“The essential element of successful strategy is that it derives its success from the differences between competitors with a consequent difference in their behavior. Ordinarily, this means that any corporate policy and plan which is typical of the industry is doomed to mediocrity. Where this is not so, it should be possible to demonstrate that all other competitors are at a distinct disadvantage.”

Bruce Henderson

 ===

“Ability is of little account without opportunity.”

Napoleon Bonoparte

===

Business consultants. As with anything, there are good ones, and bad ones, and then there are those of us who think they could be a consultant and are a little unclear what defines a good one or bad one.

Regardless. Let’s take a minute and talk about consultants through my eyes. I will begin by suggesting I imagine it is often as effective in Life to admit what you are not good at as well as what you are good at in determining what you want to do.

I have already noted I would suck at being a free lancer <https://brucemctague.com/14-reasons-why-i-would-suck-at-freelancing>. And after reading a great article in The Economist <Schumpeter: Thinking twice about Price>, I will be able to note I would suck at being a consultant.

Why?

Because I have a deep need to tell the truth in business no matter what it may be.

Now. I did not believe that would be a problem until I read this article <okay, that is not true, I have always known telling the truth in business is often not a good ‘survival’ strategy>. That said. While reading the article I was beginning to think of myself as a potentially good business consultant because most of the thinking in the article discussed why businesses should be discussing how to raise their prices rather than cut costs as a way to increase profits <I am a huge advocate for this type of business thinking>.

Oh.

And then I reached the end of the article and … well … oops. I was mistaken. Because apparently while many consultants may actually believe this <raising prices can be good> and believe it is the right thing to do they will not tell a client for fear of not maintaining the relationship (please take note of the bolded part there):

“The irony, confides a senior management consultant, is that firms have such a taboo against letting go of a client … that they are the worst at taking their own advice to be fearless in asking for more, and walking away if they do not get it.”

The Economist <Schumpeter July 2013>

I couldn’t be a consultant because, uhm, I am too fearless? Because I am willing to walk away? Well. That not only sounds odd said out loud it even looks ludicrous now that it is typed. In fact. Its 100% bullshit. It seems to me being good at anything in business doesn’t really have to do with being fearless, but rather being someone of integrity.

Anyhoo.  To be clear. I am not anti-consultant. I actually believe they can provide a huge value to businesses <although I do believe how they go about business is a little wacky on occasion: https://brucemctague.com/a-rant-about-process-and-consulting>.

Wacky process or not, I sometimes believe the title ‘consultant’ is incorrect and does not infer enough responsibility upon the consultant themselves.

Maybe they should be called truth teller? fixer? guide? or, as my friend Dr. Jason fox would suggest, leading a quest?

Anyway. In my mind, a consultant should do work that most large companies <and smaller leaner organizations> are simply incapable of doing internally. Well. They are actually capable (most companies actually have the smart people who can do what a consultant <truth seeker> is hired to do), but those people are already in important positions already doing important things to keep the company going. In other words, they have other important shit to do.

Just to go on the record <this is Bruce mental research and not some expansive global survey of actual results and feedback> I believe there are several groupings of consultants:

–          The larger consulting firms. They are really really smart <but maybe not willing to tell you all you need to hear>, in addition, they tend to offer square peg solutions no matter the shape of the hole your business has.

–          Maybe 50% of the smaller consultants are really really good. They are senior experienced folk who know what they know and are willing to not do things they don’t know. Some may tell you what you need to know and some may tell you what you want to hear <because small businesses sometimes go into survival mode>, but, get a good one of these and hold onto them as tight as you would hold onto your best employees.

–          Maybe 25% of the smaller consultants are not really that smart in a solution criteria judgment way, but are really really good listeners and can play back something they have heard in a way that actually helps you <the company> identify a solution you kind of already knew but now it becomes clearer & actionable. Maybe these ‘consultants’ are what are now called “coaches.”

–          And the last 25% are hacks. They think they are smarter than they really are. They are sincere with regard to believing their own capabilities, but they sincerely give you really bad advice. What may be worse is they aren’t really charlatans, they just don’t really know their shit.

Oh.

A quick note on the fact that the larger consulting firms are really really smart (but typically not in a ‘maximize full potential of a business way). It is a fact that most of the larger consultancies have gobs of very smart, very ambitious, very hard-working young inexperienced people killing themselves to do what they are required to do. And these gobs of smart young people feed information to more senior experienced team leaders <who actually know what they are talking about> leading to some really smart insightful thoughtful thinking. Unfortunately, you <the client & company> may never get to hear what the really smart insightful thoughtful thinking is because it is going to be tempered in a way to insure you don’t walk away. In other words they fear telling the truth because the truth may piss you off <or it may not be what you want to hear>. I imagine I am suggesting large consultants, no matter how arrogant they are, are the least fearless consultant options you can find.

Now. On one particular dimension consultants are the furthest thing from stupid. They know what most companies already know … that truth telling inside organizations is a common challenge.

“Authentic and honest internal communication results in better, faster decisions and actions. It also builds a culture of trust and collaboration where opposing views are debated and more effective solutions and innovations are created. In reality, however, there is a distinct lack of truth-telling inside most organizations. I’m not talking about malevolent dishonesty. No-one goes to work thinking “I’m going to hinder my own and my company’s performance by withholding the truth from my colleagues”. I’m talking about the many moments each day where we think one thing, but say something different; where we have an idea that may be of value, but we hold back and say nothing; where we are called upon to give an honest opinion, but decide to say what is easier or what we think others want to hear.”

Lynn Harris <organizational development consultant>

And it is a challenge for actually a good reason.

Telling the truth is not pervasive in most organizational cultures because we fear the consequences. This fear is all about an imagined <and often very real> negative impact.

It is a fear of conflict as well as fear of self survival.

I read this somewhere which captures the real fear better than almost anything else I read:

One thing’s for sure, in an environment where truth-telling is not the norm, we would certainly stand out by speaking frankly and many of us would prefer to keep our head down rather than present a stationary target.

This all leads to me to another non-research supported point.

It seems like there are two basic types of consultants.

• Those that listen carefully for what the client wants to hear.
• Those that listen carefully to isolate the issues  for what their clients should hear.

As a corollary, there seem to be two types of consultant clients.

• Those who really want consultants to tell them exactly what they want to hear <with the intent to support their own ‘already made up mind’>.
• Those who really want the consultant to help them and want to hear what they need to hear.

Regardless. Great business consultants are like psychiatrists, well, but different. While psychiatrists only ask questions <the patient must answer them>, consultants ask the questions and answer them or guide the business toward some answers..

Ok. But back to me not as a consultant.

I would suck because somewhere down the business career road I began to tell the truth. I knew I had to from a personal integrity standpoint, therefore, the first person I had to stop lying to was myself. While I cannot consciously go back to any one point in my career and say “this was the moment” I can say unequivocally, while painful to a lot of people around me, once I began telling the truth it seemed like my business life began to become my own. And it happened very very quickly.

So how does Truth in consulting come to life?

I like to report what I find without considering whether they fit the client’s preconceptions.

I like to admit if I cannot find something or even if I do find something that I have no frickin’ idea what it means <but still share the information>.

I like to give a point of view so I can be held to it <and actually get compensated more if I am right>.

I like to give the best recommendations for their future business without thinking about the impact on my own future business.

I like, well, to tell the truth.

Why? Well, its not just an integrity thing, it is more a business thing. I tend to believe businesses need truth more now than ever particularly if they seek to rise above mediocrity and optimize at least some of their potential. So many organizations seem to run on fear these days <which I do not believe is healthy> and I kind of feel like it is my responsibility to give voice to the fears and the truths <which one could construe as the ‘hope’>. Consultants need to act like the co-pilots of the ship (that quest thing) not passengers who are along for the ride. By the way this is an aggravating behavior to the current pilots of the ship.

Yeah.

I know.

I would suck at being a consultant.

Not only does no one want to hear the truth … when they do hear it they disregard it is ‘non-truth’, i.e., ’that’s not really the way its is’, or worse – the answer that sends me directly to a bar – “oh, that isn’t relevant.”

I imagine my real point here is that a consultant is worth every overpriced dime you give them; if they tell the truth.

Ponder.

===

postscript: I have actually done a small bit of consulting, maybe what someone would call some ‘coaching’ because I have found some businesses who like to have the hard discussions. that said. I have been incredibly fortunate to find some think tanks, who like to think about the future, who like to take on some of the harder discussions.

——–

“I don’t think that people accept the fact that life doesn’t make sense. I think it makes people terribly uncomfortable. “

David Lynch

——-

“Compromising dreams for the stunning reality of life. 🙁 “

mnmsnickers <twitter>

——-

Well. I almost called this ‘playing the game.’ Shit. I almost called this ‘scaring the world.’

“Scare the world: Be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”
The Shock of Honesty

When I think about this I think about hollow spaces and empty people.

Why?

Well. Compromising the wrong way, playing the game as it were, is all about filling a hollow space with empty people <or an empty job or an empty anything>.

But let’s step back a second.

Once you know what you are good at, maybe even have a clear sense of what attaining your ‘dream’ would be, you kind of have a tendency to think all you have to do from that point on is to sort out the finer details.

Compromise?

Play the game?

Those words never enter your head.

Unfortunately, we soon discover that life has other plans for us. I say that fairly sure that most of us do not grow up truly believing they could have it all — all as in a great job, a viable bank balance, a perfect relationship. But I do believe all of us grow up thinking ‘big things’ for ourselves.

Call them dreams.

Call them simply being better <or going farther> than our parents.

Call it hope for a good Life.

And no matter how we grow up I tend to believe all of us find that reality is very different than what we imagined or hoped. This is where we learn the concept of compromise. Learning to compromise is okay if it brings you back down to earth, but not okay if it means compromising how good you can be.

Somewhere in-between those two things is Life, or, “the game.” Yeah. The difficult part comes in trying to play the game.

What do I mean?

Well.

You take a job because you have to.

You take a job because it ‘gets you in.’

You say something like this … ‘doing this isn’t something I would have considered before … but I have to believe that I’m bettering my chances.’

Ah.

‘Bettering your chances.’

Playing the game.

Managing your hope.

I will say from personal experience that after what seems like a zillion psychological tests in interview processes and maybe more zillions of seemingly endless resume ‘revisions to customize to specific companies and perceived needs’ and managing hope after what may seem like an eternity of unsuccessful job submissions, I have figured out all that really matters is the core. Core as in who you are and telling people what they are gonna get.

But that’s me. I won’t play the game.

Ok. How about there are certain things in the game that I will not play.

Look. I do know that research shows that compromising early on <maybe when you first hit the job market or maybe simply as you enter adulthood out of teens> when hopes are in their most nascent and fragile form, they can easily be trampled upon with devastating consequences to our self-confidence and self-esteem.

Well. It takes on a mutated form in older adulthood.

It doesn’t attack the formative stages, it actually kills healthy esteem and confidence cells.

Maybe worse? It attacks your belief not in yourself, but in society and the structure you have prospered in up to this point.

My fear in today’s business world is that in seeking employment or even working within an organization we are constantly asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in what I would call ‘psychological constructive compromise.’ Unfortunately, it is actually destructive compromise. It destroys how good you can be.

Maybe better said it destructs real expectations of yourself.

Real expectations, the ones colored with some Life experience which are not sky-high and tainted with any sense of entitlement, are being challenged intellectually, financially or emotionally as now being thought of out of reach.

Huh? Out of reach? Being who you are and being good at what you do?

That is crazy.

And therein lies how ‘playing the game’ is simply a destructive game and one which I am surprised businesses and other ‘game managers’ allow to be played.

Let me be specific <because this is what got me thinking about this>.

Customizing your resume as you apply for a job.

I know it sounds reasonable from a 40,000 foot perspective. But <and I will talk about odds later> most times we are customizing in ways that take a square peg of information and place it into a round hole of perceived need.

That’s playing the game.

Mostly because most employers are too lazy to see anything but ‘something that fits the round hole I have.’ And the prospective employee is simply thinking ‘once I get in I can be the fabulous spectacular square peg that I am.’

Simplistically you are playing the game to get in the game.

This is ludicrous. It looks ludicrous even as I type it.

Look. We all need to be taught to keep expectations in check. But in doing so we need to be sure … really sure … that our compromising isn’t simply a dismissal of our dreams to play the game. A dose of reality can be like a slap in the face. Uhm. Ok. Maybe more like an uppercut to the jaw. But sometimes you have to learn to take the punches.

And maybe give a couple back.

But you have to make some choices.

Hard choices.

No matter what anyone tells me I just cannot see how customizing your resume or ‘saying the right words’ or, well, whatever you are being told to do to get a job or get the dream actually increases the odds.

In fact I would suggest in the end it decreases the odds of getting what you really want <longer term>.

Well. The bottom line on anything to do with ‘odds’ is that the odds suck.

Bottom line.

The odds suck.

Why? Life is playing its game <even if a business or other people are trying to ‘game the system’> and you have to figure out which player you are truly playing against. I am not suggesting you should avoid considering anyone who is actually in the game. Just who is more important than another.

Why? Because you need to ask what is at stake in the real game’.

Because the one and only answer is you. Or what some people call ‘the authentic you’ <strip away the authentic bullshit and it just being true to yourself in a genuine way>.

——-

“Authenticity is a collection of choices that we have to make every day. It’s about the choice to show up and be real. The choice to be honest. The choice to let our true selves be seen. “
Brené Brown

 ——–

The “authentic you”. I just call it ‘me.’ No fancying up with adjectives. You sometimes have to draw a line with regard to ‘me.’ And, yes, this line drawing comes with consequences.

But all line drawing does.

You just have to identify what is non negotiable, i.e., what are you not willing to compromise on? In other word, find the pieces of your life vision & your character … that you want beyond all certainty. These are non-negotiable features you are not prepared to give up for anything.

While I am certainly a dreamer type, or maybe it is that I love hope, I will admit that this exercise can incorporate some foundational basic life aspects. Things beyond ‘being passionate with what I do’ <which I actually believe is useless tripe> like being a loving mother or father or traveling regularly or checking something off on your adventurous things to do on your list of things to do.

That said.

Compromising in this type of thinking invariably comes down to what you don’t mind forsaking in return for having something else. And, in general, we suck at this type of assessment. We are typically to hopeful or ‘positive thinking’ in our assessment.

“If I take this job I can show them I actually deserve this other thing.’

Yeah. Well. It typically doesn’t work that way. The whole idea of negotiating or compromising on a dream or ‘how good you think you can be’ is a challenging reality. And it is even more challenging when you incorporate the concept that I strongly dislike … the term ‘be realistic.’

I am not overly materialistic so I can focus on other things <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

I have at least a thread of altruism so I am okay with pursuing some self desires <and everyone needs to think about that aspect>.

Therefore. It kind of seems to me when thinking about playing the game — why should I compromise being the best I can be when some people don’t even seem to be trying to be the best they can be <for themselves or for others>?

To be clear on being as good as you can be. It is not simply waking up every day, stretching, looking at yourself in the mirror <possibly with fist raised in the air> saying something like “I know I want to achieve adventure and fulfillment in everyday life.” Optimizing your potential takes work – hard relentless work.

My own vision for life is fairly clear. And I admit that it has changed and evolved over time. And I imagine that is quite similar to most people. I also admit that it seems to get clearer every day as I figure out what’s important to me.

I know that I challenge myself to be even better. Every day as a matter of fact.

Yup.

Every.

Single.

Day.

That’s because being better or the best you can be is a work-in-progress thing. As for compromising or ‘playing the game’? I know the type of organizations and people I want to be a part of and to surround myself with. I will not apologize for how I choose to survive.

“You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”
Clementine von Radics

Oh. And by survive … I don’t mean putting food on the table … I mean character. A lot of people will argue with me on this topic.

A LOT.

They will suggest <with some truth by the way> I am not being realistic. And you know what? They may be right. But it is the line I have drawn for myself.

I don’t want to hollow myself out in some empty job. And that is what empty jobs do — hollow the guts out of you. Strangle your soul and character bit by bit. I would rather starve my body than starve my character.

I would rather “scare the world … and be exactly who you say you are and tell the truth.”

The stunning realities of Life force everyone to do several things.

Everyone needs to learn the line they will draw.

Everyone needs to recognize where compromise is done and ‘me’ is defined.

Ponder.

——————-

“Have more than you show,

Speak less than you know. “

William Shakespeare

——-

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

But I know what I am.

I could be better …  you know? “

Keith Richards

—-

“I exist as I am, that is enough.”

Walt Whitman

=========

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

Ok.

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

First.

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

Second.

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

Ok. That said.

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

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

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

Third.

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

Yikes. Did I just type that? Yup.

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

Whew.

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

–

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

–

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

–

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

–

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

——-

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

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

Hitler.

——

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

Fourth.

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

Can.

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

Uhm.

That’s called ‘self doubt.’

Uh oh.

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

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

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

They are wrong.

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

As stated earlier confidence is not static.

——

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

Earl Gray Stevens

—–

“Thoughts aren’t facts.

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

Lucy Elizabeth

——-

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

——

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

William Osler

——-

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

Uhm.

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

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

Huh?

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

First.

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

The former is bad.

The latter is good.

Second.

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

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

That is “understanding reality.”

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

For example here is some research:

=

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

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

=

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

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

 =

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

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

=

What does all that mean?

Is confidence really the key to greater success?

<nope>

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

——–

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

George Orwell

———–

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

In the end.

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

— 

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

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

Adam Phillips

—

Arrogant people are constantly tyrannized by their blind spots.

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

<I just wanted to use that word>

Arrogant people with overestimated egos are cowards.

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

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

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

=======

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

=

Immanuel Kant

===========

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

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

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

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

Everything has to do with everything else.

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

Arturo Perez Revarte

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

Vague sucks.

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

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

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

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

Do most people do this work? No.

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

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

Once again.

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

That said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

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

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

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

Second.

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

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

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

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

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

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

“When you say ‘yes’ to others, make sure you aren’t saying ‘no’ to yourself.”

Paulo Coelho

===

This is ‘not about saying ‘Yes” when you really should say ‘No’.

Nor is this about saying ‘No’ when you really mean to say ‘Yes”.

Heck.

This isn’t even about compromising. This is simply about saying ‘Yes” and ‘No’ and the fact it has seemed to have mysteriously disappeared in today’s business <if not in many of Life’s every day conversations>. To be clear. Haven’t you noticed how often a portion of a business discussion is succinctly brought to a close with a nice definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response, yet, somehow that part of the discussion is somehow not concluded?

For some reason even if you do actually deign to take the simplicity high road and answer with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, well, the other person just keeps on talking. Or maybe if they want to show they have actually been listening they may say something like “are you sure?” or “wouldn’t you like me to explain?” or some other attempt to continue that particular discussion. And if you are in a group? Oh my. Forget it. You may as well keep the yes or the no in your pocket.

So.

What has happened to ‘yes’ and ‘no’?

Where have they gone in business?

Why have they lost their power to end a discussion?

Look. We tend to overcomplicate things in business. We seem to bundle up yes or no things into some conglomeration of an extended decision tree — all of which we assume must be discussed in its totality.

That said. Life would be much easier if we simply looked at each ‘yes” or ‘no’ decision in a meeting or discussion as preparation for the next opportunity or decision in a continuum of decisions. Treat the moment as mutually exclusive instead of mutually inclusive. What that ultimately suggests is maybe we shouldn’t dwell in the moment and linger upon the righteousness of the particular one syllable statement when someone makes it.

I am not suggesting that it isn’t important to be thoughtful about your decisions, but maybe we could seek to avoid becoming a victim of paralysis by analysis and ongoing discussion, when it really is not necessary, more often.

Oh.

Speaking of the ‘not necessary’ thing. I sense part of the reason yes and no are disappearing is because we believe it is necessary to discuss everything.

That leads me to yes and no and something called ‘fast and frugal decision-making.’

Two guys wrote a book suggesting that asking, at most, three ‘Yes/No’ questions is a fast and frugal strategy for making a decision < “Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart” by Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter Todd and the ABC Research Group>.

And, in fact, they actually call this theory ‘fast and frugal heuristics.’ I will net it down for you <albeit I will probably mangle some of their really smart thinking and logic>:

–          Traditional decision making theory is unrealistic <irrational> for humans <our minds are just not capable of practically applying theory>,

–          We tend to overcomplicate because we have been trained to do so,

–          We tend to overcomplicate for fear of ‘wrong decision’ rather than delight of ‘right decision’,

–          Most decisions can be made within three naturally course correcting ‘yes or no’ decision making answers.

Well. Before I share my own thoughts

About fast & frugal decision making:

It is fast because it does not involve much computation, and it is frugal because it only searches for some of the available information. Its simplicity raises the suspicion that it might be highly inaccurate, compared to standard statistical classification methods that process and combine all available predictors. Yet it is actually more accurate than some rather complex statistical classification methods (Breiman et al., 1993). This suggests that fast and frugal decision making can be as accurate as strategies that use all available information and expensive computation forms. Fast and frugal heuristics for making decisions capture how real minds make decisions under constraints of limited time and knowledge. 

The premise is that much of human reasoning and decision making can be modeled by fast and frugal heuristics that make inferences with limited time and knowledge. These heuristics do not involve much computation, and do not compute probabilities and utilities. They are models of bounded rationality.

By the way. I really like that overall thought — ‘models of bounded rationality.’ Seems like we could use a shitload more of that in today’s workplace.

Ok. They also note <in a very candid and slightly funny way> decision making theory, when applied in practical circumstances, is actually irrational. Irrational in that the human mind actually cannot accommodate the mental gymnastics to meet the theoretical computations necessary to make ‘the most effective decision:’

The fascination with what is optimal in thought and behavior does reflect a certain sense of beauty and morality. Cognitive scientists, economists, and biologists have often chased after the same beautiful dreams by building elaborate models endowing organisms with unlimited abilities to know, memorize, and compute. These heavenly dreams, however, tend to evaporate when they encounter the physical and psychological realities of the waking world. Mere mortal humans cannot hope to live up to these dreams, and instead appear irrational and dysfunctional when measured against their fantastic standards.

In addition. Most decision making theory doesn’t incorporate any time constraints. In other words: ‘this is the theory, apply it, deadlines be damned, it takes the time it needs to apply it correctly.’

Well. That all sounds not very practical <the theory stuff>. And the fast & frugal sounds so simple it almost sounds not very practical.

Yet. I actually sense most of us with any amount of business experience instinctively agrees <mostly> with a fast & frugal decision making process albeit we may apply it in a variety of succinct ‘time frugal’ methods  which are most likely not as tight as the three yes/no idea.

So why the heck don’t we do it anymore if we instinctively think it is right?

Let me try this and I will use myself to explain. Two main reasons:

1.     We have taken theory literally.

Everyone in business these days has been steeped in training over the years to question everything. It doesn’t matter your seniority or experience, if you don’t agree, you question. Heck. Even if you agree you question.

Even worse? We treat every decision equally. I say that to be kind to those who simply cannot discern what may actually be worth discussing <or discerning the important from the unimportant> . Doesn’t matter what the reason is, we seem to discuss … every … single … decision. What that means is that even if you do decide to assess the discussion and say ‘yes’ … and that’s it <in your mind>, someone will question it or simply want to discuss it.

By the way. Collaboration exponentially exacerbates this issue. In a groupthink collaborative scenario there will ALWAYS be at least one person who will disagree, want to discuss, decline to move on <add in whatever ‘d’ word you would like to in this space> and it will all happen in the name of ‘positive collaboration.’ The net result? Negative progress <translation: no forward movement and often backwards movement>.

Look. I won’t argue with all the decision making theory models. Smarter people than I have invested gobs of time and research thinking all that shit through. I will suggest in the business world, i.e., the practical world, we need to become better at not over thinking <or over questioning> and we need to become better at not treating each decision as equal to another <so possibly we need to be better at training how to discern the difference between decisions>.

Oh. That last thought.

That sounds simple and practical but we have actually been trained to do the opposite. This attitude would take a major shift in attitude. In other words — this would be very very hard to do.

2.       Skepticism

For some reason we have become quite skeptical in the work place. And by this I mean there seems to be an overall sense of ‘they aren’t really saying what they mean’ or in the questioning-everything environment maybe it is ‘what do they really mean by that?”

Well. If I was using a shitload of words I could possibly allow some skepticism, but this is about one syllable responses – yes … no. I frankly don’t see a lot of ambiguity or space to misconstrue what is actually being said. However. A respected friend made me think about this more as we discussed the topic.

Therefore rather than be hypothetical I will address this from my point of view on what everyone should know when I say yes or no:

–          I am not being lazy. I am perfectly aware that saying a simple yes or no will most likely be jarring in a discussion environment. Suffice it to say that if I have reached a point where I believe a yes or no is appropriate I fully understand the situation and the thinking behind whatever we are discussing. I have gathered enough information either prior to the discussion, within the discussion to that point or in my head from past experiences and knowledge to assess and decide.  Most likely I have decided that in the scheme of things our time would be better spent discussing another decision rather than this one.

In other words I have been anything but lazy. Oh. And even if I have not been lazy and I have misread the discussion up to this point I imagine everything can be course corrected as we move on or … I have forfeited my right to move it along that path.

–          I mean it. I promise. I mean it. You don’t have to explain anything else or question motives or discuss what has been agreed upon any more.

Accept it.

I mean it.

And let’s move on.

I imagine the few words of explanation I just shared will not resolve a global work place skepticism attitude but, what the heck, ‘one small step possibly begets one giant leap for workplace mankind.’

Anyway. Suffice it to say saying yes or no is good and we should be doing it more often in the work place.

I know that sounds so silly you may be wondering why I typed it, but sometimes the most simple things are overlooked.

Ok. A couple last thoughts.

This yes or no thing. You just have to have a clear sense of  objectives, commitments and priorities.  If you don’t have a handle on all that then a yes or no will not only truly be lazy thinking it may actually be a misguided response. That is what makes this tricky. And it’s often easier for everyone <and I mean everyone> to discuss things <so everyone can discuss, and re-discuss, the objectives, commitments and priorities — until your head explodes>.

Yeah. I know. All that ‘over-discussion’ sounds a little wacky in a semi chaotic time constrained business world, but I imagine discussion leads to being more well-liked <and some perception of ‘team player’ and such>.

But we all need to keep in mind. Each day in the workplace we are forced to examine millions of little decisions that inevitably make up what business is all about while we, ourselves, make something like 30,000 decisions in a day. This constant scrutiny of hundreds of possible outcomes for every decision you make will drive you nuts. And the constant discussion will use up more time than is useful.

In the end <here is what I believe>.

Business needs to be more diligent with regard to the importance of good decision-making.

While business is certainly ultimately the sum of the decisions made … it makes sense to recognize it is often not as difficult as we often make it. Each decision is not business altering nor life threatening. In fact … most are not. In addition … most decisions are just not that complicated or complex.

In fact <simplistically> I would argue all things basically come down to one basic decision between two choices – ‘Yes” or ‘No’. Ponder.

—

“All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” –

Holden Caulfield <Catcher in the Rye>

—

Morons is a harsh word and a harsh concept, but, let’s face it, most of us have experienced that maddening discussion where we explain that seemingly simple concept or that seemingly simple common sense point of view to someone and not only can they not grasp it, but may actually argue a completely moronic point of view that flies in the face of:

<1> facts,

<2> truth, or maybe even

<3> common sense.

In fact during the discussion we may even try several different approaches to the idea, using every metaphor <or parable or analogy> within reach to throw into the discussion that we think the person should reasonably be capable of following.

In the end, sometimes we succeed, mostly we fail and always it is painful <to us> and obviously moronic <to us>. It is painful because , yes, there are morons.

It is here I will bring up the idea of intelligence <despite the fact it may sound odd in a rant on morons>.

First.

Just to set the groundwork, most everyday functions of modern life require an IQ of around 90. Those functions include driving a car, mailing a letter, paying bills and making a bank deposit. The more specialized the function, the more intricate, the higher the level of intelligence necessary.

Second.

I am not using the term ‘moron’ as a classification of any mental deficiency despite the fact that technically ‘moron’ translates to denoting a mild mental deficiency. I am going to suggest being a moron denotes a certain deficiency just not a mental one. Therefore <here is where I link intelligence and the topic of morons> we can dispense with the idea that morons are stupid or have a lack of intelligence.

Morons are not stupid – the deficiency within morons, or being moronic, has nothing to do with intelligence <or at least IQ>. Most morons have IQs at or above 90 <I made that up but I tend to believe it>. Let me take it one step further. Try this on for size. You cannot be a moron unless you actually are intelligent. Yup. I say this because morons are actually people who have intelligence … but they waste it either by using it <their intelligence> poorly or misusing it or not even using it at all.

Wow.

Bet you didn’t think I was going to head down that path, did ya?

Morons are actually intelligent? Yup.

Morons are simply purposefully ignorant … but they are smart.

Uh oh <warning … warning ...>.

That means morons are as intelligent as you and I <okay … maybe at least me … you are probably smarter and this is simply my issue>.

All that said it suggests that the moronic issue resides elsewhere than intelligence.

Robert Heinlein said that stupidity characteristics <or characteristics of morons> are actually tied to ignorance <so I am going to steal that idea because I agree with Bob>.

He suggests that stupidity cannot be cured using money, remedial education or some governmental edict because inevitably it resides within a different reason – a purposeful or intentional ignorance.

Purposeful.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …

This means that morons actually know something to be wrong with themselves <it may be subconscious but somewhere within they understand>. They are intelligent enough to understand and, yet, rather than correct themselves and abandon that ‘something’ they practice intentional ignorance clinging to that ‘thing’ and inevitably insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

And this is where morons are dangerous.

Very very dangerous.

—

“Because, fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding.

And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and drums beating, we’ll be marching backward, backward, to those glorious ages of the 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.”

Clarence Darrow <Inherit the wind>

===

Morons march backwards. Busily marching themselves and trying to herd the rest of us backwards to some glorious age.

It is a Life truth that fanaticism & ignorance is forever busy <and a busybody>. I fully understand that fanaticism and ignorance are often impossible to extinguish, but that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated. Particularly if it is actually harmful.

Regardless. Tolerance, in the end, is an acceptance of the morons. And with this acceptance, albeit grudging acceptance, the morons simply see it as permission to be moronic and they gladly step up <in their forever busy way of theirs> and do harm. Harm in the form of stopping <or even reversal> of progress — harm in marching us backwards. Or they teach and promote falsehoods to others <others including children which is disturbing> with the hope that this younger generation will grow up and can possibly march us backwards.

All this translates into a lot of time and effort and energy lost as ignorance and its byproducts step up and suck time & energy from progress.

Ok. A Bruce thought.

I believe we can no longer afford the luxury of moronic ignorance or tolerate the presence of morons. Tolerating them leads to the creation of a sense that this moronic ignorance actually equals some sort of knowledge <which then makes them some sort of “knowledgeable person” and you know where that leads – ‘trouble in River City’ to quote The Music Man.

==

“<there is a> … false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Isaac Asimov

==

Morons are wily. They have the notion that their smarts, combined with their purposeful ignorance, is just as good as real unfiltered knowledge. This is tiring to deal with. In fact, if you find yourself surrounded by morons, rather than just shake your head, you have to purposefully accept the challenge to deal with their moronic thinking with the knowledge that they actually have the intelligence to be non-moronic <but actually choose to be moronic>. Wow. Just typing that made my head hurt.

It would take a monumental effort to create the unlikely evolutionary change where morons become extinct <that may be an unattainable objective but it is certainly an admirable objective>. And it will take your best monumental effort to deal with a moron because there are instances where the lines are blurred and where argument and debate and discussion regarding two sides of an issue are actually warranted.

But.

You should seek solace in that there are also issues where right is right, and wrong is wrong, and anyone who argues it looks like the guy who believes Yoda exists somewhere and The Force can be attained with focus & practice.

Oh.

Here is where morons really thrive. Numbers & science & studies & statistics <oh my>.

Science is smart and science is stupid. Both are true and there could be studies done to prove it. One of the smart/stupid things about science is something called the ubiquitous study. They are excellent scientific research formats but while all studies <and most research in general> are interesting they do not reveal eternal, all-encompassing truths.

They simply provide a glimpse into one small, carefully cordoned off area of interest. Extrapolations from the data are based on statistics and therefore do not necessarily apply to everyone and everything. I say that because in today’s world we seem to find exorbitant comfort worshiping at the altar of the ‘numbers’. All of us seem to be considering study results and numbers to be the indisputable truth.

What a fantasy.

But it is often a fantasy land morons live, eat & drink in <and thrive in like a bacteria in a petri dish>>. Numbers are their friends and constant companions.

Huh?

Morons thrive on the isolated statistic.

Some random factoid or piece of information that has no context nor admits it has Truth only within a limited set of circumstances. And they win a shitload of debates using this technique.

How does all this happen?

Well. It sounds simplistic, but I believe we allow it to happen for a couple of reasons. First is a well-intentioned, but subverted belief in freedom of speech. Subverted because inevitably it is often simply ‘freedom of opinion’ these days. What I mean is that we often do not demand accountability for facts with opinions. We feel it isn’t worth investing the energy to make someone fully accountable for their opinion.

Second is ‘opinion’ forces us all to seek something tangible in which to reach some conclusion therefore we seek statistics or numbers to identify truth <and isolate something we can all agree on>. And numbers do not necessarily translate into Truth. Especially isolated non-contextual numbers. I could also argue that we too quickly accept something as a fact without attaching the context that makes it factual.

In the end we seem to be damned by a society that has ingrained in us this strange belief that because we encourage freedom of speech and freedom of thought that all ideas deserve respect and consideration that no one individual <or idea> is “better” or more “worthy” of consideration than any other.

What a bunch of bullhockey.

This has created an environment in which any moronic idea can hover around like an aggravating gnat as legitimate idea.

It is crazy.

A moron is a moron.

A moronic idea is a moronic idea.

It is time that we learned to have the balls <or spine if you are a woman> to call out the morons.

Morons don’t like to be called morons.

Why?

Because they are frickin’ intelligent enough to know better than skate by on shallow feelings and beliefs.

And all the while you must swim in the shallow end of the intellectual debate to debate with them you must be careful of your own ignorance more than theirs because purposeful ignorance does have a sneaky way of creeping up on you.

What I mean is that it is easier to be a moron than to not be a moron. It takes less work, intellectually and curiosity, to maintain an ignorant point of view than it takes to not only grow personally but to actually help a moron grow <which is a quite taxing job>. Frankly it is just easier to quit debating than to take on a moron. I imagine it becomes a test of character.

Regardless.

I imagine in the end that is my point <the test morons give us day in and day out>.

Morons are morons because they are smart enough to engage in purposeful ignorance.

To be ignorant on purpose?

Yikes.

You would have to be a moron.

But.

In the end morons hate to be called morons simply because they are smart enough to know they could do, and be, better. Even morons know somewhere under their purposeful ignorance they should be better than what they are. I imagine the only way to beat morons is to actually get them to face that fact.

Wow. There is a tough job.

But. We cannot let the morons win. Purposeful ignorance is a disease. A disease that can affect entire civilizations & cultures. That thought makes it scary to even think about tolerating the moron. Ponder.

===========

“We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.”

—-

Barack Obama on January 12^th 2011

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

<written June 14, 2017 the day Republican politicians were shot on a softball field – but relevant today>

On a day which we are faced with someone who decided to take a gun and shoot politicians, and appear to target politicians, I am reminded of several things.

The first thing is the rhetoric.

The rhetoric of the citizenry, but mostly the rhetoric of our elected leaders. I say that because words have repercussions.

Yes.

I do believe in personal responsibility and choices are made by individuals.

But I also believe leaders lead with words <because most of us cannot view their actions>.

And if our elected leaders treat their words as if we will not remember them forever.

And if our elected leaders treat each other as if they are truly enemies <and even use that word on occasion>.

And if our elected leaders treat each other as if the opposite’s behavior is unfathomable behavior for sane, moral people.

And if our elected officials treat each other with verbal hyperbole as the standard rhetoric discourse … and the highest of the elected leaders, the president, tosses out the word ‘unity’ on occasion but 99% of the time does nothing verbally or behavior wise to unite … well … the electors will be tempted to do as leaders do.

We need to calm our rhetoric. We need to remind ourselves what we teach our children — that you don’t always get what you want and that most progress is made in mutual effort.

We all need to be speaking more calmly and acting more civilly, but we should be demanding our elected leaders do so. I get angry with how they act and what they say because it suggests to people that is behavior we should all embrace — and it is not.  Stop, and stop it now.

The second thing I am reminded of is one of the best speeches President Obama ever made.

To share my thoughts I will borrow <steal> liberally from a NY Times article written by Helene Cooper and Jeff Zelenyjan. The article was Obama Calls for a New Era of Civility in U.S. Politics and it shares the speech Obama gave on January 12^th 2011 in Tucson after the shooting of a US Congresswoman and the deaths of 6 other people.

Apparently Obama wrote much of the speech himself the day before. I suggest everyone read the speech, but today I will share highlights because it is a nice reminder on a day on which we need some reminders.

President Obama offered the nation’s condolences to the victims of the shootings, calling on Americans to draw a lesson from the lives of the fallen and the actions of the heroes, and to usher in a new era of civility in their honor. Obama directly confronted the political debate that erupted after the rampage, urging people of all beliefs not to use the tragedy to turn on one another. He did not cast blame on Republicans or Democrats, but asked people to “sharpen our instincts for empathy.”

It was one of the more powerful presentation of words & thoughts I have ever heard urging Americans “to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully” and to “remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do,” he said, “it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

He eulogizing the six people who died and asked for prayers for the wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who the authorities said was the target of an assassination attempt.

He warned against “simple explanations” and spoke of the unknowability of the thoughts that “lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.”

He suggested that the events should force individuals to look inward, but also that they should prompt a collective response against reflexive ideological and social conflict.

While the tone and content were distinctly nonpolitical, there were clear political ramifications to the speech, giving Mr. Obama a chance, for an evening at least, to try to occupy a space outside of partisanship or agenda:

“If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost,” Mr. Obama said. “Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.”

“If, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse,” Mr. Obama said, “let us remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”

In the end.

No, I do not believe we will learn anything from today’s event <or the other shooting events that cost people’s lives today> but maybe, just maybe, we can start talking to each other like we don’t want to shoot the other person if given an opportunity. That is a good start.

—–

“People aren’t always what you want them to be.
Sometimes they disappoint you or let you down, but you have to give them a chance first.

You can’t just meet someone and expect them to be everything you’re looking for and then be angry when they’re not every hope and aspiration you projected onto them.

It’s foolish to believe that someone will be what you imagine them to be. And sometimes, when you give them a chance, they turn out to be better than you imagined.

Different, but better. “

Chloe Rattray

—–

Well. This is about expectations and how having expectations is bad <disappointing> and good <people like to strive toward expectations>.

No matter how cynical you are, or skeptical with regard to whether there is truly ‘good within all’, pretty much everyone expects everyone else to be the best version of who they can be.
The trouble is that our version of your ‘best version’ is … well … ours. Unfortunately, this “ours/you” expectation tends to be a pretty high standard for which the person we are eying at the moment has to meet.

We tend to not only expect people to be ‘like us’ in the ways we consider positive attributes, but then we also attached a wish list of expectations <based on some fairly idealistic thoughts of how people should be .. and how we see ourselves>.

Well. That brings to mind a Marilyn Manson quote:

—-

“Find out what’s really out there.

I never said to be like me, I say be like you and make a difference.

Marilyn Manson

—-

People are rarely what we expect them to be and they are rarely like us. And, frankly, we don’t want them to be like us, we want them to be like, well, themselves. But this creates the uncomfortable situation in that we then have no clue what to expect.

So what do we do? We fall back on ‘us’ <our bias & attitudes & beliefs> and build our expectations.

This is, frankly, silly if not stupid. We should focus instead on ‘different, but better.’

Me? Over the years I have become significantly better at setting aside expectations of people and permitting them to build what I should expect of them. Even then I have to constantly remind myself that people are less consistent than what I would like <to expect>.

I guess I believe people can change. I say guess because I think we are a little flippant with that thought. Flippant because I think we are more hopeful than reality suggests. Most people really don’t change that much. They may evolve as they grow, but people tend to be the people they were <just maybe a little more here and a little less there>. To be clear, evolving involves some iterative change usually driven by new experiences.

And that’s okay.

Now. There is the inconsistency factor. Inconsistency is good in this case albeit confusing to others and makes it difficult to discern ‘what to expect.’

But.

Everyone is inconsistent because Life is inherently inconsistent and therefore we make mistakes. That’s kind of the way it is. If everything was always consistent, the odds of us making as many mistakes as we do now would decrease significantly.

Unfortunately everything is not consistent <except in its inconsistency> and therefore, unfortunately, we make a shitload of mistakes.

Oh. And mistakes shape expectations as much as successes do.

Now. This means also means how you handle the mistakes matter in terms of setting expectations for people. If you own up to them, adapt, make some adjustments and move on … well … the mistakes don’t accumulate like a snowball but instead remain individual flakes you meet as you progress and are manageable in their smallness. Frankly, anything less ‘owning up’ is counterproductive, self-serving and carries a hue of non-accountability. I will also note that under the glare of circumstances ‘beyond our control’ <let’s call that Life’s shit> it is certainly aggravating, and sometimes even a little unnerving, when people don’t own up to their mistakes and we waste time & energy flailing about seeking blame.

Regardless. People aren’t always what we expect.

And, oddly, we get disappointed even if they are actually just a different version of what we said we wanted <expected> and THAT may be a better version <but we are so disappointed we didn’t see it>.

Oh. Another thing about having expectations.

There is a really nonsensical thought that is strewn throughout the World Wide Web with regard to ‘have no expectations and you live in the now” … or “have no expectations and you won’t be disappointed.”

What bullshit.

Utter nonsense.

Regardless of the fact our expectations are sometimes misguided and that we far too often judge people on some really out of whack expectations, expectations are part of Life.

They set standards.

When we expect nothing from anyone while we may save ourselves from being disappointed, it comes with a cost. With lower expectations we make less of an effort. We have convinced ourselves that fighting for things that are pretty important in life are no longer worth fighting for as a standard. And while some of our expectations are unrealistic the horizon aspect should almost always “best version of.”

Well.

That is a good expectation. And if you have it, or them, others around you tend to see them, feel them … and absorb some of the pressure to meet them.

Yes. It has been proven over & over again <research> people do better when more is expected of them. I am fairly sure this cause-effect is called the Pygmalion Effect. Study results have shown some consistently significant ‘better’ associated with this effect.

A guy named J. Sterling Livingston is the one who wrote in 1969 about the Pygmalion Effect <named after the mythical sculptor who carves a statue of a woman that is brought to life>.

His title also pays homage to George Bernard Shaw, whose play Pygmalion explores the notion that the way one person treats another can, for better or worse, be transforming.

The influence of one person’s expectations on another’s behavior isn’t a recent discovery. More than half a century ago, Albert Moll concluded from clinical experience that subjects behaved as they believed they were expected to – “the prophecy causes its own fulfillment”. Livingston stated that creating these positive expectations is remarkably difficult, but I would argue setting ANY expectations is difficult, but, we should do so.

Expectations challenge the status quo; even if the status quo is good & right.

That’s okay too. Affirmation is often as powerful as change. Accepting the status quo and not making any effort to push ourselves and those we care about to become better is almost like giving up hope for anything better.

Now. Expectations must always pass the test of reality before they can be translated into any real outcomes. Expectations must have more gravitas than the fluffy power of positive thinking or some generalized confidence that ‘it can & will happen.’ People are not motivated to reach for unattainable shit — they need to have some sense of realistic and achievable. Suffice it to say encouraging one to strive for unattainable goals is simply encouraging the eventuality of ‘give up trying’ and ‘settling for results that are lower than they are capable of achieving’.

Regardless. We need to and should have some pretty high expectations of people. All people. And while I know it seems counter intuitive to suggest that we should idealize what people can be, okay, some people, with regard to expectations because it would most likely means a shitload of disappointment.

But, I remain steadfast in believing we SHOULD have expectations and we SHOULD set the standards high.

Research shows that while we will be disappointed initially the people themselves will be more likely to step up to meet some of the idealized expectations.

Our expectations can drive ‘better.’

The cost? We bear the cost in that we get disappointed. Shit. I will pay that price. It would be selfish to think otherwise.

People will disappoint us with regard to our own expectations.

People will more often surprise us if we are open to a different better version of our expectations.

But all of that is kind of irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how you feel … get over it … it is the objective that matters. Steven Covey said it the best:

===

“Treat a man as he is and he will remain as he is.

Treat a man as he can and should be and he will become as he can and should be.”

Stephen R. Covey

===

Yes. It is foolish to believe someone will be as you imagine they will be.

But go ahead.

Have expectations.

Be prepared to be disappointed and, more often, surprised by something different and better. Ponder.

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

“It is always important to know when something has reached its end.  Closing circles, shutting doors, finishing chapters, it doesn’t matter what we call it; what matters is to leave in the past those moments in life that are over.”

Paulo Coelho

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

“When you start to suck, stop.”

Kristen Hersh

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

So. This is mostly about business <although, I imagine, some aspects bleed into Life>.

In business we create false endings all the time. And I mean ALL the time. Milestones, quarterly objectives, standards, etc. We do this not just because people have a tendency to work better aiming at something but also because we suck at knowing when something has naturally reached its end.

Now. I have written about stopping, or closing down, when you start sucking and how difficult that is.

Back in 2012 I said “sucking is like quicksand.  The harder you work to stop sucking the further you get sucked down into suckedness.”   A fun idea to write about, but that is different than recognizing an ‘end.’ That is simply not recognizing you have given all you can and it is all downhill from there <diminishing returns>. I have written about ‘periods’, the stop punctuation, and the art of knowing when to stop. A fun idea to write about but that is different than recognizing an ‘end’ … that is simply about not recognizing when you should shut up.

This post is about knowing, and I mean really knowing. when something has reached its end. Knowing that it is time to close, close up … and move on.

Uhm. This is hard. Really hard.

And, speaking for myself and how I think philosophically, I know I make it even harder. I once wrote about running through the end of project, I called it “riding to the buzzer.” Riding through things you are working on makes it a little more difficult to recognize whether you ran through a milestone or through its natural end. I say that because here is where a natural end truly becomes sneaky. 99% of the time it doesn’t appear as some brick wall or solid stop.

Sure. ‘The end’ most likely does have a stop sign around if you pay attention. More often than not any sign there is, is most likely covered up by some overgrown bushes which have never been trimmed. It seems a little strange because one would think we business people would be better at seeing ends and when to close up on something and move on. I mean, what the hell, business is strewn with milestones, objectives, deadlines and a slew of ‘people created’ ending points. Yet, most business people suck at the really important ability to know when something has reached its end.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to a company <uhm … companies actually do have life spans>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to employee initiatives <once in place we have a nasty habit of thinking it should be an ongoing ‘organizational culture tool’ which enables consistent behavior>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to existing products & services <what happens when there is actually something better to be offered?>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to sales objectives <what happens when our stated audience is … uh oh … sated?>.

In fact. What we are particularly good at is getting whatever it is that we want done into a “doing” mode and then developing a whole slew of ways to nudge it down the road. I imagine if I stick with that metaphor I could suggest we suck at not seeing any stop signs because we are too focused on nudging and tweaking the engine and replacing shoes so people can keep walking down that road. But ‘being over’?

Whew. We hold on way beyond the sell date. Everyone does <me included>. It is natural.

=========== 

Letting go. Everyone talks about it like it’s the easiest thing. Unfurl your fingers one by one until your hand is open. But my hand has been clenched into a fist for three years now; it’s frozen shut.

All of me is frozen shut. And about to shut down completely.

Gayle Forman 

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

It is natural because of the dreaded “what’s next?”

Yeah. In order to acknowledge an end, to close up shop and move on, you have to know what’s next. And not only that … you kind of have to already have a plan in place or at least a road to bus everyone over to where they can get off and start walking. Maybe that is where we business folk suck the most. It’s not that we don’t know when to stop we just don’t know how to start again. Start anew.

About the only time we are actually good at it is within a ‘forced end.’ As in … we have no choice.

As I typed that I thought about, well, a different kind of business — the business of having a band and the arrival of the Foo Fighters after the death of Kurt Cobain:

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

“There were people that really resented me for starting this band. ‘How dare you start another band?’   They asked me ‘Why did you decide to carry on and make music that sounds like Nirvana?’ and I said well, wait a minute – like, loud rock guitars, and melodies, and cymbals crashing and big-ass drums?

‘Cause that’s what I do. What do you want me to do? Make a reggae record?”

Dave Grohl

<Foo Fighters>

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

When viewing the music industry and bands and individual artist you can find a lot of examples of forced ‘doing what needs to be done and moving on’ as well as ‘well, it is time to move on’ type endings <we business people should think about that a little>. When forced, talented business people do what needs to be done.

Unfortunately most of business doesn’t really create this kind of ‘forced decision.’ Most times we simply try and squeeze whatever we can out of whatever we have. And we squeeze until there is nothing left <way beyond the ‘end’>.

Ok. What to do. This is solvable and relatively easy in the scheme of things.

It is a version of ‘planned obsoletion’ <which I have always been a HUGE fan of in business>, but your senior management team needs to sit down on occasion and not do ‘blue sky thinking’, but hunker down like a military plan of action and say “we won this ground and what ground do we attack next.” This includes an attitude which says we will aggressively pursue that plan <so it is not just a plan but a plan of action>.

Far too often we look at the ground we have won and seek to consolidate it and, well, consolidate it. Squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. And, on occasion, we fool ourselves into thinking we are truly exploring ‘what’s next’ by saying ‘let’s take that hill just outside of the area we currently occupy.’ We make it sound like some massive effort that will refresh us. Instead we are investing significant resources on a less than significant objective. I am certainly not suggesting that incrementalism does not have a role in business strategy but rather we far too often use incrementalism to ignore the stop sign we just walked past. I am not a big SWOT analysis guy nor am I a big ‘white space’ business guy. I am more a pragmatic “this is who I am and this is what I am good at and I don’t care who I may compete against or what they may be currently doing I believe ‘these x’ people will like what I have to offer and I am going to go get it” business guy.

In a growth situation <which, by the way, I tend to believe any healthy organization should always be in> you should be seeking to grow. To expand. To think of ‘saturation’ as a swear word. To always be thinking about how to shake-the-etch-a-sketch so that stagnancy <in sales, attitude, behavior, thinking> never sets in.

To be clear. Sure. I believe you should always talk with your innovations/new product pipeline people because they may have some new widget up their sleeve you can go and expand your business with but, more often, you will be successful by looking at what you have now and finding new ground to attack with that. I have found your new widgets just have a tendency to cement the ground you have already won more often than not. Keeping with the military analogy I often tell businesses to think of their business modeling with an ‘occupation force’ team with a separate “attacking army” team mindset. Especially if you are in a growing category you almost have to have a “win this ground and move on” attitude or you can get stuck in a grind-it-out business war.

Regardless. It is important to know when something has reached an end. If only because it permits us business folk to close it off, leave it behind, not invest more energy squeezing something that has really ended <even though we do not want to admit it> and move on to the next chapter of our business life.

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

“Do not fear to lose what needs to be lost.”

Sue Monk Kidd

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

“I am free and lost in this freedom

Do you know what I mean by that?”

Ingeborg Bachmann

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

Freedom, in and of itself, is quite possibly the most valuable privilege one can have in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, may be one of the most misunderstood and least understood ideas in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, may be one of the most appealing concepts in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, once attained may be one of the most difficult concepts, as an individual, to manage in the world.

Freedom, once truly given, can be a scary prospect to wield responsibly and well.

Freedom is one of those things that should make you think long and hard about what, exactly, do you want? But, yet, many of us do not. And we should. We should because, at its core, freedom is about liberty of self and what you want. I believe it was John Stuart Mill who stated that the individual “is the person most interested in his own well-being,” and that the “ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else.”

What this suggests is that, while freedom may have some societal demands and constraints, the real ‘rule of freedom’ comes from within each individual and, well, responsibility.

Within?

No fences. No boundaries. Not even a public compass … just one that resides in yourself. Well. This would suggest it could become easy to get lost.

Look. I am not suggesting society would ever permit all of us to actually decide how we wanted to define freedom for our own lives and live our Life in that self-defined way without any repercussions <and there would have to be as each of us pursued ‘our own wellbeing’ to the possible detriment of the ‘greater we’>.

However. Because you can view from such a personal standpoint and a self interest standpoint, it can become incredibly easy to start seeing your own path as <a> the path everyone else should be walking on and <b> the path which reflects the best definition of how freedom should be viewed. In that, well, it can become incredibly easy to get lost within your own views of what is freedom and how you may choose to use your freedom.

I tend to believe freedom is freeing AND constricting at exactly the same time. In addition. The only way to enjoy freedom is to actually do something with it and not just talk about it or enjoy it.

Yeah.

The secret to not being suffocated by freedom is the ability to use that freedom to create something <not simply being free>. Please note I say ‘create’ not destroy. Anyway. I imagine another way of saying that is you can suffocate by not doing anything <or not choosing to choose to use your freedom>.

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

“The ability to convert ideas to things is the secret of outward success.”

Henry Ward Beecher

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

Ah. Therein lies the rub. Create from freedom.

Sometimes that can seem like creating something from nothing. Freedom encourages ideas and thinking but then … uh oh … Life kind of demands you convert your access to freedom into ‘something.’ It is within that ‘demand from Life’ where most people abuse freedom — people choose not to choose.

Now. We do this all the time – choose not to choose. Oddly enough, a shitload of people think this is actually exercising your freedom. Go figure. Not doing something is an expression of freedom.

<scratching my head here>

Some people argue this is an excellent way that we exercise our freedom and flex our choice-making muscles. Either we actually do not make a choice at all or we delegate the choice-making to someone else <sometimes an expert – doctor, banker, service provider> or we just delegate the choice making into the “to be done later” file. In general, we have good intentions. We do this because we do not want to invest the energy and  time to make a ‘right decision’ <this actually becomes ‘not choosing’, or using your freedom, because of fear of not making the right choice … or using your freedom properly>. And, yes, it is ‘good intentions’ to intentionally avoid making a bad decision.

Sure. Using the overall excuse of “I am too busy” choosing not to choose can often seem to be the best choice because it can sometimes appear to then free us up to do something else. Personally I call bullshit on this type of thinking.

Freedom kind of has two levers or maybe an “on/off” switch … opt in or opt out. Either use your freedom or don’t use it. You either value your choice or you don’t. There really isn’t a lot of room in-between. And, yeah, people will argue with me on this, but I am stating it this way because while freedom can far too often look abstract, in reality, in practice, it is anything but abstract.

Doing, action, is at the core of freedom itself.

I have traveled the world and seen freedom and no freedom.

I have traveled the world and seen the arguments and debates and fights over freedom itself <my freedom versus your freedom>.

But here is the deal.

The opportunity to choose is not all that matters. I say that because far too many people who actually have the opportunity <a> do not exercise their freedoms or <b> get bogged down on the debate & conflict of my freedom versus your freedom. Choosing is what matters where freedom is concerned.

That said. As I have said before, surprisingly, freedom is tough. And it is even tougher because you may never really know if you have used your freedom well or wisely.

But here is what I do know.

It will be how you use your freedom which will be immortalized. And, yes, everyone is immortalized. Either through your forgetfulness or lack of memorability or lack of choice or doing something or how you cannot be forgotten or memorability through how you used your freedom and the choices you made. I say that because immortality will be the stories that are told about what you did with your freedom. That will be the final judge. Ponder that <because I think it is important>.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm … maybe that is why we get both lost and free within freedom. Given freedom we tend to hug tightly to any boundaries we find for fear of getting lost. But, assuming we actually ‘do shit’ and make choices using our freedom more and more we start to get a feel for those boundaries and begin pushing them out. Simplistically we push them further and further away from ourselves. At some point if we push them far enough it will feel like there are no boundaries and yet we do not feel lost.

I imagine that is what some people would call “freedom.” Seeing boundaries yet pushing against them to stretch what can “be”. And, yes, I also imagine that it feels good. So. Ponder this: If you have freedom, use it wisely.

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

“When you do something noble and beautiful and nobody notices, do not be sad.

For the sun every morning is a beautiful spectacle and yet most of the audience still sleeps.”

John Lennon

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