“Whatever choice you make, The Devil gets his due eventually.”

–

 Hugh McLeod

=====

Associating anything with the negativity of hope is very unusual for me because I am an unequivocal ‘hope is good’ guy. But here I am talking about choices and happiness with choices  and how hope affects our happiness and, well, unhappiness <this is really about attitudes & behavior>.

Well. It seems ironic.

In fact <part 1> this entire thought may be the ultimate example of what psychologists call an ‘ironic effect.’ The Ironic Effect is about the fact that we not just may fail despite doing our best, our best efforts, but that we fail because of our best efforts. Wow. That sucks.

In fact <part 2> the depressingly oft discussed positive thinking is basically one long litany of ironic effects because trying too hard to be happy makes people miserable <bet the positive psychologists don’t tell you that>.

This extends further into trying too hard to make the right choices.

Regardless. If you want to get marketing folk in a tizzy get them started talking about how consumers make choices <and how to try and influence those choices>.

–          Research says “people research the shit out of shit before making a choice.” <that’s my translation of research>

–          Therefore companies <and marketing folk> say “let’s give them choices <and explain the choices>”

–          But consumers say “all this work and all these choices make my head hurt <make me unhappy>.”

Barry Schwartz calls it the paradox of choice.

It seems the more choices we have, the less likely we are to make a decision, which ultimately makes us unhappy.  In Schwartz’s estimation, all these choices have not made us freer, but more paralyzed. Not happier, but more dissatisfied <unhappy>.

“The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.”

Barry Schwartz

** note: Richard Shotton’s book, The Choice Factory, is an excellent resource for choicemaking and behavioral thinking.

Barry Schwartz studied the link between economics and psychology. And while I may be taking liberties and stretching his idea too far he does suggest that having more options doesn’t increase our overall welfare.

Anyway. Suffice it to say that people struggle with choices for many reasons. In fact it is difficult to know where to start <irony intended>. The big issue on this topic is the fact most of us feel regret not choosing one thing, but here is the zinger, before even choosing the other.

Holy shit.

We regret  and haven’t even done anything.

We do this because we internalize opportunity costs, in other words, … ‘dwelling on the benefits of the next best options that I forgo when I choose something else’.

Yeah. It is an unfortunate truth that every decision has opportunity costs. This sucks ebecause we live in a world of seemingly infinite possibilities so it can seem next to impossible to figure out what to do, when, and where. Inevitably <and unfortunately> this translates into you start living in a world of hypotheticals.

World of hypotheticals? Well. A causal relationship with the world of choices.

“If I do this thing, then this will happen.”

But that causal realtionship begets a cornocoppia of isses. But what if I did THAT thing?  Will that make me happier?

Or. What about that OTHER thing … that looks good.

In the end it seems like you simply suffer from what is called the spoiled child syndrome where everything is at your disposal, but you don’t take advantage of any opportunities because you’re not sure of what’s best.

To make matters worse more choices tend to raise our expectations in that we think in simple, mythical, terms — more choices equals better quality.

Unfortunately that’s not true. Its a choice myth as it were.

But my thoughts today are not on quality of choices, but rather choices and happiness and that seems to lead to the paradox of choices as outlined in Alice in Wonderland. Alice in Wonderland actually discusses the paradox of choices with “jam yesterday, jam tomorrow but never jam today.”

The thought can be defined in a variety of ways, but think of it this way — when you look back over past experience you tend to remember good times and when you look forward into the future <it ’s right over that hill … or behind those trees> you tend to see nothing but happiness and hope.

That is jam yesterday, and jam tomorrow.

Ah. But what about is jam today? In the vernacular of our times: today’s jam sucks. There is no jam today for anyone nor <metaphorically> any other day in which you find yourself. Unfortunately many experiences in life appear like this to us — very good when we remember or anticipate them, but incredibly ordinary or downright bad or miserable in the moment. So, here we are, in the least happy moment <today> trying to make choices <that make our head hurt> for a time which looks awesome to us <tomorrow> and regret the choice before we even make it.

<boy … that was a buzzkill just writing it>

And then there is the actual choice itself.

Classical economic theory suggests that people act rationally, using cost benefit analysis to make choices and come to conclusions.

And according to theory people will always choose the option that is objectively best for them <lets call this the optimal option>.

Uh oh.

After decades of scientific research, conducted by behavioral psychologists, behavioral economists and marketers, it is now well-established that this type of thinking doesn’t reflect reality.

Consider a customer in a supermarket. An average supermarket offers approximately 50,000 items.

Evaluating in full the costs and benefits of even a fraction of the options would take far too long to be practical. This choice scenario may seem extreme, but in reality it is not too far from the amount of information we must analyze in everyday life. We live in an extraordinarily complicated environment. It would be impossible to recognize and evaluate all the aspects of each person, event, situation and product we encounter in one day. We do not have the capacity for it, let alone the time and motivation. As a result, we have developed mechanisms to deal with this complexity <and scenarios like the supermarket>.

One way people deal with the immense amount of information around them is to use mental shortcuts, or heuristics. These are rules of thumb people use to make quick judgments and come to conclusions. For instance, we use an unlit shop as a sign that it is closed, we associate suits with professionalism, and we equate expensive products with higher quality.

This means we classify things according to a few key features and then respond automatically and without thinking even when another feature <or cue> may be present.

This means automatic and unconscious decision making, or default thinking, is present in much human action. Here is the problem with heuristics. It doesn’t always lead to happiness. Our short cut thinking to accommodate all the choices available to us simply make us unhappy with ‘jam today.’

I have more scientific type thinking from those folks at Wharton school of Business:

Who is more content with their choice? 

Wharton marketing professor Cassie Mogilner and colleagues Baba Shiv, a Stanford marketing professor, and Sheena Iyengar, a management professor at Columbia decided to look at the consumer choice context.

For example, would the more satisfied consumers be people who went from store to store, trying out a number of different products over an extended period of time, or the ‘one-stop shoppers’ who made a decision with all of the options in front of them?

In a series of experiments, the researchers studied how the way options were presented to consumers affected the feelings they ultimately had about a particular choice. Their findings are outlined in the paper, “Eternal Quest for the Best: Sequential (vs. Simultaneous) Option Presentation Undermines Choice Commitment,” which appeared in the Journal of Consumer Research.

After looking at individual selections in experiments that asked some participants to choose from a range of options presented all at once and others to pick from selections offered one at a time, the researchers concluded that “Whether choosing a piece of gourmet chocolate, a nail polish color or a bottle of Italian red wine, individuals presented with their options one at a time end up less satisfied with, and ultimately less committed to, their chosen option than individuals presented with their options all at once.”  But why do people feel more satisfied with, and committed to, a decision when they see all of the potential routes at one time? According to the study the key driver is hope — in particular, the negative implications of hoping too much.

“To my knowledge, this is one of the first” studies to look at the negative side of hope. We usually think of hope as a good thing.”

In the first experiment, 87 individuals were presented with five different gourmet chocolate options, either sequentially or simultaneously, and asked to pick their favorite. Those who tasted the chocolate sequentially were allowed to try each variety before being asked to choose one. The researchers measured the role of hope in the decision by giving half of each group a 10-digit number to remember during the tasting, with the theory that saddling them with a “high cognitive load” would limit their capacity to conjure up the idea of a sixth, even better chocolate that might make them regret their initial choice. The other participants were asked to memorize a two-digit number — or a “low cognitive load” — with the idea that they would have plenty of brain power left to consider the possibility that a tastier candy was out there somewhere. 

Afterward, participants were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their choice of chocolate, and to answer questions designed to measure the levels of hope, fear and regret that resulted from the experience. Finally, in order to gauge participants’ level of commitment to their choice, the entire group was given the option to change their original selection, either to a type of candy they had sampled during the tasting or to an option they hadn’t tried yet.

According to the paper, participants who sampled the chocolates one by one and were given the two-digit number to remember exhibited greater hope that there was a better choice out there than people who were given all of their options simultaneously, no matter what type of number the latter group was given to memorize. Participants who tasted the candy sequentially but were asked to remember the 10-digit number also reported lower levels of hope, lending credence to the researchers’ theory that having to memorize the number would hinder their ability to dream up a different option.  On the other hand, participants’ level of commitment to their choice was divided along the lines of cognitive load. Of those who had to remember the two-digit number, half of the sequential choosers and 40% of the simultaneous choosers opted to switch to the untested option. Among participants given the 10-digit number, just 13% of sequential choosers and 17% of simultaneous choosers decided to switch.

“These results suggest that when sequential choosers have the cognitive resources available to imagine a better option, they will. They will, in turn, be more likely to switch to that unknown option, hoping it will be better.”

The second experiment built on the first by directly manipulating whether participants felt hope for a better option while making their choice. Unlike the first study, people who were presented with the chocolates one by one could only pick a particular type when it was in front of them — there was no going back to select something they had already tasted. In addition to the lab study, the researchers also conducted a pilot field experiment studying nail salon patrons choosing colors for a manicure.

When the nail salon customers were offered the chance to take home either a free bottle of the color they had selected for their manicure or the chance to pick a different polish, 83% of simultaneous choosers stuck with their chosen option, while only 43% of the strict sequential choosers did so. In the modified chocolate study, half of the 198 participants were told to reflect on a time when they felt hope before they tasted the chocolates, while the other group was asked to ponder a neutral topic. Those two groups were divided in half, with some tasting all the chocolates simultaneously and others doing so one by one.

According to the researchers, provoking feelings of hope in participants dominated the way they felt about choosing a type of chocolate. Notably, the simultaneous and sequential choosers who were made to feel hope reported equally low levels of satisfaction with their original choice, and nearly half switched to the unknown chocolate option, with even more doing so in the simultaneous option group. In the neutral group, however, one-third of sequential choosers switched to the untested chocolate, compared to only 4% of simultaneous choosers.  

“These results suggest that the low commitment exhibited among sequential choosers is driven by increased feeling of hope.” 

The final experiment was a field study conducted as a wine tasting. The researchers measured the extent to which the 129 participants felt hope when making a choice, and further “honed in on the role of hope” by also measuring regret and including both types of sequential conditions — i.e., people who were presented with the options one at a time and allowed to taste each wine before picking their favorite or those who could only choose a particular wine when it was in front of them — along with a simultaneous group, in which all of the glasses were presented at the same time. The experiment followed the same pattern as the first two: sampling, selecting a favorite, filling out a survey, and then deciding whether to stick with the chosen option, switch to one of the previously sampled wines or switch to an unknown option. 

All sequential choosers were much less committed to their chosen option than those who were presented with all of the wines simultaneously, the researchers note. But only those sequential choosers restricted to picking a type of wine when it was in front of them were more likely to feel regret about their choice.

“What was interesting was that when we held everything constant — when the sequential and simultaneous choosers had all of the same information available to them — when they made their choice, something as simple as how it was presented to them influenced levels of satisfaction.”

Next.

The Price of Satisfaction

Looking at the results of all the experiments, the researchers found that there was no pattern to the product selections of any one group, leading them to conclude that it wasn’t that some participants ended up objectively worse off than the others — sequential choosers experienced those outcomes as being less desirable because their mind stayed focused on “the road not taken,” or the option that remained undiscovered.

The study suggested it was intriguing to test people’s reaction to such frivolous items as wine and chocolate, where participants likely didn’t come in with any strong preconceived perceptions of a particular option. But they add that the results do have broader applications. Notably, the research supports presenting options simultaneously, as retailers would prefer that consumers don’t regret a choice and ultimately decide to return an item, or communicate to other consumers their lack of satisfaction with a purchase.

“While all the instances in the paper are fairly trivial, the implications of simultaneous versus sequential choice can run across all types of decisions.”

But can firms change their policies and practices to turn decisions involving sequentially presented options into choices where all of the possibilities are shown simultaneously? Such an adjustment is easiest for online retailers that have full control over how their product assortments are presented. “Our findings suggest that options should be presented together on the same web page, rather than on separate pages.”

The study also sheds light on just how harmful hoping can be. When one is in a sequential choosing situation, he or she should have confidence in making a decision and stop wondering “what if” — whether it’s a new home, job or even a spouse.

“This shows the detrimental effect of continuing to wonder what else is out there, and how it undermines satisfactions with the choices you make. Instead of comparing your chosen option with an imagined perfect option, compare you chosen option with the other options you’ve seen.”

Ok. That was a lot of stuff. So let me pull out a key point.

“… provoking feelings of hope in participants dominated the way they felt about choosing a <whatever> …”

Choice is inextricably linked to hope.

Well. That sucks. That sucks because most choices are made pragmatically <in the today> and assessed afterwards in the past or future. No wonder we are unhappy with choices.

** note: when I say ‘pragmatically’ I am not suggesting everyone is always rational in their choice-making, just that for the majority of purchases, which are driven by “what do I need now” there is an inherent pragmatism that underlies the choice.

Not only do we have too many choices, but hope actually encourages us to make choices incorrectly.

Who would have ever thought that hoping would be harmful?

In addition. “What if” is intangible. It holds something yet to be defined <in reality> and holds reality <in what you imagine>.

Oops.

Rarely do these two meet.

Regardless.

The point?

Hope is harmful when there are too many choices because inevitably we end up making a choice based on hope.

Offering too many choices isn’t good. People do not like so many choices. They want it winnowed down and set up to isolate what is most important.

If you do not do that? Well. People will be unhappy.

Whew. I never thought I would ever write anything suggesting that hope had a negative aspect. But there you go. Too many choices uncovers the ugly underbelly of hope.

——————-

“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

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

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

BBC discussion on Hamlet

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

Well, fortune favors the brave, sir.”

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

Richard Woodman

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

Ok.

Success can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Winning can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

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

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

Success has that effect on people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

======================== 

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

Peter Drucker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Petr Grigorevich

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

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

Shit. Their convictions are more like chameleons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

–

Albert Einstein

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

“We need timeless principles to steer by in running our organizations and building our personal careers. We need high standards — the ethics of excellence.”

 –

Price Pritchett

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

Ethics are our morals in action. Ethical behavior is the system we develop framed within our moral code. Our moral code, or our morals, are a system of beliefs emergent from our values. Values are the foundation of our ‘right/wrong judgement’ which create some belief system. This is personal, an individual decision, not universally accepted.

“values are our measures of importance, whereas ethics represent our judgments about right and wrong”

(Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 438)

It may seem like I am parsing thought here, however, in the business world all the words get tossed around flippantly (interchangeably) – particularly when it comes to culture. It is important because culture is emergent, not dictated. Culture is a collection of individuals, with individual values, who act in a coherent behavioral fashion, within an organization (where the systems enable or suffocate the individual behavior). I say this because this is when “principles” comes into play. Principles encourage a specific coherence not by dictating but rather by establishing some common agreement. In other words, despite each person having their own value prioritization, the organization establishes its value prioritization (establishing not what to do, but what not to do).

Look. Here is a truth.

We don’t really like to admit it but Life, in general, more resembles a constant teetering on the edge of a slippery slope than anything else (especially with regard to ethics, i.e., “doing the right thing.”). Life, and business, constantly, relentlessly forces you to make, well, ethical choices. Now. They may not look like ethical choices, but if you look real closely you will see the face of ‘right or wrong’ staring at you wagging its finger. We don’t look that closely because it would force us to admit:

• Right & wrong is often contextual
• Right & wrong is often not a clear black or white
• Right & wrong is often measured, ultimately, in consequences not actions, yet, we are demanded to choose right or wrong and act now

You will most associate this constant teetering (also a recognition of being on the slippery slope of fading ethics) as “just this once” behavior. We don’t really like to admit it because ‘just this once’ tends to be used to explain away some of our more dubious behavior and decisions.

This ‘dubiousness’ gets couched in a variety of ways. Safety. Utility. Benefits (functional and ‘to me’). We find a lot of ways to justify our behavior, decisions and attitudes before we ladder up to ethics. As my friend Faris Yakob (see image) suggests it is almost a Maslow-ian decision model. Its not that we ignore ethics or even not care about ethics its just we prioritize a number of things before we get to ethics. This suggests ethics is not a foundation from which decisions emerge, but rather are a final, fairly wide, box in which a decision has to be checked against.

source: Faris Yakob

If that is true, then ethical fading is commonplace, yet, justified by ‘pragmatism’ criteria. I bring up pragmatism because, whether we admit it or not, unless you actually think about ethics, morals and values (in a non-meta philosophical way) then it becomes a little more difficult to understand how principles can play a fairly important pragmatic guardrail role. The truth is that ethics are constantly challenged, in context, by safety and utility. For example, would we steal to feed our children or lie to keep us safe.

Sound moral judgment is rooted in strong values and acted upon by our ethics. An organizational judgement, a collection of these individuals, is herded in common principles.

Principles, yes, before you despair, principles guard against ethical fading. Principles are the cornerstones of your ethical building. Without principles you have no solid ground to stand on in a world constantly trying to tip you over into a variety of holes, slippery slopes and dead-end tunnels.

‘Principle’ is defined in Nuttall’s Concise Standard Dictionary of the English Language as, “n. the source or origin of anything; a general truth or law comprehending many subordinate ones; tenet or doctrine; a settled law or rule of action; to impress with any tenet; to establish firmly in the mind.”

Principles protect, in a very fragile way, against ethical fading.

They do so in a number of ways

1. They establish a foundation, or a moral filter, for ethical behavior. Maybe call them the ground rules of how you assess what is right versus wrong
2. Unfortunately, the foundation is a framework not a “how to do” manual. Therefore upfront they help define exceptions to the ground rules and, yes, we will always find some exceptions. Some ‘blurring’ of the guardrails as it were.
3. Unfortunately (part 2), this blurring, while not always creating ‘just this once’ behavior, it CAN create just this once behavior which is, well, the slippery slope of ethical fading. In this situation principles can actually be the solid lily pads of ‘no more’ certainty from which one can stop the slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading.
4. Unfortunately (part 3), principles, while resilient, are not immortal. Facing the onslaught of ethical fading they can, well, fade and once they have made their last stand you are screwed. You are on the slope and the only question left to answer is how far down the slope you end up.

So, despite their fragility, let me talk about principles.

“The most important ingredient we put into any relationship is not what we say or what we do, but what we are. And if our words and our actions come from superficial human relations techniques (the Personality Ethic) rather than from our own inner core (the Character Ethic), others will sense that duplicity. We simply won’t be able to create and sustain the foundation necessary for effective interdependence.”

Stephen R. Covey

To me principles revolve around a discussion of soul (selling your soul ). Some people may disagree with me but, to me, soul represents the intersection of I & We. It gives us life energy (call it our subconscious passion). It what joins us together with an external shared common vision – kind of our common value proposition for Life. It creates a connective tissue for, well, acting in a humane fashion with other humans. It is within this intersection in which we seek the common ground between morals, ethics and value and arrive at a coherent principled behavior as a community or business organization.

Let me suggest 4 cornerstone principles (not ranked, just foundational):

• Inviting culture premised on affection for humanity. Lives are to be lived for others (therein lies where we gain meaning), not just for our own success and advancement. We must model lives that matter if we want to nurture into living lives that matter. We believe that we are not islands unto ourselves but social beings who need community to flourish and become our best selves. Believing you are in, and of, community.
• Commitment to character demands involving oneself into multiple traditions and frameworks for what makes up a good life (contextually expanding your view). This means accepting a responsibility to pose questions which introduce one to a variety of cultures and contextual questioning.

Believing that character takes involvement & commitment & work.

• Do good. I imagine I am suggesting that if you do good you will contribute in a meaningful way (some call this a purposeful life). We must simply follow Aristotle’s advice, or Emerson, that “the purpose of our examination is not to know what virtue is, but to become good.” The point is not merely to study the good, in a detached and academic way, but to invite oneself to develop as a person of character.

Believing that a virtuous life is not found in attitude, but behavior & actions.

• Be curious about everyone and everything. Keep your head in a swivel as context changes. Exhibit a dedication, imagination and commitment to context as the fertile ground for intellectual growth, knowledge and ethical resilience. Ethical resilience is NOT rigid ethics, but rather strongly held principles which can accommodate the nuances of cultural context (reflective of cultures surrounding the person and decision). This principle, in particular, does not dictate character, but is intended to provide a compass to help each person find their own path and to grow in their awareness of self (and others).

Believing principles are not steadfast and unmoving but rather depending on adapting to new learning.

I will note that all the Principles are solid in belief but adaptable to time, knowledge and context. This is a recognition that we, humans, are not of self but rather of something bigger – society, community, connectivity.

Yes. This suggests Principles are not simple, but complex.

This leads me to leadership.

Leadership can be of one’s own life or it can be in combination with other people. Regardless, someone must develop some skills for successful leadership – for self or for group.

The first is the mindset that leaders see leadership as a skill that needs to be continually developed and improved (active listening, giving feedback, talking to people).

The second is a recognition that certain things happen under the surface and have a significant impact on the performance of the team, such as interpersonal dynamics, the way individuals work, disputes and tension between people (typically originating from the past). Leaders have to have the skills to bring these things to the surface and resolve them.

** note: this is also true of self and inner conflict

The third is power and inclusion. Power dynamics effect any social structure (you are misguided if you don’t believe this). You have to recognize, and acknowledge, power dynamics in order to be inclusive, empathetic and create complete connections. If you elect to ignore the relationship between power and ethical behavior, i.e., how power stresses individual values prioritization and behavior toward goals, you will ignore the truth that the more power you need, the more likely ethical fading is to occur.

That said. In old structures (hierarchy) power can be directed, but in future organizations power emerges (networks evolve) and leadership is expanding potential from emergent power dynamics. This will demand a different type of character. This type of character navigates the I, we, larger We dynamics of an interconnected life, business & society.

“Character, like oxygen, is most noticeable when it is missing.”

Richard Reeves

The new powerful leadership will not lead with power, but rather principled driven energy and instead of just accumulating wealth/profits/achievements, seek to accumulate outcomes to be proud of.

Look.

These are very strange times. I would not say it’s the worst of times, but it seems to be a world that demands binary, black & white stances despite the fact navigating ambiguity and uncertainty is the path to not only success, but progress. What I can say is that holding onto something in a black and white way in a world of swirling colors, and grays, creates an ongoing sense of uncomfortableness. Maybe worse is attempting to hold onto binaries you will slide down the slippery slope of ethical fading without even noticing until its too late.

And maybe that is where I will end. You would think ethical fading would be associated with gray and the graying of morals and choices, but its not. Ethical fading occurs one black & white step at a time.

In the end.

We often speak of “principled leadership” or desiring leaders to have principles. I would argue each of us, to be successful, need to grapple with our own relationship between values, ethics and principles. Because, in the end, while we may be grounded in our values and measured by our ethical behavior what will matter will be the principles which make all of these decisions coherent to our Life – what we will, or will not, do. Yes. Refusal of “ethical fading” suggests “we are what we refuse to do” or, as Paul Chippendale stated, “we are what we refuse to adapt to.”

===

“No matter how careful you are, there’s going to be the sense you missed something, the collapsed feeling under your skin that you didn’t experience it all. There’s that fallen heart feeling that you rushed right through the moments where you should’ve been paying attention.

Well, get used to that feeling. That’s how your whole life will feel some day.

This is all practice. “

—

Chuck Palahniuk

====

“It’s never as good as you want it to be; It’s never as bad as it seems.”

—

William Chapman

====

Well. Chuck Palahniuk writes some really deep shit. Stuff that really makes you think. That said, I have to admit, when I read the opening quote a lot of things about living Life, in business and personal, made a helluva lot more sense to me.

Maybe it’s just me, but, it seems like most of Life is tainted by sense of constantly missing ‘something’ … as in something maybe better than where we are and what we are doing and feeling or in what we have done. It isn’t always this huge disappointment. It’s just like a little nagging sliver in the palm of your hand.

All the while this sense is interposed with glimpses of … well … what is actually better. We, being we humans, naturally don’t accept the sense we missed something. Therefore we begin becoming more & more careful with how we invest our time and more careful about what we do <or don’t do>. Basically, we start treating our lives carefully assuming that if we do so, we will have less sense of something missing and more glimpses of ‘the better we feel like we are missing sometimes.’

Boy.

Are we wrong.

Boy.

We sure are investing a shitload of energy chasing something I believe Life simply dangles in front of us to tease us with thoughts of ‘what could be.’

It is quite possible we should learn to accept the nagging sense of missing something as … well … good. Good as in it makes us a little more alert for ‘things.’ Maybe it just makes us pay attention a little more.

Maybe we should accept the feeling isn’t lostness nor the thought that maybe we were not on the right path in Life.

Maybe we should just accept it as a characteristic of a good life.

Anyway. All of this leads me to a quote, and a thought, I vehemently disagree with:

======

……. me reading this quote ……

“People who succeed tend to find one goal in the distant future and then chase it through thick and thin.  People who flit from one interest to another are much, much less likely to excel at any of them.  School asks students to be good at a range of subjects, but life asks people to find one passion that they will follow forever. “

David Brooks

<The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources Of Love, Character, And Achievement>

=======

That is just bullshit.

Life does not ask people to find one passion that they will follow forever. That’s like saying that I love ice cream, but I am only going to eat chocolate ice cream for the rest of my life because it is my favorite flavor.

What a potentially boring life.

What a potentially ‘missed opportunity’ life.

The whole ‘passion’ discussion makes my head hurt so badly I start rubbing my temples so hard that then the sides of my head hurt too.

Let’s be clear. It is not passion <although glimpses of passion is always fun>. Life asks you to do the best, be the best and pursue what you believes makes you the best of what you could be … that’s it.

That’s what you follow forever.

Is success achieving that ‘one goal in the distant future?’ Maybe for some. But ‘people who succeed tend to find one goal and chase it’ is bullshit. What happens if I suck at picking that one goal or maybe my sense of direction sucks as I ‘go thru think & thin’ getting to the horizon <only to find I am standing in nowhere land>?

Look.

I am all for people pursuing goals.

I am all for people being passionate.

I am all for pursuing thru thick & thin <assuming what you are pursuing is ‘real’ and not some fantasyland>.

But I am not all for putting the blinders on, the bit between the teeth and then run like hell toward some goal on the horizon. I do believe you should be inspired in your actions … but inspired is very different than passion.

Passion.   I have a passion … it is for something.

Inspired.    I can be inspired by many somethings and moments and experiences and … well … you get it.

Here is a Life truth. The people who tend to succeed are inspired … by one thing or by many things … doesn’t matter. They are just inspired people. 

===

“All the effort in the world won’t matter if you’re not inspired.”

Chuck Palahniuk  

===

All that said. Let me circle back to the beginning. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much and how hard you pursue something … you will still have a sense of having missed something. Everyone has an undercurrent sense, a feeling, of missing something.

Look. We all pursue one thing — happiness. We may couch it in some ‘idea I have’ or ‘money’ or “purpose” or, well, anything else life has to offer, but we all want, and therefore seek, happiness. I would suggest what Chuck suggested we think about is not really acceptance of ‘lesser than what we want’ but rather accept the balance Life offers us.

The balance in that we will almost naturally have some sense of ‘something better’ no matter how careful we are in managing our lives or the pursuit of some goal.

The balance of actually getting a glimpse of that ‘something’ and not having rushed thru some important moment versus the missing feeling.

Well. Having said all that.

When I read the opening quote I had a better understanding of why so many people are unhappy far too often.

Because if we DON’T accept the sense of missing something as part of living a full Life … well … that means you will spend your entire life chasing that sense <to suffocate it in some way>. If you do that, well,  that pursuit will inevitably suffocate your Life <and that is an unhappy Life>. Ponder. Maybe I am missing something. And maybe I am not.

==========

Originally posted October 2015

==========

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

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

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at, but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

So, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

===

“What people don’t understand doesn’t exist.”

Jan Carlzon

——–

“Chance favors the connected mind.”

Steven Johnson

===

Ok. We chase a lot of things in business in search of ‘advantage’. We sometimes chase them so blindly and relentlessly we don’t even recognize the rabbit hole we have started running down. Differentiation is one of those rabbit holes.

Now. I have a warped perspective <it includes rabbit holes> with regard to differentiation and differentiating in the business world. I think it’s a shit objective. Ok. It CAN be a shithole objective. But suffice it to say I believe chasing differentiation is … well … yes … often a rabbit hole.

To be clear. I don’t dislike differentiation and I believe a well differentiated sustainable idea can dominate a market. But. Chasing differentiation seems to take on some fairly absurd efforts to attain the objective. In addition. I worry about differentiation as an objective because it points people in the wrong direction. If I were to kill this whole differentiation thing, I would begin by saying “define, define, define.” Define yourself with such a clear distinctive thought that permits you stand up and say ‘here is who I am.’

Here is the deal. Sometimes you may look similar to someone else. But more often you will look like ,well, you. And in a sometimes complex fragmented world where everyone is shouting how different they are <and people are becoming more & more cynical> distinctness can win. And more often than not you will also be, well, different. In addition. In today’s world about the only sustainable differentiation isn’t a thing, it is knowledge, thinking & what you have done with what you learn.

Regardless. The meaningless rabbit hole. In our blind pursuit of differentiation we can make some fairly absurd decisions with regard to thoughtless specialization, nuanced differentiation and niche definition. In our blind pursuit of differentiation we can gleefully land on some ‘spot’ and declare differentiation victory only to have it all negated because of lack of alignment throughout all aspects of operations. Attempted, or false/meaningless, differentiation is useless and distracting and a rabbit hole.

Bottom line on differentiation is the reckless pursuit of it encourages us to lie to ourselves, i.e., convince ourselves of ‘true difference’ when it is simply meaningless differentiation. And therein lies the worst of the rabbit hole. Pretending to not see the truth, or maybe <to be kinder>, to pretend it is what it isn’t.

—————

“… the person who pretends to not see the truth is committing something much worse than a mortal sin, which can only ruin one’s soul – but instead committing us all to lifetimes of pain.

The truth is not just something we bring to light to amuse ourselves; the truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth. When it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place; no light can penetrate. Happiness evades us and we spread pain and misery wherever we go. Each person, above all others, has an obligation to recognize the truth and stand by it.”

Jacque Silette

—————-

That last point is semi-important because many business people simply ignore truth as they pursue this elusive <and debatably poor objective> thing called differentiation. Far <far> too many business people embrace acceptable doubt and the possibility that a stupid belief might have something going for it in the pursuit of ‘differentiation’ all the while completely ignoring something that makes you distinct <but possibly not different>, or, let’s call it ‘an obvious and rational truth.’ People ignore it because they believe it will get you nowhere.

Trust me. These are the meetings and discussions in which I often sit dumbfounded and silent and thinking ‘wow … the rabbit hole just gained a whole new crowd of loons.’

—-

“…I was calm on the outside but thinking all the time.”

A Clockwork Orange

———-

Our relentless pursuit of differentiating most often than not leads to an unimportant product feature <not what customers consider valuable>

–——-

“Differentiation is a unique quality, perceived or real, of a good or service that distinguish it from a competing good or service…”

Your Dictionary.com

——–

Look. I fully realize that the need to be distinctive and competitive are the reasons why the company needs to think about differentiation.  However, differentiation can take on so many faces there is no reason you should end up chasing down some rabbit hole for some elusive ‘this is what you MUST seek’ objective as defined by one expert <only to have another expert state unequivocally you need to chase another completely different shiny object>.

Suffice it to say, I can almost guarantee whenever someone brings up differentiation it is more often than not simply code for “please enter this rabbit hole.”

Next. The perfection rabbit hole. On a parallel course is a similar group chasing perfection often ending up in the same rabbit hole as the differentiators <can get awful crowded in that business rabbit hole>. The pursuit of perfection is an insidious rabbit hole. Its stench seeps into the darkest corners of an organization. And while the stench is enough to make anyone’s stomach heave most organizations have people with no real ability and yet strive to maintain an aura of ability under the guise of ‘seeking perfection for the good of the organization.’

More good employees are actually LED into the perfection rabbit hole than employees who actually CHOOSE to dive into the perfection rabbit hole. That said. Organizations are built over this particular rabbit hole. Every organization. It is the unfortunate burden of every organization to deal with the pursuit of perfection.

————–

“Just because you took longer than others doesn’t mean you failed.”

Hassann

—————

Maybe that is my biggest point about rabbit holes and business. Some of the things we seek most in business, whether it be differentiation or perfection or whatever silly thing you have decided will better your business, always seem to take longer than what you want. We get impatient. And if we get really thoughtful about this whole impatience we would realize that our aggravation is with Life and not any inability within ourselves <or even in assessment the foolish pursuit of this un-real reality objective>.

Note:

we SHOULD be more thoughtful about this more often … mostly because if we do not far too many of the wrong people get fired <the right ones> and too many of the wrong people <the wrong ones> get praised and encouraged to maintain the ‘pursuit’ for the good f the organization.

Regardless. Life does not suffer fools lightly. Life is oblivious to your impatience <and relatively indifferent to you in general>. And Life bleeds into any and every organization.

How does Life deal with the fools and silly impatient people? Rabbit holes. It gives us rabbit holes to chase after silly things and dive into in our relentless pursuit of attaining “it” and waste our lives wandering aimlessly within.

But here is where Business and personal Life diverge.

In personal Life you are responsible for the stupid choices you make. Choose to enter a rabbit hole and the issue is all yours to own. In business you can actually get shoved into a rabbit hole whether you want to or not.

All I can tell you is that when I hear someone leading a discussion about ‘how are we different’ and ‘what’s our differentiation?” I start swiveling my head around scanning for rabbit holes.

All I can tell you is that when I hear someone in the hallway espousing the need to pursue perfection I start swiveling my head around scanning for rabbit holes.

 All I can tell you is that when I am in a meeting and someone is discussing both differentiation and perfection I don’t swivel my head, I just sigh, because I know I am already in a rabbit hole.

That is business … and rabbit holes. Ponder.

==

“Stop looking for happiness in the same place you lost it.”

via creatingaquietmind

==

“Well I guess it’s only life,

It’s only natural we all spend a little while going down the rabbit hole. “

The Shins

==

“We don’t create a fantasy world to escape reality, we create it to be able to stay.”

Lynda Barry

==

Ok. We chase a lot of things in Life. We sometimes chase them so blindly and relentlessly we don’t even recognize the rabbit hole we have started running down. Happiness is one of those rabbit holes.

Whoa !

WTF.

Happiness is a rabbit hole?

Well. Suffice it to say happiness is a tricky thing.

Having it is awesome.

Seeking it is … well … a rabbit hole.

The search injects us with most of our everyday stress which means most of our stress has nothing to do with what we have, but rather what we don’t have <seeking what we want in other words>.

And while wanting a new car or some shirt or the cool new phone is a tangible ‘want’ <and not even close to sending you down a rabbit hole>; happiness is much more elusive. In fact. Much more elusive than you would imagine <or want>.

First. Our brains struggle to remember happiness in a realistic way. Semi-happy moments in the past take on a Life of their own and become exponentially happier in the memory. Yeah. Happiness has a wary relationship with reality.

Second. Our brains relentlessly tug at and tease out the minutiae found in unhappy moments. This, ultimately, translates into the fact we cannot seem to forget unhappiness and inevitably, because of that, do anything – include some absolutely absurd things – we can to avoid it.

Therein lies the rabbit hole. Life is not meant to be avoided.

Shit.

Life cannot be avoided <whether you try to or not>.

What do I mean? While we seek to control our own destiny and write our own fates … others grab our Life while we aren’t looking and write whole chapters for us that we can only look at and say “WTF” just before the inevitable ‘not written by us’ happens.

———

“Life is like a library owned by the author.  In it are a few books which he wrote himself, but most of them were written for him.”

Harry Emerson Fosdick

————

And all that ‘not written by us’ stuff keeps on getting in the way of what we want to write about happiness for our Life as well as it gets in the way of erasing the unhappy shit. This particular rabbit hole, this relentless pursuit of happiness, makes Life particularly difficult.

———-

“It hasn’t been easy, and it never will be. After all, every day is also a chance to slide back into the darkness. To live in ourselves and our regrets, instead of this moment. To run away from those that would help us and let self-hatred drive us back into isolation, despair, and destruction.

Nick Spencer

——

Every day is not easy and actively pursuing happiness shoves our happy ass in a slippery sloped rabbit hole faster than you can blink an eye.

Ok. As a corollary to chasing happiness, lets maybe call this the other rail on the tracks down into the frickin’ rabbit hole, is chasing simplicity <often believing this ‘elusive simplicity’ will lead to happiness>.

Is this a paradox in Life? Shit. I don’t know, but I do know the more we seek simplicity the more complex things tend to get and … uhm … the less happy we become.

Whew. Boy oh boy, talk about the slippery slope leading down to the rabbit hole of self-hell. Seeking simplicity is it.

Simplicity entices you day by day and even hour by hour. And each day you do not attain simplicity the more and more you look at it as some type of failure and you try harder and harder for something I am fairly sure you just cannot attain. Or if you can attain it … well … it doesn’t come from a book or some formula or even some sage advice from a friend, it is something more earned by living and attempting and finding.

Simplicity seems so simple and yet it inevitably takes much much longer to master than you feel it is supposed to.

Simplicity seems so damn easy that we, well, get impatient when it doesn’t happen.

Let me state that differently. We get impatient with Life. Uh oh. It’s not like we can dictate the pace & flow of Life <I will come back to this>.

The next problem?

Even if you actually DO attain some simplicity you are aggravated it took so frickin’ long. This is compounded by the fact that simplicity is one of those weird things that as soon as you attain it you start hearing other people say “geez … why did it take you so long to figure THAT out?”

————–

“Just because you took longer than others doesn’t mean you failed.”

Hassann

—————

<I use this quote to close the rabbit holes business post too>

And maybe that is my biggest point about rabbit holes and Life and reality.

Some of the things we seek most in Life, whether it be happiness or simplicity or whatever silly thing you have decided will better your Life, always seem to take longer than what you want. And we get impatient.

And if we get really thoughtful about this whole impatience … we would realize that our aggravation is with Life and not any inability within ourselves <or even in assessment the foolish pursuit of this non-real reality objective>.

Life does not suffer fools lightly. Life is oblivious to your impatience <and relatively indifferent to you in general>.

How does Life deal with the fools and silly impatient people?

Rabbit holes.

Life gives us rabbit holes to chase after silly things and dive into in our relentless pursuit of attaining “it” and waste our lives wandering aimlessly within this hole with slippery walls and minimal handholds to help us climb out of it.

Well. That summarizes reality … and rabbit holes. Ponder.

=========

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

Stephen Crane

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

“Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

Johannes Kepler

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

The universe has no real obligation to us. Period.

Yup. That actually means we are on our own. We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

That said.

Let me make sure we are all on the same page with regard to ”rights” which means you need to ponder rights, freedom, liberty, prerogative and privilege. All of these are words which refer to the fundamental claims a person can properly make or his unfettered ability to choose <Use The Right Word: S.I. Hayakawa>.

• Right suggests a concrete claim established by legal, ethical or religious sanctions <e.g., right to equality before the law>. Although … someone claiming a right tends to argue it is inherent, a person’s rights are differently spelled out in different cultures & countries.
• Liberty is a more abstract and general notion suggesting the opportunity to choose among alternatives. A document such as the Bill of Rights spells out these conditions a citizen may construe as his rights. However … these liberties may sometimes in fact refer to an unwarranted breach of someone else’s right to consideration <we do not enjoy unbridled liberty without regard for the rights of others>.
• Civil liberty is understood to refer to all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments.
• Freedom is close to liberty in its abstract generality but stresses a total lack of constraint more than the opportunity for choice.
• Prerogative and privilege are much more specific in their meanings than the other words here. Prerogative refers to a right that one has by virtue of age, sex or position. Privilege suggests advantages given as favors or added luxuries rather than necessary rights.

I share all that to point out that while we may complicate our lives by confusing all these dynamics we also complicate our lives unnecessarily.

Anyway. We tend to complicate our lives in a number of ways.

Sometimes it is we feel like Life, or the universe, should be a little more helpful.

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

Sometimes we seek an easier path because the way we are going seems a little too hard.

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

Sometimes we assume privileges with regard to desire of good things.

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

“People tend to complicate their lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

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

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

Far too often we view freedoms as freedom to be stupid, idiotic or thoughtless.

Specifically, far too often we view freedom of speech as a way to shared well-articulated insightful thoughts to better the world around them simply because, well, we were fortunate enough to be nearby when speech, freely given, was shared.

Well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say only smart things. It also means freedom to be stupid, idiotic and thoughtless.

Yeah.

Freedom is a sticky wicket. It permits freedom to say stupid things, factual things and nonfactual things.

And, yet, as John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty,” freedom of expression is the freedom on which all other civic rights are based.

Now. Two things.

First. I do believe those who speak have a responsibility to be responsible. Freedom of speech, and expression, is a privilege not to be abused. But that is my opinion.

Just mine.

However, stupidity aside, I would rather someone speak, regardless of what is said opinion wise, than for there to be silence. In a world in which we complicate our lives and confuse liberties and freedoms and privileges … we shouldn’t shut up. And we shouldn’t simply shut off someone because they confuse all these things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down lies <because we should> but, generally speaking, if someone wants to say something stupid, we should let them because of this universal truth:

“Idiocy thrives in the dark, not in dialogue.”

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

I have had this debate, sometimes argument, with several people.

I want neo-Nazis speaking on campuses.

I want feminists raging through megaphones on stand at street corners.

I want pro Life & pro Choice advocates debating on stages throughout America.

I want the most extreme of all sides and dimensions and directions to publicly have the opportunity to speak out.

First of all.

We should all want that.

We, here in the USA, actually live in a country where unless you shout “fire” in some movie theater or seriously offer harmful threats you actually have the privilege & right to speak your mind. This is a gift that USA gives its citizens — a gift many of the 192 countries around the world are not so quick to give their citizens.

Second.

We should abhor silence.

It seems to me that we are quickly  heading down a path where the only opinions safe to say out loud  are the benign most milquetoast ‘safe havens’ of speech — Hitler was bad,  genocide is bad, beets are bad <oops, that last one was just a personal benign opinion>.

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

And yet we are relentless in chastising those who choose to speak and the words they choose to speak are wrong, maybe even stupid and possibly ignorant.

Uhm. This makes me say …

“I have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

I do believe we are in the midst of a crisis of truth, ignorance and enlightenment … and freedoms, rights & privileges.

And it is an odd crisis in that we may actually speak up and out, but constantly get trapped in some simplistic dualisms/binaries — liberalism versus authoritarianism, Islam versus … well … Christianity/America/constitution/etc., white versus non white,  intellectual versus nonintellectual, urban versus rural and any other dualism thing you want to add.

But our issues seem to be more complex than ‘if this or maybe that.’

Our issues get compounded by the natural ebb & flow of “rights” <speech, religion, press, etc.> and what we believe is ‘right’ all combined with the unfortunate situation that the everyday person struggles to discerns fact from fiction <I would be remiss if i didn’t point out that 5+ years of Trump where he created his own fictional alternative universe in which his ‘facts’ exist and he wanted to manage the narrative as ‘his universe depicting reality’ didn’t help any of this>.

We complicate our lives needlessly.

And while Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in the 1830s that the American promise of meritocracy, its uniformity of culture and manners, and “equality of conditions” would make for immoderate ambition, corrosive envy and chronic dissatisfaction and could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties all leading to a longing for the rule of a strongman … I do not agree.

No matter how divisive we may get and no matter how much we complicate our own lives and how much we may confuse what we deserve and what we earn, what is a privilege and what is a right, all of our freedoms & rights are grounded in the one unchangeable thing we have … the constitution.

That said. I am reminded of some words written by William Martin in his fabulous book “The Lost Constitution”:

=======

“A real American will tell you that our Constitution is not a tool for politicians hoping to make points, whether it is a cynical Republican pushing flag burning amendments because their poll numbers are down or a do-gooding Democrat who decides to protect ourselves by banning guns. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made the Constitution difficult to amend, so let’s think hard before we mess with it. 

What it says is what t said two hundred years ago. I think the men who set their thoughts down here were men who cared about America. Some of them believed in a strong central government, some believed that government governs best which governs least, but all of them believed in the ability of thinking Americans to get up in the morning and resolve their differences and solve their problems. And we have lost that in this country.

The framers created a means of changing this document because they understood that the world would change. But they didn’t want to make it easy. So it up to you, the people, pick up your newspaper and read them, and think about what you read, and don’t always believe what you hear just because it is what you want to hear,. And don’t listen to what you want to hear because you hear it from somebody who shouts it loud or makes you laugh. The constitution demands more. Don’t believe the people who vote straight democrat any more than you believe the people who befoul the airwaves with rightist rhetoric every day. The theme, on every night, is that we are all American. “

==========

All that said, I circle back to where i began by saying I wanted to say two things. The first had to do with individual rights and choices, the second has to do with amplification <the megaphones of the world – tv networks, podcasts, social media>.

While I believe any individual has the right to be an idiot I think we would all be idiots if we didn’t acknowledge we are in a universe in which the amplification universe is not indifferent. In addition the amplification universe has the ability to exponentially share idiocy – not additively or even multiplicatively. Therein lies the accountability and responsivbility issue. While it sounds nice to say every platform can say whatever it wants to say <kind of a misplaced freedom of speech play> the reality is it isn’t about saying iodiotic things or lies or disinformation, its about teh amplification. So without any rules on how things get amplified <usually this comes down to algorithms> we inevitably have to talk about the source of the things that are getting shared. I, personally, think twitter, Facebook, instragram, whoever, should clamp down on disinformation and lies. Will they always get it right? Nope. Will in most cases , even in their errors, benefit society? Yup. Anything at this point which slows down amplification, or mutes what may take some time to be proven, is good. we do not need to “know everything” immediately. Give some time to vet everything. Let idiots speak but maybe limit how far and wide their idiocy spreads <at least initially>. That actually seems to protect the privileges and freedoms of citizenry more than it limits it.

Which leads me to end with the thought that it is an odd place we are in today.

It seems like never have so many free individuals felt so helpless and in their helpless feeling many people seem almost desperate to wrest control from anyone, and institutions in particular, they can blame for their feeling ‘lostness’ <however you would like to define lost>.

As I finish up this piece today it seems important to remind everyone that freedom of speech is just that … freedom of speech – and that freedom of speech is the foundation upon which all civil liberties reside.

I would rather idiocy, our confusion about what we deserve and do not deserve, be discussed rather than have to thrive in the darkness of silent strength.

Because all speech does is to start a dialogue.

It forces people to talk.

Personally, I don’t want to read, or watch, only whatever validates my beliefs.

I want to challenge my assumptions.

Personally, I know I get confused about what is a right, what is a freedom and, sometimes, what is a privilege.

The only thing I am 100% clear on is that I am privileged to exist in a country in which I can be confused on all those things and still be able to speak out.

And, lastly, I am absolutely clear that the universe has no real obligation to me … or us.

We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

What this means is that only we can complicate our lives and/or uncomplicate it.

Let’s be a little bit easier on each other.

Let’s listen a little bit better with each other.

Let’s become the universe in which we become obligated to each other rather than worrying about where my freedom begins and yours ends. Ponder.

===

She said, ‘I’m so afraid.’ And I said, ‘why?,’ and she said, ‘Because I’m so profoundly happy. Happiness like this is frightening.’  I asked her why and she said, ‘They only let you be this happy if they’re preparing to take something from you.’

Khaled Hosseini

==

Well <part 1>. The conclusion from that quote may quite be “trust nobody” and act on that. That would be a bad conclusion.

Well <part 2>. We seem to be having a ‘trust crisis’ in the world these days. That is bad.

It is bad because the consequence of a trust crisis is that we trust nobody and in trusting nobody we then begin to make individual choices, actions and decisions based on that thinking.

That, my friends, constitutes a crisis.

Let me be clear on this issue.

A trust nobody attitude is for the weak.

A trust nobody attitude is not a sign of confidence in one self but rather a sign of lack of confidence.

A trust nobody attitude is a cowardly attitude.

Let me be clear on why.

The ripple effect of not trusting anybody bleeds into every aspect of Life and in doing so it bleeds in terms of action and inaction <or the slowing down of action>.

==

“But it is impossible to go through life without trust; that is to be imprisoned in the worst cell of all, oneself.” 

Graham Greene

==

Let me be clear on a key distinction. There is a huge difference between trust nobody and question everything <and everyone>.

For example, I believe it was Pope Francis who said, talking about the world of business and its business leaders, “a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.” when referring to business and business leaders.

This is not about trust nobody, but rather we should question everything <or be open to questioning>. He is simply suggesting not being naïve.

But. This does not mean ‘do not trust anybody.’

Look. We should question everything and anything worth questioning.

But that certainly doesn’t translate into trusting no one.

That said.

There is truly a relationship between questioning everything and trust because without trust not only do you begin thinking and acting more individually, you also begin to invest an inordinate amount of energy going down that endless rabbit hole called ‘questioning everything.’ This rabbit hole which seemingly offers logic and ‘reasons’ everywhere you look.

There appeared to be no logical reason. Oh. Logic is nothing more than a panacea to the ordinary people. More accurately … it is the tool by which the rulers, leaders, maintain the status quo. Every cause produces one or more effects. Every effect is the result of one or more causes. When you think of it that way … where is the logic? It is wherever you decide to find it.

In this ‘no trust/question everything’ rabbit hole we then use logic in some odd ways which inevitably serves as a crutch to the not trusting and we actually use logic to focus on one sliver of a conspiracy thought <sometimes a fact without context> to build non-trust.

Regardless.

I sensed this crisis beginning to peak in the early 2010’s and research began bearing out my sense.

Americans don’t trust each other anymore. We’re not talking about the loss of faith in big institutions such as the government, the church or Wall Street, which fluctuates with events. For four decades, a gut-level ingredient of democracy—trust in the other fellow—has been quietly draining away. These days, only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted. Half felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question.

Forty years later, a record high of nearly two-thirds say “you can’t be too careful” in dealing with people.

In addition.

A study found that Americans are suspicious of each other in everyday encounters. Less than one-third expressed a lot of trust in clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or people they meet when traveling.

Research also shows that the trust issue varies by culture and even geography, but I am not going to go into that kind of detail. Suffice it to say there is an interesting adverse trust creation between having a denser network of interactions which leads to more distrust of outsiders and, conversely,  those who have a weaker network of interactions which leads to a higher level of trust toward ‘outsiders.’

Wow.

In other words, the closer knit your personal life is, i.e., the more insular you are with friends & family, the more distrustful you are. Conversely, if you actually have fewer close friends and family you are more likely to be trustful.

Ponder that a moment.

Anyway. Does it matter that Americans <or any group of citizens> are suspicious of one another?

Yes.

In fact, behavioral research tells us why it matters: 

“The more trust people have, the more willing they are to make sacrifices to hold up their end to solve problems.”

Well. This is called ‘social trust’ and social trust produces good things.

It produces a society where it’s easier to compromise or make a deal.

It produces a society where people are willing to work with those who are different from them for the common good.

It actually produces <or promotes> economic growth.

Distrust, on the other hand, seems to encourage corruption. Conversely, it also encourages an absurd amount of energy trying to protect against corruption <or those who we decide we will not trust>. In other words, this trust issue gets us both coming and going. We invest more individual energy trying to get “what is ours” in a zero-sum world and invest more collective energy trying to build systems to make the untrustworthy less successful at corrupting the system.

At its lowest, most banal level, it diverts energy to counting change every time it is given to us and at the highest level it leads to the drawing up 100+ page legal contracts and building gated communities.

Regardless. Here is where ‘trust nobody’ gets really concerning. Some studies suggest it’s too late for most Americans alive today to become more trusting.

Research says the basis for a person’s lifetime trust levels is set by his or her mid-twenties and unlikely to change, other than in some unifying crisis … such as a world war.

The hope? <for those of us alive and do not want a world war>

People actually  get a little more trusting as they age <note: this factoid surprised me … I would have thought otherwise without research>.

That said. Beginning with the baby boomers, each generation has started off adulthood less trusting than those who came before them. And while ethical behavior, such as lying and cheating, are difficult to document over the decades it’s worth noting that the early, most trusting years of studies coincided with the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.

Trust dropped off in the more stable 1980s.

Which leads me to who should we blame?

Many social scientists blame 24-hour news coverage of distant violence – not in one’s actual neighborhood – for skewing people’s perceptions of crime <because crime has actually diminished over the same period of time>.

I would just say that all the media, all of them, in some way cannot be trusted not because they are biased <because they should offer a point of view> but rather because they are all now in the show business.

And then there is us – the people,

We blame our president for everything <but it is not possible for all our problems to be his fault>.

We hate and blame our politicians <but we created them and give them their positions>.

We hate Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Hannity, Rachel Maddow <but we created and watch them>.

We hate the churches <and mosques> and yet believe our religions to the point of being helpless sheep.

Ah. Which brings me to religion and trust.

Organized religion does bring some underpinnings of shared sensemaking which does enable some levels of collective trust so it is true there can be a correlation between dwindling ties to religion and trust. That said. It seems to me that we have lost what religion is all about and in doing so have lost trust in religion. We have twisted it into something so dangerously inflexible it becomes a tool to, well, judge others, shame others <and sometimes ourselves>, to separate people rather than gather, be righteously pretentious and, maybe the worse, to control. It has become a tool in an “us versus them” narrative. Well. It seems to me that we now use religion for the exact opposite reason it exists.

Aw shit. You know what I say to finding someone or something to blame?

Nuts to all that.

We need to take responsibility for our part in why trust is in crisis.

“You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you do not trust enough.” – Frank Crane

The fate of trust is in our own hands.

We will live a life of torment if we do not trust enough.

In the end.

Trust nobody?

That is the plight of fools and cowards.

You will slowly suffocate with every breath you take.

To trust is to live.

Ponder.