group of people who are actually good at thinking & creating ideas. What I mean by that is with the intent to create a better thinking organization we tend to want to throw everyone into the same bucket <I guess we do that to encourage inclusiveness & ‘fairness’>. Unfortunately this means your best of the best get pulled out of what may make them the best & force them into the “unwashed masses” <I am kidding on that phrase but you get the point>.

We should always be thinking two parallel paths. One to elevate the majority and one to empower the minority.

Why? To protect ideas.

Minds work in a variety of ways. It seems to me that organizations should think less about organizing minds but rather freeing minds. If you have someone like me, buy me a stack of index cards & have someone riffle through tem on occasion to see if there is a seed somewhere.

I will say that when I was running a small company I would pin them up on a conference room wall and during meetings anyone at any time could pull it off the wall and say “WTF you thinking?” or “I want to talk about this.”

I learned to articulate better as well as get less defensive about ideas.

The employees learned to articulate better and come up with their own ideas in their own ways. By not having an organizational process but sharing my personal process we ended up having a process.

My point is ideas are seeds. Some don’t deserve to grow & flourish but some do & we should be learning to articulate ideas better to save those seeds.

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

“It is the moment when what was chaos is now seen as having a center of gravity. There is a shape where a moment ago there was none.”

—-

Peter Elbow 

===================== 

“If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the “Beyond” – into nothingness – one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity.”

―

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

Well.

Given the recent study showing 42 people have the same wealth as maybe 50% of the world’s population I thought I would republish this awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.”

Ok.

Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading <I actually read it over a vacation sipping some cocktails>.

Here is the net:

• In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
• In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).
• In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.

What the heck does his have to do with wealth inequality? Well. Because wealth is accumulating on 2 dimensions – on both the y axis as well as the x axis <just not at the same rate>.

Let’s just say that the x axis is shifting upwards globally <average wealth of global individual is improving>. This is good. This means the overall tide is rising.

Let’s just say that the people on the y axis are disproportionately reaping the benfis of a better global wealth improvement. That is bad. This means few continue to benefit at the overall expense of the many <yes, people will haggle with how I worded that>.

All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this. But I am fairly sure we talk about the y axis all the time and forget to mention the x-axis … that’s my point here.

Anyway. There are some nuances to the study I mentioned that should make people think a bit.

Don’t panic.

I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this researcher at The London School of Economics knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering <which is an important distinction> but rather center of gravity <it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering>. The study offered truly fascinating cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.

I will spare you. What I won’t spare you is what this analytic stuff means.

Suffice it to say that the income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.

I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof.  And it’s kind of sobering proof for those of us in the Western hemisphere <I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people. That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia.

<note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth>

Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good things happening in the world <not America getting weaker but rather America becoming a smaller larger global component>. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.

And there is more is to come. In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas <albeit both in different ways> and poverty will continue to be eradicated.

Now.

All of this could be concerning in a variety of ways.

First.

This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.

Second.

Let’s talk “intellectual shifts.” Eliminating poverty <or limiting poverty> means releasing probably the greatest restraint to education. And mind power is the great equalizer.

Yeah. Mind power. Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy <or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship>. When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. I even have an example on economic opportunity … and economic opportunity lost.

We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere.  And although the economic center of gravity was threatened at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.

Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.

The cold war.  Soviet Union versus United States <actually … the rest of the world>. The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void <of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’> and sought to increase its global engagement under the guise of government doctrine it was actually an economic battle.  Huh? Think people labor versus capitalism <simplistic but you get the point>. Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct.  However, because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.

Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy. Which, in the end, meant their failure to sustain an economic shift translated into the fact intellectual power was never maximized.

I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again <not Russia but Eastern Hemisphere & Africa> but … but this economic shift is being sustained. There are two <to me> primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each <and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention>.

The two? China & Africa <some people may argue India>.

China.

They don’t necessarily destroy.  In fact they do the opposite. They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.

Ok. There is a point here. What most Americans <let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general> fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have <or how high is up>. In fact it is through those eyes that we tend to damn China.

Take a step back.

As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes. Not a mansion … heck … not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people. And he did it. And China has continued to grow.

Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point. Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way and are being foolish by doing so. China is being successful <for a number of reasons> but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country <helped a segment make the next step up> and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity. They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, <outside of China> to ‘be better than what is.’

In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.

China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.

In Africa the picture continues to improve.

Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government. Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually. Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.

This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today over 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs <note: remember my point on mind power>. In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade <foreign>, strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).

So.

Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity <I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well>.

I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism. Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies <by non traditional communist means>.

China unapologetically clings to communism in every other sense of government policy. A number of more dictatorial based governments in Africa. Everyone should note it is Africa’s more quickly growing economies, characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion, which certainly represent the highest growth opportunities.

As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.

Once again … in my words … better than what they had.

Yes.

It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist <or communist like> governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies. America has taught them well. And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.

Anyway.

Sorry. I digressed.

Getting back to the center of gravity. This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.

Exorbitantly? Nope.

Wealthier? Yes.

Simply moving all developing countries <or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’> to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy.  More educated.  More knowledgeable. This is simple shit. But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. <silly silly people>.

Ok.

Be careful with what I say next.

While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.

Now.

I am a HUGE freedom of guy.  But.  If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing. But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing. Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.

Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.

This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.

Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.

This is a message to you & I that people in other countries also want their version of ‘self actualization’ and if economically it comes within grasp … they will try and grab it.

This is not a warning or threat but a suggestion this is an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior. But that is my next economic article. A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior <because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending & having stuff as we are>.

In the end.

The economic center of gravity was always going to be tugged away from America as the sheer numbers of the ‘rest of the world’ starting generating … well … economy. However, America needs to remember that at the core of economic gravity is not making shit … its mind power. The smarter the population, the healthier the population and, therefore, the more productive the population.

It’s a simple formula I tend to believe we forget.

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

“Biology gives you a brain. Life turns it into a mind.”

—

Jeffrey Eugenides

===========

Ok.

So I thought I had left the whole right brain left brain discussion behind.

And it reared its ugly head again one more time just the other day. And <distressingly> it was in a business environment, with senior people, discussing people’s strengths & weaknesses.

Look.

This whole right brain, left brain thing about creativity versus ‘logical’ thinking has to stop.

Stop … now <please>.

The truth?

We use our whole brain for thinking. Not halves. And right brain left brain mumbo jumbo is just that … a bunch of mumbo jumbo crap.

Yup.

The whole thing is bullshit.

Trust me <you don’t really have to because I will share reasons why you should>. And if you don’t believe me … well … if you ever want to drive a psychologist/psychiatrist/neurologist/any ‘ist’ crazy … bring it up.

With that … a reminder on what his whole thing is. In the right-left mythology … the left brain is logical, ordered, and analytic, and it supports reading, speech, math, and reasoning. In the same myth … the right brain is more oriented towards feelings and emotions, spatial perception, and the arts, and is said to be more creative.

Well.

Interesting myth. And it is just a myth. It is wrong (wrong & wrong … and maybe even wrong again).

And we have actually known for at least 30 years that this characterization is incorrect.

In fact the guy who probably put us all in this mess originally <Mike Gazzaniga who created the study in the 60’s that some pop psychologist used to write some fantasy-like left/right brain business books that became best sellers> who was a pioneer of modern study of brain hemispheric differences immediately tried to put a stop to the craziness as soon as it began with a book chapter titled “Left brain, right brain: A debunking.”

And he did that 25 years ago.

<note: he wrote it because the original crap was begun after he did a brain hemisphere study in the 60’s>

And, yet, there is still plenty of bunk to go around.

Its crazy.

I myself have gnashed my teeth <and sometimes growled> against the “left brain / right brain” myth for years <probably not 25 but a bunch>. It usually is personal <and I believe this is so for most people>. People are always trying to tell me how “right-brained” I am <or left … I get confused>.

Which I always find amusing since whatever I am doing invariably needs whatever the other side of the brain was supposed to be doing.

Plus. I would like to think I am using my whole frickin’ brain.

But.

It mostly aggravates me ,and kind of disturbs me> because it is deliberately misleading.

It has been used to support endless management dialogue telling us that we should liberate ourselves from too much left-brain ‘logical’ thinking and enjoy the fruits of our liberated, right-brained creativity <or vice versa depending on your management belief system>.

Look.

People may be inherently more visual, aural, spatial, sequential, intuitive, rational <or irrational> talented or non-talented … but it ain’t because of anything to do with left versus right brain.

Ok.

If you don’t trust me I pulled this from a medical journal.

A more technical explanation of how the whole thing went haywire:

==

You’ve probably heard this left/ right brain dichotomy before. It goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative. The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s.

There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain: in most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.

So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain. All types of information are probably processed in both the left and right hemispheres (perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other).

An article was published this week in the venerable (and reliable) psychology journal Psychological Bulletin, which synthesized 67 brain imaging studies of creativity. Among other things, it showed that creativity is not especially a right-brain function. In fact, two of three broad classes of creative thought that have been studied seem not to depend on a single set of brain structures.

What we call “creativity” is so diverse that it can’t be localized in the brain very well.

One might think that this study would put to rest at least part of the left brain/right brain mythology, namely, that the right hemisphere of the brain is more responsible for creative thought than the left.

One would think so, but I wouldn’t count on it.

==

My conclusion?

I put the whole right/left brain thing in the same category as reading a horoscope or reading my own tarot cards. If you give someone a vague positive description in which they can see themselves they will tend to agree with you. And that is dangerous on a number of levels <if people actually believe it>.

Ok.

Here is the main reason I bring this up <beyond the fact it drives me crazy and it is still being seriously discussed in the business world>. It has a detrimental effect on education and how we manage our youth. It is as bad as social profiling when it comes to kids.

Left brain kid.

Right brain kid.

You carry that label and not only does the child begin to see themselves in that label <it is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy> the adults tag the child with the label. And start treating them that way. And expecting things based on the labeling.

All of a sudden the child is placed on the left, or right, brain treadmill <oops … I meant to say moving sidewalk>.

And then they are left there.

Uh oh.

One day the child wants to jump off the treadmill to hop on the other one for a while … <adults> “whoa … get back on your treadmill … you know that other one is only for the right brainers … and you will be much more successful on the left brain treadmill <sidewalk>.”

That, my friends, reads scary even if it seems just a theory.

And we all know that at some place, at some time, with some children … this is actually happening.

We need to squash this left/right brain myth forever. Now <please … again>.

We use all of our brain.

Brains are ambidextrous.

And even if you, personally, do not want to believe this, well, please … at least teach kids that is is so.

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

“Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully.
“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.”
“And he has Brain.”
“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.”
There was a long silence.
“I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.”

—

Winnie the Pooh

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

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

“Like it or not, we are a part of the world.

What a crummy world if we all retreat inside our borders.”

“To quote a British observer of us from some years ago, bear with us, once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.”

———–

James Mattis

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

Well.

Throughout my life & career I have crisscrossed the country walking into mechanic shops, retail stores, supermarkets, numerous hotels/motels/inns and bars & restaurants.

I went to a public high school with a mostly agriculture student attendance and went to a college where the Crips and Hoover Family Blood patrolled the edges of the campus <and had a gang member stabbed 75 times in the alley behind my off campus apartment>.

In addition, I have received glimpses into the lives of Americans, rural/suburban/urban, behind the one way mirrors of research and face-to-face… in rural West Virginia & Kentucky, Wyoming, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, New York, California, New Mexico, Colorado and … well … pick your home and I have had a glimpse of your life.

I have met the least educated and the most educated <and you most likely would be surprised at how alike they are behind the façade of education> and felt hopeless at the hopelessness of some and found hope in the stories of those who had so much ‘no quit’ in them I felt less than worthy of my own efforts in Life.

I would suggest that what we all have in common in America is maddening. It is the fact we will exhaust all possible alternatives … and then, in most cases, do the right thing.

Love it or hate it … that is what we Americans do.

We are a stubborn folk we Americans. But I tend to believe the ‘exhausting all our alternatives’ is simply the same gauntlet we run time and time again … “I” to “we”.

What? Almost every single person when pushed into a corner <”no one puts Baby into a corner” type attitude> will defend what is possibly the most tried & true American ideal that every American in every corner of the country can pull out of their hip pocket – individual freedom. Freedom to think what I think, freedom to pray like I want to pray, freedom to say what I want to say, freedom to own a gun if I want, freedom to watch, do or go where I want.

Everything begins there.

That is the entrance to the gauntlet. And unlike Dante’s entrance to Hell which says “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” — most frequently translated as “abandon all hope, ye who enter here” — the American entrance says “this way to something better.”

However, I feel compelled to point out that no matter how much you gussy up a gauntlet … it is still a gauntlet and while it may have some pretty pictures on the walls of the tunnel you are still gonna get the crap kicked out of you.

We don’t take the easy path. That’s just what we do. Despite the fact we talk about common sense or “the simplest is the best” incessantly … America inherently explores all and any alternatives, no matter how painful, until we arrive at what is right.

Mattis reminded me of this.

We never make it easy.

I will note Trump may add a painful dynamic to this characteristic but even without him … we exhaust ourselves as we exhaust all alternatives.

Here is the good news. Our history resides with arriving, ultimately, at the right thing. The arc of our gauntlet tunnel curves toward ‘doing the right thing’ versus ‘doing the wrong thing.’

I imagine my thought for today is twofold.

First is that there is no one person, or class of people, or type of person which ultimately places us in this ‘right thing’ place. This one place is arrived at by the fruits of labor of the many — out of many, one.

The second is that far too often we refer to the ‘many’, people, in demeaning or diminishing terms. We look at people who don’t think the way we do, people who voted for someone else or people who want to do something different than what we want to do as ‘stupid’ or ‘idiots’ or ‘ignorant.’ I can honestly say, having traveled the far corners of America, I would suggest we should maybe see other people as ‘good hearted’ or ‘well intended’ or ‘knows things I don’t know.’

I would also suggest that most people are willing to listen if you are respectful enough to listen to them.

I would also suggest that most people have a story and that story impacts how they think about things and how they decide what should be done with … well … “the we.”

I would suggest if we ever want to solve some problems we should think about this a little more often.

Which leads me back to where I began on the gauntlet.

Most people enter the gauntlet with an “I” perspective … even those who fully understand that we are a greater “we.”

We do so because we are part of America which is built upon individual freedoms and each of us value our personal choice. Amusingly <painfully so> it is that individual freedom which permits us the excruciating good conflict that not all the other “I’s” view their individual freedoms the same way. Therefore, the gauntlet is alternative after alternative in which we are painfully bludgeoned into understanding that the “I” makes some compromises for the greater “we”. In addition … we go through the excruciating painful conflict which permits us to see 99% of the other ‘many’ have good hearts, are not really idiots and know shit that we do not know.

We enter the gauntlet as an “I” and come out with a larger respect for the “we.” And it is that gauntlet which hones all the other alternatives into the one alternative which is ‘the right thing.’

Sometimes it helps to remind myself of this.

It helps especially when it doesn’t feel that way … especially when the Warrior Monk, James Mattis, is forced to say it out loud to non-Americans. Because, in my mind, just the fact he has to say it means that we all need to be reminded of it. And, maybe most importantly, as we think about this man … and his words … it permits us to reject the entire concept of “abandon hope all ye who enter” with all of us already who are in this concept called “America.”

Yeah.

It feels painful now. It feels more difficult than it has to be. It feels like there is even less alignment than maybe we had even a year ago.

But maybe it just feels like we are exploring all the alternatives along our way to exhaust all of them n our pursuit to the inevitable – Americans will do the right thing.

Good thought for the day. Well, at least, that is my thought for the day.

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

“abandon all hope, ye who enter here”

–

Dante

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

‘… supplicate and implore the gods that prosperity may return to the wretched, and abandon the haughty.’

—-

Horace

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

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

–

Ally McBeal

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

Ok.

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 & society.

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.

I say this because … as a reminder … above the entrance to hell <Inferno> in Dante’s  Divine Comedy lies the words “abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

Just to keep you updated on the story … Dante passes through the gate of Hell with this inscription which is the ninth (and final) line <“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”>:

————–

Before me things create were none, save things

Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

—————-

Ah.

And as another reminder of the tale … before entering hell, Dante and his guide (Virgil) see the Uncommitted. The uncommitted represent the souls of people who did nothing in Life.

Yup.

Nothing … neither for good nor evil … just nothing.

To be clear, no, I am not going to suggest everyone read Dante’s Divine Comedy <a tough read for anyone>.

But I will talk about hope <or the lack thereof> & being uncommitted.

I imagine lack of hope is kind of like entering a personal hell. 

Which isn’t good for anyone.

So the corollary to that is that I imagine those of us with hope to give should share it whenever we can to get them out of that hell.

Which leads me to … uhm … unicorns.

And I guess about people who see unicorns.

Crazy? Sure.  Sounds it.

But 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. It, 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 for any day <these days>.

What do I mean?

Well.

I was going to try and right 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 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.

—————————————–

Look.

That sounds … well … dark. But I elect to focus on the ‘light’ or the refusal to give up on hope portion. We need light and, to me, that is hope.

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.

And in this Ally McBeal episode someone was fired for saying he saw a unicorn.

Well.

I would imagine all of us would take this with a grain of salt <if not believe the person had completely lost their mind>.

Yet the judge in the episode suggests “there are a lot of lonely people out there, looking for hope in strange places.”

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

You know?

It sounds a little crazy … and Whipper <the judge on Ally McBeal> was a quasi-nutcase on a show full of nutcases … but … you know what? I agree.

Some people need to believe that they have seen a unicorn. It doesn’t mean they are nuts … people need to find hope however they can … some people just see the unicorn as hope.

And, frankly, (and one of the characters says this also) … why should anyone have any say in where a person may look for that hope?

For god’s sake … all people want to be happy … 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?

One of the characters in the episode says … “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 them share some of the unicorn’s traits … they may be lonely but with virtuous hearts.

Mythology also suggests that only pure spirits can approach the unicorn.

In the Ally McBeal episode Ally recalls one time when she touched a unicorn and 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.

The unicorn is a symbol of innocence and purity.

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?

In fact … Chinese mythology says the fact that a unicorn has not been seen in many centuries suggests that we are living in “bad” times. It will appear once again when the time is right and when goodness reigns.

So 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.

Also <and … boy … coming from a pragmatic realist like me … this is gonna sound really odd> … 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.

Now that I have typed that … it reminds me of something else another character said:

——————-

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 these days.

Unfortunately far too many people re 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 & rainbows’ and tend to focus on a mission … that everything in our lives would instantly be perfect if only we could have ABC, or do XYZ.

Well.

Maybe it is that mission ‘focus’ that is really the fantasy … or, at minimum, part of the problem.

Maybe all those ‘missions’ are cramming up all our space that would have held dreams. And, really, this isn’t about going after your dreams but rather dreaming … and having hope … for something good and big and … well … maybe something that isn’t always tangible but intangible that lifts the heart and spirit.

I say all of this knowing that some readers will think this is wacky … but I also hope that people realize there is no right or wrong answer.

Being in the hope business is tricky, and tough, these days.

But.

In fact I almost wish I was in the used rainbow & hope business.

I think people would be willing to buy discount dreams and discounted rainbows. What I mean by that is people would be willing to set aside the ‘big’ dreams and maybe pick up someone else’s that have been discarded … and they still look pretty good to reality.

In the meantime … maybe I should look for some people who make wishes on rainbows and see unicorns and have not abandoned Hope <even if they have done so in some wacky way>.

I know it’s not really in my personal DNA to see unicorns.

And maybe that means I am not one of the lucky ones.

Maybe we need more people who can see unicorns.

Here is what I am absolutely sure we need.

I do know is that hope is a must.

If you don’t have it, you’ve got to find it … lapses in hope happen and are okay … but you have to find it however you must … and maybe that is why I agree with the judge in Ally McBeal … let those people have their unicorns … who am I to judge on how someone holds on to hope.

Regardless.

Ally McBeal was an odd tv show.

But several episodes are must see for everyone.

This is one.

It may just remind you that seeing unicorns isn’t as wacky as you thought it was.

It may just remind you that abandoning Hope is worse than seeing unicorns.

It may just remind you that being uncommitted to Hope, and the things associated with it, is actually worse than being in Hell.

Look.

To me … no hope = hell.

Therefore we should seek our better angels to guide people out of hell and inner angels to keep us from hell.

==========

“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”

—

Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

And, maybe most importantly, by abandoning Hope we have absolved ourselves of one of our greatest responsibilities – the next generation.

If we abandon hope we then fail to provide hope to our young people … and … well … are we not simply encouraging them to enter the gate of hell?

And if we abandon hope and end up doing nothing do we not run the risk of becoming one of the Uncommitted?

Dante was a smart guy. Gave us a lot to think about. Oddly … so did Ally McBeal. We can learn a lot about Hope in a lot of different places … including unicorns.

We need Hope. For if we abandon hope it is quite possible our future is destined to walk thru the gate of hell.