===

“We continuously make promises and create agreements with ourselves and others. Some of these agreements are mutually beneficial. However, when you realize that things you agreed to in the past are no longer helpful, possible, or relevant, renegotiate. Be invested enough in your situations or relationships for renegotiation to take place.”
Susan C. Young

===

“No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality.”
Shirley Jackson

===

I have written a number of pieces on fantasy realities and the alternative universe thinking strewn throughout today’s society. Today is more about each of us, individually, and how I believe all of us are assessing our grip on reality. This isn’t about creating a fantasy thinking space, but rather assessing what we believed was reality and some of its underpinnings. Yes. Today let’s all agree on reality.

In fantasy thinking reality is an inconvenience, but in a world in which you truly see, and understand reality as it exists, you begin to noodle the inconveniences a bit more. In other words, we all begin renegotiating reality. What I mean by that is as we look around us, we note some specific aspects of reality and begin negotiating with them in our minds even with some that could be considered traditionally sacrosanct. I tend to believe we do this all the time, but the pandemic drove the thinking a bit deeper in breadth and depth. What may make this unique is that, generally speaking, everyone is doing this at the same time individually making decisions in their own minds with their own formula Life remix .. and because of that changing some of their attitudes. This doesn’t mean that most people are flipping 180 degrees on specific aspects of reality, but what it does mean is that many many people are shifting their views maybe 2 to 5 degrees. They begin seeing reality from a slightly different point of view. And not everybody is stepping to the same side or to the same degree. I say that because I know that a lot of people want to sell books and futurists want to design a future based on what they see, but not to be ironic society all the people are actually in the middle of the renegotiation process. All the books and all the futurist experts are simply guessing. They’re guessing not only how individuals are renegotiating, but they’re guessing that there will be enough renegotiations coalescing into the view that they are projecting. Once again that is a guess.

Which leads me to the renegotiation.

Questions and questioning. The depth and breadth of the questioning is mind-numbing. Does how I work make sense? Does how I live my life make sense? Do some of the decisions I have made in the past makes sense, i.e., did society truly offer paths that were in my best interest? In fact, what is in my best interest? Whom can I believe let alone trust? It doesn’t help that with 24/7 access technology it’s no longer just our eyes and ears, it’s the rise of misinformation and disinformation and lies and selective facts often leaving us feeling distant or detached from not only reality, but from ourselves mentally and physically.  Each person has both, simultaneously, a reduced and expanded sense of reality. I would suggest we are revolting. Maybe not physically, but socially and culturally. The pandemic certainly gave us significant opportunities to be able to look pretty closely at our lives, how we interact with business and society, and rethink all aspects of our lives from our jobs, lifestyles, family, priorities, to how we actually would like the world around us to function. The pandemic simplistically bared all the pain points that maybe we had just ignored or were just niggling underneath the surface of life. I would suggest that all of this makes almost every single person push back in some form or fashion against the existing balances of power and rethinking the cornerstones of society and how it works. Basically, we are questioning everything and, hence, renegotiating reality here and there. The problem, at least for those in power (institutions, businesses, politicians) is that each of us are questioning in our own way, about our own aspects that bother us, and are individually arriving at answers. This is an extremely untidy thing happening across communities and societies in general. This doesn’t mean that at some point we won’t coalesce into some fairly agreeable version of how society, business and life should work, but for awhile its going to be a jumble of jagged edges. But, to be clear, institutions, businesses, the system in general, and the power structure will be resistant to losing any control and any power and will relentlessly attempt to impose its will on the people.

Which leads me, specifically, to business and capitalism.

The idea that a worker should devote their life to some institution and powering profits of a business, rewarding the executives and investors, is increasingly unpalatable to most workers. This has a cascading effect. What I mean by that is, if you start questioning climbing the corporate ladder, then you begin questioning the value of the things that in the past have been deemed important to climbing that ladder. That includes college. And if that begins happening, then the cascading questioning falls all the way down to looking at the entire system and the things that underpin the economy, work, and capitalism. We start questioning the economic system, where we belong in that system, and how that system rewards or penalizes us. Certainly, research is showing that while people may not have a positive view of capitalism, they aren’t interested in completely ditching capitalism, just questioning it and whether it does more harm than good in the world. This also has repercussions. For example, different political ideologies articulate how that comes to life in different ways Conservatives suggest that Progressives are seeking solutions in Marxism, socialism, and Communism. That’s not necessarily true. They’re just seeking solutions to what they deem as an unacceptable version of capitalism, but not seek to create a new ideology. Liberals suggest that conservatives are seeking solutions in authoritarianism to hammer down what they view as successful in the past (hence: conserving). Its kind of a hyper conservative culture version of a system of governing in society. This is actually happening. I imagine my larger point is that as we, individuals, cast about with our criticism of what exists, HOW we criticize is used as a tool to divide us. I think we need to be careful in discerning between questioning and criticizing. I say that because across the scope of liberals, conservatives, men, women, all races, we’re not only seeing questioning of the facets of life which were once considered sacrosanct, in many cases we’re actually seeing repudiation of facets of life once considered sacrosanct. We are, well, renegotiating reality.

Which leads me to say each person is plucking out aspects of the existing reality and challenging them.

This isn’t fantasy thinking and it only creates the appearances of ‘alternative universe thinking’, but, its reality. This renegotiation process COULD affect reality and society in a whole cloth way, or it could simply be renegotiation of aspects within a larger framework of a social contract. But none of this is fantasy, none of this is alternative universe stuff, all of it is true renegotiation. It may be confusing when viewed from a meta standpoint because it is all happening at a mesa standpoint – one person at a time. Businesses hate that because they want some standardization. Institutions hate that because they want some standardization. Governments hate that because they want some standardization. And, if we are honest, communities hate that because they want some standardization. Renegotiation is a flow state and I am fairly sure no one knows where society will flow to. It’s going to be weird and fairly uncomfortable for awhile with no clear answers. But, well, that is reality. Ponder.

====

“The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.”

Henry David Thoreau

====

Well. Discussing price is always interesting. Whether it is about price in life or price as in wallet or I imagine even price of soul <head, heart, wallet>.

It’s all about the expense.

It’s all about the exchange.

Which, I imagine, ends up being about the value.

Look.

We make many decisions in life.

Every day.

Every hour.

Every minute.

In fact, I believe we make about 30,000 of the suckers a day.

And each decision is an exchange.

This is not only an exchange of doing something versus not doing something, but maybe more importantly, or of value, is the exchange involved in ‘what you have sacrificed in order to do something.’

Uhm

Yeah.

I typed the word ‘sacrificed.’

I use that word because, well, life is finite <unless you are a vampire>. To be clear, I am not speaking of “time is money”, this is more life is experiential and by doing something you will have sacrificed something else.

Yeah. I am speaking of “the exchange.” You hand over something and it will give you something in return.

Yeah. I am suggesting all your choices involve some exchange with Life and in doing so you are actually sacrificing some of the finite available to you, the Life line item on your balance sheet, as an expense for whatever choice you make. I am certainly not suggesting this is a zero sum game exchange, simply suggesting you are making a deal with Life.

I could argue this is the truest of true exchanges.

I say that because you do not get it back. You have sacrificed it. It is gone. You may find higher value in other ways in the exchange, but the cost to you, the expense, the sacrifice, the deal you have made, means it is expended and gone.

All that to say there is truly only one value you can control in all exchanges. And that is what you do. You control your decision <or your choice>. You control your part of the deal.

Which leads me to ‘not sucking’ as the criteria in thinking about it.

Because if you are going to make some exchange then, well, you can, and should, control, or manage, not sucking. This can mean not sucking as a person as well as doing some non-sucking thing or even making some deal to be able to actually do something that doesn’t suck.

“Life is about doing things that don’t suck with people who don’t suck.”

John Green

Is that too simplistic?

Shit.

I don’t know.

What I do know is we often over complicate Life.

We think, and think, and overthink, pretty much everything.

Therefore I tend to seek some simple guidelines for judging behavior <or choices>.

Not sucking seems like a pretty nice simple guideline.

It seems to feed into a more ‘higher thinking’ type criteria in that by ‘not sucking’ you seem to tap into what appears to be some of the main sources of happiness: Pleasure, Challenge and Meaning.

Some psychologists have identified these as ingredients of happiness.  They can certainly be separate paths as well as combined in a variety of ways. I imagine, ideally, we would spend most of our time doing things that incorporate all three ingredients, but, alas, that just isn’t too realistic. So, in my mind, attempt to not suck.

In fact, ponder this with regard to not sucking and the sources of happiness:

Pure Pleasure: An immediate positive sensation <a derivative of hedonism>. Activities that are pleasant <but not challenging or meaningful as in purpose> like laughing at a joke, eating chocolate, walking in the sunshine, a good memory, reading, swimming in the ocean, listening to music, anything that feels good in that exact moment.

** not sucking maximizes the pleasure.

Pure Challenge: The sense of accomplishment we get after we did something that required us to use our skills to solve a problem or meet a challenge. Exercising, job projects, writing essays, reading a challenging book, even running for the bus. You may not enjoy the activity, but you feel satisfaction afterwards.

** not sucking enhances the likelihood to meet the challenge.

Pure Meaning: Any activity that we consider to be worthwhile and that has a greater purpose. Contributing to a social cause, working to pay the bills, helping your neighbor, going to school to get closer to your dream job, generally improving yourself … or even practical activities which are not difficult to do and not pleasant either, but have a higher purpose.

** not sucking translates into ‘I don’t suck as a person.’

I went through all that just to try and prove that ‘not sucking’ is actually quite a viable objective.

Well.

Maybe not a true objective, but rather if you believe Life is an exchange, than ‘not sucking’ is a viable value to put on a choice when considering you are sacrificing a portion of your finite Life in the exchange. Ponder.

====

Author’s note:

I have a vision of Thoreau spinning in his grave over the fact someone associated his wise words with ‘not sucking.’

——

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

The act of being scorned?

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

Coco J. Ginger

——–

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

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

Writers have to live with the words they write.

Once shared they can never be erased.

Thinkers have to live with the ideas they share.

Once shared they can never be replaced.

Why is that so important?

Well.

Couple of thoughts.

First. Most of us play it safe.

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

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

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

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

Now. All that said.

Words, once inscribed, never change.

Sharing words that showing disdain for the habitual?

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

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

I wish I had written this thought.

It is spectacular.

But I imagine I couldn’t.

For she also wrote this about herself:

—–

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

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

Coco J. Ginger

—–

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

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

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

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

===

“The United States has a very deep, profound interest in a rising China to be a responsible global stakeholder, to contribute to our shared prosperity and security. But we also know that with a rising power comes a rising sense of ambition, and we will welcome China’s active participation in global affairs so long as it is responsible and transparent.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 2011

===

“China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.”
Charles de Gaulle

===

• ** note: just as I was finishing this piece Noah Smith published a piece, A DemTech Economic Agenda: Ten Steps Towards Collective Resilience, which basically states all the essential points to support what I am saying. If you must choose whether you read my piece, or Noah’s, read his.

===

America is what America is and, in this case, what it is, is afraid of China. No matter where you turn someone is claiming China is going to war with US, replace the dollar with the yuan as global currency, spy on every American thru TikTok (albeit no one has clarified what they may do with that spying) and basically making America a third world country. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is an extension of America’s predilection to address everything as either Spinal Tap 11 or, well, zero. China is currently the 11.

Should we be concerned? Sure. Should we be complacent? No. Should we view this as a competition? Yes. Should we consider this a war? No (in my opinion). China is clearly a geopolitical and economic competitor that could pose a threat to American economic interests, but the issue is in the nuance. While it is a competition, we cannot neglect the importance of constructive engagement with China because, well, globalization isn’t going to just go away. It is important to approach the U.S.-China relationship with an understanding in a connected world. There has to be a commitment to nuance. And that nuance needs to extend to rhetoric. US does some things exceptionally well and some others not as exceptionally. The challenge will be to ensure the exceptional things do not lose their competitive edge. And, yes, it is now a competition. An economic power with 20% of the world’s population, China has the ability to reshape the international system and when Xi Jinping says China should “lead in the reform of the global governance system” it suggests ambition. What I will say, without fear, is that an enormously ambitious China is peaking now and a competitive confrontation is upon us.

Before I specifically address the fear of China let me state three underlying beliefs.

1. fundamentally labor and building costs remain higher in the United States than they do either in China or the majority of alternative sources. This is due to a higher standard of living and a cost of living therefore is not easily solvable and maintain ‘lowest prices available’ for consumption or ‘lowest costs’ for creation.
2. we need to discern between creation and consumption. Manufacturing in terms of sourcing is different than markets within which we can sell things.
3. the asymmetry of the US China relationship finally reminded us of an old lesson we had forgotten. Don’t be (over)reliant on a single source for anything. As Toffler once said “if you don’t have a strategy, you are a part of someone else’s strategy.” We didn’t have a strategy except a maniacal blind objective of the pursuit of money (profits and revenue) wherein businesses pursued fragile ‘efficient’ mechanisms of creation and consumption.

Which leads me to looking at this as seeking potential.

The existing situation is a reflection of past behaviors in seeking potential. What I mean by that is as the world became increasingly better at globalization, i.e., ability to distribute creation/manufacturing became more efficient and more markets became open, business, as businesses do, sought potential sales, revenues, margins, and profits. In other words, they sought potential. To be clear, this is business potential not country potential. Business does not prioritize country other than as a criteria for its existence, not its potential. So, by the 2000’s most businesses had fallen into a comfortable balance sheet position wherein their manufacturing is sourced out of the United States and China had a disproportionate hold on both key manufacturing as well as offered a massive user market. Because it was a balance sheet friendly choice, it became a given. And once it became a given, businesses had a propensity to simply build upon that premise to make as much as possible in China. What I am suggesting is that China gained a disproportionate hold on global manufacturing simply by the inevitable gravity of China as the world’s “plant” and US (and some others) as the world’s innovation research hub. To be clear, balance sheets can blind many businesses to potential risks. The good news it is correctible blindness.

Which leads me to exploring potential.

Potential is neither simple nor absolute, but rather within pace layers and pace layering. What is the real potential? And where is the real change? What is a real threat and what is a real opportunity? Those are the questions that we should be asking and asking without fear; seeking direction from the answers we discover. While a common topic within this fear driven conversation is that power is shifting away from the West and from the United States. I have to question is it really shifting power or is it just simply power flexing. The true perceptions of any perceived change or even power flexing typically depends on where one stands. But the entire fear rhetoric creates a siege mentality and this happens when we’re not really sure whether some of the things we’re discussing pose real threats or are they simply perceived ones mixed up combined with a lack of nuance from a political standpoint. In addition, the lack of nuance encourages a zero sum fear winner-take-all attitude lacking the natural proportionality of a globalized economy. What I do know is that is that the uneasiness is grounded in losing what you have.

Which leads me to fear always fills absence.

The current situation demands we at least acknowledge the political policy dynamics. Objectively speaking, viewing substance over rhetoric, the Trump Administration retreated from the global role that the United States typically had in the global interconnectedness. This had repercussions. Some welcomed it, some people became uncomfortable with it, but the truth is in the current moment there is no substitute the leadership that America has offered to the globalized world that exists today. This does not mean that American policies haven’t offered up the possibility that some of the deeds that were implemented may not have been evil, but they weren’t necessarily good. This becomes important because many because many times within the fear-driven dialog much of the citizenry struggles to see how the United States could be anything but benevolent or “good” in a good versus bad binary world. The reality is most American citizens need to stay need to take a step back and under that some of the images and verbiage that get transmitted simultaneously into homes around the world can trigger can trigger opposing perceptions. Where homes in the United States may applaud some behavior there will be other areas in the world that will consider dangerous if not misguided. And where Americans may see consistency other countries may actually see inconsistency. For example, the war in Ukraine it is difficult for any American to think that American involvement in the Ukraine Russia war is not the right thing to do. However what makes it righter then the lack of involvement that America has elected to do in several of the African conflicts which actually involve more people more lives And even pass even possibly more of the global future. Inactions send signals.

That said, we have now veered into a paranoia driven world in which it seems like it’s a one on one combat between China and the United States for control of the world.

First. No one country will control the world. One country can influence the world, but it will never control the world.

Second. From any objective view the United States which has treaties and trade agreements with over 150 countries around the world has disproportionate power than China which I believe only has seven alliances, the majority of which are with very small economies. In addition to that China surrounded by a number of countries and large economies that have no interest in losing their own power to China. I bring that up because while we like to talk about United States versus China there are a number of buffer zones between the two and I’m not speaking just of military engagements, but of economic engagement.

Which leads me to engaging (not in an America First way).

It’s quite possible instead of fear, we should view relationships as opportunistic and transactional. I believe this would be a healthy attitude because believing that the United States use of international institutions, military power, and economic resources to run the world in order to maintain United States dominance is a prescription for disaster. The reality is the United States is made up of 330 million people in a world of almost 8 billion. This does not mean that the United States does not have disproportional power within that larger context, almost kind of like the Intel inside a computer, but to suggest America’s interests can be solely pursued within a global system and have all the results it desires is simply wishful thinking. It seems like the question now should be how to organize to protect ourselves from other countries which desire to undercut the things that are most important to us which would include economic as well as human values. What I am suggesting is that simply pursuing a weakened them and strengthen us initiative is a reflection of an inability to conceive that this could cover up any structural weaknesses that the United States has is as well as assumes that this is but this is actually the best thing for the United States. What I mean by that is that the world really isn’t a zero-sum game that doesn’t mean that it may not be disproportional in terms of who wins and who loses but it is not a zero-sum game. That is important because that would mean that the best American policy for America is actually to seek out the ultimate triumph of a balance, or proportionality, of economic prosperity globally as well as some most important ideals associated with freedom and democracy. But it is hubris to state that United States can defy the economic laws of gravity. What I mean by that is that in order to seek out the best triumph for the United States, within the triumph of global economic prosperity, the United States has to get its economic engine working properly because if you do not maintain your own economic health, it is impossible to fully optimize economic potential. The United States is still the repository of the greatest assets to feed future progress.

Which leads me to why fear should be tempered.

China has a number of countries that it considers allies or partners, although the exact definition and nature of these relationships may vary. Some of China’s closest allies and partners include:

1. Russia: China and Russia have a long-standing strategic partnership, and the two countries have cooperated on issues such as energy, defense, and foreign policy.
2. Pakistan: China and Pakistan have a close relationship that includes military and economic cooperation. China has invested heavily in infrastructure projects in Pakistan, and the two countries have also worked closely on regional security issues.
3. North Korea: China and North Korea have a longstanding relationship that dates back to the Korean War. While their relationship has been strained at times, China remains North Korea’s largest trading partner and a key ally.
4. Iran: China has developed closer ties with Iran in recent years, particularly in the areas of energy and trade.
5. ASEAN countries: China has sought to build stronger ties with its Southeast Asian neighbors through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), with which China has established a strategic partnership.
6. African countries: China has also developed close economic and diplomatic ties with a number of African countries, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which seeks to promote infrastructure development and trade along the historic Silk Road.

“One simple question we should ask is which country—China or the United States—is swimming in the same direction as the majority of the other 191?”
Kishore Mahbubani

I began with China to point out its partnerships, in a cooperative economy, are relatively limited, or, let’s just say its capped. On the other hand, the United States has a number of allies and partners around the world spanning from strategic alliances to transactional relationships – with almost every country in the world. lately, in what appears to be a new interest in reshaping alliances and the economic sub-structure, the United States has deepened relationships in the Pacific Rim, southeast Asia and other countries which constrain China’s ability to expand its role globally.

Which leads me to what I think will happen (so we stop fearing).

One reasonable prediction is the era of global value chains will not come to an end. Offshore manufacturing and global supply chains are just how companies know how to produce stuff now, meaning that — barring a very catastrophic war — we will not go back to an era of largely self-contained national manufacturing economies. That said. I think the manufacturing construct will reshape itself into new blocks becoming less reliant on (a) China and (b) sole source creators. China will obviously attempt to build a block. But, referring back to China’s limited partnerships, China will be limited in how and what they make and own in the creation and who they can rely on for raw materials and other low-value goods. To be clear. There will be struggles over the resources of some neutral countries, including poor countries, and this could turn into some ugly proxy struggles. Interestingly, you can also see how America is attempting to build its own block. The most interesting aspect of America’s version is how ‘pod-like’ the thinking is. What I mean by that is while America benefits in the thinking construct it permits EU and other alliances tap into different creation resources in different ways; all the while optimizing the consumption market size. So, if Americans can finally pull their heads out of their asses and recognize that their country doesn’t dominate the world the way it used to, there’s a chance to create a non-China economic block that preserves lots of the efficiencies of the old globalized system while serving U.S. national security needs. That bloc would not only include America’s formal allies or developed democracies, but also include lots of developing countries – particularly in southeast asi like Bangladesh, Vietnam and Singapore – that would like to hedge against Chinese power and secure access to developed world markets.

“The world needs an international economic system that works for our wage-earners, works for our industries, works for our climate, works for our national security, and works for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries. That means replacing the idea of free markets alone with targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.

It means returning to the core belief we first championed 80 years ago: that America should be at the heart of a vibrant, international financial system that enables partners around the world to reduce poverty and enhance shared prosperity. And that a functioning social safety net for the world’s most vulnerable countries is essential to our own core interests.”

Jake Sullivan

==

Which leads me to possibilities rather than fear.

China has a grand strategy. China has ambitions. USA has a grand strategy. USA has ambitions. Heck. The EU has a grand strategy and ambitions. But they are not on equal footing in a global economy. Currently it is asymmetrical and for the foreseeable future, based mostly on China’s grand strategy, it appears like it will remain asymmetrical. But even if it does become more proportional (China does have 3x the population of the USA) it shouldn’t create fear, it should create a competitive vision of potential and possibilities. Which leads me to end where I began. Fear generates misguided decision-making and potential is wasted. Period. The key to United States prosperity is international cooperation. And here’s the deal. The key to China prosperity is international prosperity. This doesn’t mean China doesn’t have a long term strategy, and ambition, to displace USA as the central player in the global economy just that these two things are not mutually exclusive. That said. While China seeks to become self-sufficient the US should be developing a coalition of interconnected productive prosperity. Instead of a self-sufficient USA it should be a shared prosperity and a self-sufficient coalition of countries. Why? The tide rises higher with a shared prosperity – there will be larger efficiencies and effectiveness and wealth generation. That doesn’t mean US couldn’t stand alone standing upon its own resources, but, why? It only offers a finite path where a coalition offers more possibilities AND maintains a competitive advantage against China.

Which leads me to end with getting out of our own way.

“.. brings into question how serious Washington is about leading the world. Washington’s dysfunction also helps its autocratic adversaries in the global contest over ideology.”

Christopher Chivvis

You can tell the ‘fear’ proposed by political leaders, particularly on the Republican side, is simply performative politics and rhetoric because from a pragmatic standpoint Washington continues to get in the way of actually placing United States in a position to lead the competition with China. It’s an absurd kabuki dance of fact and fiction. I will say, objectively speaking, the words and actions of the Biden administration have been surprisingly forward thinking. Many of the things I have noted in this piece America is actually either doing or discussing. So maybe we should stop fearing and start embracing the changes that are being implemented by ‘the experts.’ Ponder.

====

“Only a few find the way, some don’t recognize it when they do – some… don’t ever want to.”

Cheshire Cat

====

Finding your way is most likely one of the most desired, and elusive, things in business and life. Now. We talk about this a lot, like a shitload of a lot, but truthfully very few truly find “the way.” That doesn’t stop us from proclaiming we have, or we are on our way (our journey) or even suggest the search for finding the way is actually finding the way, but the grander point the Cheshire Cat makes is many of us probably actually do, but don’t recognize it (for whatever reason).

Uhm. I was tempted to use “most of us” rather than ‘many of us’ in that last sentence.

Finding the way is tough. Not because we don’t have goals and objectives and even dreams. Mostly because things in life are rarely black or white and the outlines of what we really “want” are often a bit vague. What this means is not only is the way winding, but every frickin’ day is a winding road (to quote Sheryl Crow). Many of us know there is ‘something better’ out there, but finding THE way to that betterness is difficult mostly because ‘winding’ don’t permit you the luxury to see that far ahead, certainty is situational and the horizon often is blocked by a forest or hill.

Which leads me to where I believe the Cheshire cat really knew his shit.

Some ‘don’t ever want to’ for fear of the unknown. On a personal note, despite all the things that I have done that may appear risky I can develop as long a list, if not longer, of things I didn’t do — for whatever reason (some good, some bad). It reminds me of something:

–

Sometimes I think about why there aren’t more people running, sprinting towards greatness. Why there aren’t more people continually evolving into something better, stronger, and happier. I wonder this a lot as I read or listen to stories about miserable jobs and unsatisfying home lives and dreams that have been left to decompose. And, I think I’m starting to understand why some people just stay, as they are, and stop aspiring for betterment. I think I get it. I think I see why it’s not a matter of capability, but rather a matter of personal choice.

–

Look. Some people start hurling themselves down drastically different paths, but most people just aren’t that hasty. In fact many people just don’t want to because hurling yourself can be scary. Sprinting towards greatness would be easy if “the way” was a straight track instead of a winding way.

So what we do is try and make ourselves comfortable. Lists. Milestones. Quarterly goals. We convince ourselves these are way stations on our way to getting somewhere. They are not. they are simply parking benches along some path someone else has built where they suggest you sit and rest and think about how you’ve attained something (but, if you look closely, you’re not really sure it was something you wanted to attain in the first place or if it is even representative of progress you truly value).

Anyway. I am not suggesting anyone hurl themselves anywhere. And I am also not suggesting you should be incredibly frustrated if you don’t find the way. Maybe the ones who do should just feel very fortunate and the rest of us should restlessly pursue A way. However. I would say everyone should be a little reflective of the whole ‘parking benches/milestones’ thing I mentioned. It becomes incredibly easy to use deadlines as some tangible proof of progress. This is a mistake. More often than not that is simply, in Farnam Street words, speed versus velocity. You may not know if you are on your way somewhere or not but you should always be sure you have some velocity, not just some speed.

Which leads me to pursuing ‘the way.’

—

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

Cheshire cat: that depends a good deal on where you want to go,

Alice: I don’t much care.

Cheshire cat: then it doesn’t matter which way to go.

Alice: so long as I get somewhere.

Cheshire cat: oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk for enough.”

—

I will admit I am not a linear “from here to there” type of person excepting if it eliminates something that could get in the way of restlessness. For example, I would gladly pay extra for a bullet train to get me from one city to the next so I could wander more in a destination. I would gladly do a short sprint building a ‘good enough’ website so I could focus resources on something else. I believe in complexity theory these may be fractals (linear moments linking some things within multidimensional complex systems). I don’t really care about the overall direction as long as I get somewhere and the linear shit is simply a means to an end. I would imagine this restlessness can sometimes be ‘purposeless’ (or directionless) restlessness. This suggests that even if you don’t have an objective, or a direction, or a purpose being restless will get you somewhere someday. In other words, moving increases the likelihood you will get somewhere rather than standing still or being stagnant.

Okay. Simple when you think about it that way, huh? Look, as noted earlier, you may not find your way in your roaming restlessness. And you may actually fall in love with just being restless. But you may find yourself overwhelmingly happy wherever you end up (even though you may not have been specifically aiming there). Now. Some business people reading this may think “this guy is nuts.” And they may be right. But I would argue most business leaders, the good ones, may not be able to specifically articulate where they want to go, but they have a general sense of the scenario they envision their business in that would equate success (this could be called defining a Vision). It not a specific destination. It’s not a specific road or way. It’s just a specific thought. In that definition restlessness is significantly more productive than investing gobs of energy & time trying to make that thought into some road map to some destination.

• *** note: that logic works in Life too.

Ok. I guess the point of this is that sometimes finding your way isn’t necessarily a specific ‘way.’

Or maybe even a well defined way.

Or even the ‘way’ you were thinking was the one you wanted.

But. If you keep going, you are more likely to find ‘the way’ then if you become frozen worrying or thinking about which road to take. Ponder.

+++++++++++++++++

“the die is cast”

(iacta alea est)

Julius Caesar

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

So. I was tempted to call this ‘now or never part 2.” I say that because after a “now or never moment“ there is a, well, a post choice/decision.

That decision is the fact there is no turning back.

Well. Let’s just say the moment represents  that “we have made our choice and the die is cast.” <‘die’ as in dice>

Julius Caesar said this today, January 10th, some 50ish years before Jesus as he crossed the Rubicon, defying the Roman Senate, and starting civil war. Caesar was stating that he was making an irrevocable decision. And, as dice is a game of chance, he will have to play them as they are cast.

I imagine none of us are Caesar and the majority of us will never have to make such a huge choice as Caesar, but I do think more people should think this way with regard to choices.

Too often I feel people think a choice is simply … well … but of ‘the moment.’

Too often I feel businesses think a choice is simply … well … but of ‘the moment.’

Too often I feel like far too many people think in the next moment we can toss away the last choice and just make another choice.

Sure. That may be the case sometimes, but, as noted in ‘now or never’, not all the time.

Not all moments are created equal.

Not all choices can be changed, tossed aside or “un-choiced.”

Some choices are truly forks in the road where you cannot go back and start over. Some choices, well, ‘cast the die.’

I do believe most of us would be better off if we believed more of our choices should be thought of this way- as ‘the die have been cast’ choices. Why? I believe in our current “people need to adapt & be agile” to be successful attitude, we far too often think a new choice is a reflection of agility & “smart adaptation.” In doing so we run the risk that the initial choice cannot be tossed aside because it truly was a ‘fork in the road’ choice and, whether we want it or not, or like it or not, the die had been cast.

But, hey, that’s me.

Ok. One more thing. Let me take a minute to discuss an “irrevocable decision.”

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

“It is always thus, impelled by a state of mind which is destined not to last, that we make our irrevocable decisions.”

In Search of Lost Time, Volume II: Within a Budding Grove

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

‘Now or never’ is a state of mind which is but a window in time. In other words, it is there and gone. And it is within those windows in which irrevocable decisions are made.

To use the quote, it is within this window you throw the dice. Yeah. You actually throw your dice into what I will call “unknown-ville.”

Yikes. No wonder we hesitate to decide a choice is of the ‘die is cast’ mode. I say that because “irrevocable” is a lot like “forever” or maybe “never.” I mean that big, all encompassing, fraught with peril, audacious-type thoughts are captured in those little words.

And that is why many people do nothing in now or never moments.

Far too many just hold the dice. Why? Because it is scary to make an irrevocable decision.

It is kind of scary to know you will have thrown the dice and will never get to throw them again. And have to play them as they lay. Regardless how they lay.

Yup. That the die have been cast.

But know this.

If you do nothing when it is now or never, Life will cast the die. And Life will make the irrevocable decision.

Personally? I would rather cast my own dice.

Nothing against Life but while I imagine it would be a fun pal, I do not know it well enough to trust it with my fate.

When I make a choice I think, and accept, “the die are cast” and deal with what is before me. Ponder.

=====

“Pooh looked at his two paws.

He knew that one of them was right, and he knew that when you had decided which one of them was right, then the other one was the left, but he never could remember how to begin.”

House at Pooh Corner

==========

So. I opened with this Pooh quote to talk about first words.

Not first impressions, but first words.

Sure. They can be directly related, but I firmly believe first impressions are significantly less important than last impressions. What I mean is that 99% of the time I can redirect a first impression more toward the desired last impression.

First words are trickier. And, as with most things in Life, not all first words are created equal.

There are first words which are just not articulated well. These you can recover from. These are the ones that we all think about afterwards and say “shit, I wish I had said ‘this’ rather than what I said.” And you know what? You can.

But then there are the first words which everyone knows are your true feelings. The ones which put an indelible stamp upon your character. These are, well, almost impossible to recover from. And, truthfully, you cannot recover from something which is a true reflection of who and what you are. You can stumble, mumble or offer a variety of jumbled words, but you is what you is and your first words reflect who you is.

And that is why I thought of Pooh on this topic.

You receive a question.

You think.

And the other person, or people, can actually see you think.

 You know that there is a right answer and a … well … left answer. You look at both paws and just aren’t sure which is which.

Therefore, you answer from your truest self.

It is a character answer.  

Simplistically , when I view another person’s first words when trapped in a “which paw is which” situation I attempt to bucket it into one of two buckets. Are the words a reflection from an “I” perspective <which tend to defend the “I”> or are the words a reflection from a more global view <which tend to defend what other’s may think>?

Why?

Because, to me, great character is most often driven by an ability, or desire, to view the world in someone else’s shoes. This doesn’t mean character shouldn’t be a reflection of self and what is important from your own ethical & moral compass, but rather it means you are always challenging your sense of self against what matters, or has meaning, to other people.

I will admit.

I am sure a part of me wrote about this today because of Trump. He made me, and still makes me, think about how words are used. Time after time Trump ‘first words’ response make me not only think he is hollow empathetically, but also incredibly incapable of viewing the world through anyone’s eyes, and Life criteria filter, other than his own. I often reflect back on his response to Mr. Khan’s emotional, but articulate stance on the patriotism of Muslim Americans. Trump’s response, his words, were so unenlightened, portrayed an absurd lack of empathy let alone showing a depth of obliviousness to the real issue at hand and so defensive, well, suffice it to say that first words matter and often create an indelible imprint as an impression of who and what you are. Where Trump truly is a master is in the follow up to his first words, his attempts at either managing the words or actually arguing you didn’t hear what he actually said.

That said.

I imagine he will send out a variety of tweets trying to explain how his first words were misconstrued.

That said. First words are first words. And first words matter. First words are a true reflection of character maybe 99% of the time.

Look. We have all been asked a question and sat there looking at each paw wondering where to begin. Just listen to me on any podcast and you will envision me looking at paws – a lot. But.

99% of the time, even if we do not get the words exactly right, the words will be in some form or fashion a reflection of how we truly feel.

99% of the time, even if we do not get the words exactly right, the words will be in some form or fashion a reflection of our character.

I do not sit here today writing to suggest anyone should be more careful with regard to what they say first. I do not because I believe most of us are pretty careful with our first words.

I will, however, suggest that everyone should pay attention and think about the first words that they hear. Not to say that someone cannot revise something said at first but rather because not all first words are created equal.

And the first words said by someone who cannot remember which paw is right and which is left and isn’t sure where to begin?

Well. Most likely those first words will be a reflection of who and what they truly are. Ponder.

====

“… if you look beyond the tumult of sensational headlines and well-publicized atrocities, there’s a quiet trend of improvement throughout the world.

But although it’s sometimes drowned out by the drumbeat of fear-mongering, the progress that gives rise to hope is real and ongoing.

Adam Lee

====

As we near another Christmas I don’t know if it is because I associate hope and hopefulness with Christmas or that I tend to pay attention more to the good things happening in the world (the sometimes unnoticed small steps of progress) than I do the bombastic voices of ‘everything is bad’, but despite all the noisy shitshow stuff happening, I do believe there is a quiet trend of improvement happening before our eyes.

I say that recognizing it is tough to be optimistic these days. And I don’t mean because of what is actually happening in today’s world, but rather because if you are optimistic you run the significant risk of being trampled by a herd of cynicism, pessimism and those unwilling to believe the future can be better than the past. That said. I believe the bigger challenge we face is a general reluctance to believe people can change or should be forgiven.

There is a quiet voice of positive being overwhelmed by a loud voice of ‘nothing can be good’

I mention this because I just reread an old Pope Francis Christmas homily. It was positive, hopeful, instructive and a request that we look beyond decadence and selfishness in order to raise all of human kind to a better place.

It is the kind of message you would hope a religious leader would give.

And then I made the naïve mistake of scanning the comments underneath the article <in several papers>. An overwhelming amount of comments were negative.

Either they:

<a> suggested the message was misguided <somehow some people saw it as anti-capitalism>,

<b> suggested the Pope was a hypocrite <because he represents a church with millions in assets>,

<c> the church had no basis to offer hope because of past transgressions or

<d> religion is bad and therefore what religious people say is simply fantasy <even if it is a good message>.

It is like people were seeking reason to not accept the positive message.

Let’s be clear. The Catholic Church and its history is strewn with moments of sin. And, yet, the Church has a Pope who not only accepts it, but is trying own its history. Should we judge an organization by the moments of transgression & sin <albeit they can be heinous transgressions on occasion> or by the true intent & soul of the organization and its voice for the future? That is a big question with an answer bigger than I can offer.

That said.

I find it disheartening that we cannot accept positiveness and hope without trying to burden it with cynicism or pessimism.

I find it disheartening we can’t accept heroic acts from non heroic people – when we view them in totality.

Good is good.

Hope is hope.

Heroic acts can be done by flawed people.

We shouldn’t discredit the words or the thoughts as we seek to diminish the bearers of the words & thoughts. Maybe we should seek to find the good in what someone says rather than find reasons to point out why the words are flawed or the deliverer is some insincere fraud.

This leads me to the bearers of the words & thoughts.

– Changing to do something good is being slowed by people who suggest someone cannot change.

====

“People tell you who they are, but we ignore it because we want them to be who we want them to be.”

Mad Men

====

Well. Surely doing good today doesn’t absolve you from something you did bad yesterday. And, yet, I could argue those who have made bad mistakes in the past, and recognize them as bad, are most likely the most qualified to lead today.

I scan the headlines of the papers and there are a shitload of flawed people saying a bunch of smart, positive, hopeful things.

I scan the headlines of the papers and I see article after article diminishing the people who are saying these things by pointing out past transgressions or their ‘lack of consistency’ with regard to their beliefs <so why should we believe their positive thoughts>.

Smart flawed people, who maybe had flawed ideas in the past, are often smart enough to realize they need to change or make changes.

I would like to point out that the difficulty seems to arise not in the person who has changed, but in those around the changer/doer. While the best of the best changers seek to build the new, ignoring the old, we the people, continuously fight back with the old.

Can someone actually leave the old baggage behind and move on to do better things? <a question we should all be asking ourselves in today’s world>

We seem hell bent on not letting people even try to change.

I would like to remind people of several things:

Andrew Carnegie, whose Pinkerton men shot down workers at the Homestead strike in Pittsburgh, also left the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an international network of public libraries.

John D Rockefeller, whose use of troops against Colorado mineworkers led to scores of deaths, including of women and children, created his foundation, so creative for young people worldwide.

Alfred Nobel, arms manufacturer and “marchand de mort extraordinaire”, set up the peace prize.

Regardless. I fully understand why some people want to hold on to the ‘better days of the past’ and nostalgically wish we could go back to many of what are perceived as ‘better ways of doing things.’

It is natural and, honestly, comforting. But I don’t understand why we far too often hold on to the ‘bad things from the past’ and pessimism/cynicism and constantly burden people who, sincerely, want to do good things, show change, and offer a better version of themselves with the intent to create a better version of the world.

Far too many people today do not see much to be upbeat about. They simply see a lot of existing problems getting worse. And because of that they are tending to gather around anyone promising a return to an imaginary past era of greatness.

Some of the best leaders today are those who were in the past, and in the past flawed, and now are new versions of themselves and do not want to return t some past but try and create a new future.

People change.

We should allow them to change.

Especially if they are one of the valuable few who see the good and hopeful and optimistic in the world. For they are the ones capable of showing us light when dark can appear to be winning. In fact, many of these people accept the quite improvements, enable the quiet improvements, and facilitate the progress that humankind deserves. Maybe we just need to stop the noise and start quietly embracing good improvement. Ponder.

Earlier today I reshared my thoughts on the lack of civility in political rhetoric and how that fosters an environment of violence – either unacted upon violent thoughts or actual violent actions. I even wrote ‘the politics of resentment’. Which leads me to Trump. Violence has always bubbled below the surface in America, but where I lay a large burden of the blame on Trump is for using it as a tool of “America Greatness”, i.e., the violence is done by patriots passionate about their great America. It really was not that long ago that in 2015 and 2016 the Trump cult was being shaped with violence.

It seemed like just another day and another violent Trump rally. The incidents kept piling up.

Chicago protest fights. A Black Lives Matters protester was sucker-punched by a white bystander at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. A young black woman was surrounded and shoved aggressively by a number of individuals at a rally in Louisville, Kentucky. A black protester was tackled, then punched and kicked by a group of men as he curled up on the ground in Birmingham, Alabama. Immigration activists were shoved and stripped of their signs by a crowd in Richmond, Virginia. A Latino protester was knocked down and kicked by a Trump supporter in Miami.

At that time I said this version of America is not the America I know, the America I want nor is it America anywhere near great. While I remain steadfast on the latter two, on the first I was wrong. I now know the Trump America and it is violent.

It makes me angry.

It disturbs me.

Just to remind everyone, one of the most disturbing moments, one which truly made me angry, was angry as I watched a protest in Chicago devolve into what could only look like a riot to the entire world.

Another reminder. A Republican, at that time, said: “Tonight the seeds of division that Donald Trump has been sowing this whole campaign finally bore fruit, and it was ugly.”

I am angry because Mr. Trump knew what he is doing. He was playing with fire. Playing it as close to the fire as he could without getting burned <or burning down the house> because in his own pea like mind he has decided that this warped version of passion will energize change and ‘winning.’

Just as he has shown a complete disdain for a ‘good win’ versus a ‘bad win’ he also shows no signs that he understands the difference between ‘bad passion’ and ‘good passion.’

That is the sign of an incompetent ignorant lazy leader.

I am angry.

I am not angry at America or its people or even most of Trump’s followers; I am angry at a person who wants to be the emperor who has no clothes. He offers only platitudes of ‘deals & wins’ as solutions to any issue he is asked about and, worse, simplistically twists the “us versus them” narrative into “we good people & they bad/evil people” platitudes.

He skates on the slippery superficial surface of emotion and an enhanced feeling of irrelevance <or being marginalized> from a minority of the populace who has now found a voice.

I remain angry even to this day.

And I get even angrier because Trump, to this day, assumes no, none, nada, whatever version of “zero” you want to apply here … responsibility for anything.

It is never his problem. It is never his issue. It is never anything but ‘the bad people’ <media, people who do not agree, Muslims/Islam, Mexicans, immigrants, stupid elite, etc.>. It is never him.

This despite the fact he is the common denominator.

And this also means, to Mr. Tump, he is never responsible for his words.

We are all responsible for the words we say. Everyone.

That said.

It most likely took me far too long to understand this, but while freedom of speech is an equal freedom for all & everyone, the responsibility tied to that freedom is not equal. Responsibility increases upwards. The larger the forum, the more impact as a leader I have, the larger the actual managerial/actionable responsibility the leader has AND the larger the responsibility to the speech portion of my freedom I have.

Trump acts, and has always acted, like he has no more responsibility with regard to what he says than the guy sitting at the end of the bar after a 10 hour day drinking his 5th draft beer with his buddies bitching about the world.

======== Trump supporter ==========

A leader has a responsibility to listen to his/her people but any good leader knows you don’t incite latent negative emotion within an organization … you show you listen, unite and give specifics on how the organization will progress from that point on.

Lastly.

I am angry because I have run across these faux business leaders in business and they are the worst of the worst. They are hollow of anything. And blanket their hollowness with superficiality or faux emotion. And, most importantly, they make nothing great.

Trump is particularly skilled at manipulating his version of the public to his own ends. And, in that, he doesn’t even recognize his divisiveness <which is frightening for someone who was leader of the free world>. I believe he doesn’t recognize the divisiveness because he lives in an alternative universe in which everyone else is wrong and the problem and protestors never have a valid reason and anyone not in ‘his crowd’ must be unpatriotic.

Mr. Trump, assuming he actually desired to be a president, never understood all citizens are his crowd. You either decide to try and unite by listening and convincing them of your path to ‘greatness’ or I imagine you just let them rot somewhere as you, and your followers, shun them. And, well, that’s what he did. And by shunning them, while fostering a violent attitude, he gave implicit permission to be violent as long as it was targeted to those he shunned.

I cannot remember in my 60something lifetime anything like this.

And, yeah, I am still angry.

And, if I am honest, a little nervous certainly unsettled and, well, maybe a little scared.

This feeling did not come easily.

And I know exactly when it happened. It was a March morning in 2016 when I discussed my anger at Trump’s lack of assuming responsibility after the Chicago rally incident and it happened as I said “I have never seen this before in my lifetime.”

Because I do know where I have seen it before. This is the divisiveness of dictators and autocrats. I hesitated to use examples from the past, but the names came very very close to crossing my lips. It was an uncomfortable feeling to be that close to comparing Trump to some of the worst of the worst leaders from past history. And what got me that close to uttering the examples is that instead of making a call for discussion and debate he insists on calling for silence and authoritarianism <absurdly under the guise of ‘freedom of speech’>. To be clear, I no longer hesitate to draw these comparisons. To be clear, as he harkens back to the ‘good ole days’ he even seems to encourages violence <under the guise of “we are so weak and need to be strong again”>.

This is bully logic.

Trump disavows violence and yet encourages it. He encourages a consistent ‘strong message’ <however you, the followers, would like to deliver that message to ‘them’> of silencing dissent, silencing debate, silencing real solutions, silencing critics and silencing competitors. And he fills their silent space with bombastic platitudes of deals & wins and divisive rhetoric.

While he’s narcissistic, self-absorbed, power hungry/crazy and driven by either greed or ‘winning by any measure” I almost think we are seeing a public case study example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

This is a cognitive bias in which a relatively unskilled person suffers illusory superiority. This translates into mistakenly assessing their ability and believing their skills, and themselves, to be significantly better than what it actually is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. When Trump looks in the mirror he sees only something superior to everyone else … maybe even superior to America itself.

Anyway.

I am not a huge follower of politics but it seems to me that consistent violence at the scale of 2016 was rare in American politics, but now it has almost become the norm.

And I am still angry at Mr. Trump.

Angry at his overall lack or personal responsibility. Angry at his disdain for the power of words. Angry at his lack of understanding of freedom of speech as it pertains to leadership. Angry at his lack of desire to try and convert dissenters, but rather silence or eject/reject dissenters.

Angry at his hollowness <because I want a leader who is full of a robust vision beyond deals & wins>.

And, mostly, I am angry at what he has done to America.

He never had any interest in making America great, he simply encouraged us to hate.

And hate is the foundation for violence. Ponder because this is important.

—–

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

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

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

Different, but better. “

Chloe Rattray

—–

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

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

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

Well. That brings to mind a Marilyn Manson quote:

—-

“Find out what’s really out there.

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

Marilyn Manson

—-

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s okay.

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

But.

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

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

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

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

Regardless. People aren’t always what we expect.

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

Oh. Another thing about having expectations.

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

What bullshit.

Utter nonsense.

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

They set standards.

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

Well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our expectations can drive ‘better.’

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

People will disappoint us with regard to our own expectations.

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

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

===

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

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

Stephen R. Covey

===

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

But go ahead.

Have expectations.

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