=======

“In which the links of coincidence are forged into the chain of fate.”

Boris Akunin

==

Functional benefits.

Whites whiter.

Clarity of connection (Sprint pin drop).

Indestructible luggage.

Faster download speed (Motorola broadband).

To be clear. This is different than simply being rational, with no emotion communication intent, nor is it about features, this is about communicating a functional benefit.

In the good old days, you could walk into P&G, Sprint, Continental Baking (Wonder Bread), Abbott Laboratories (Pedialyte/Ensure), Walmart, Burger King (have it your way), Nabisco, Coppertone, and you would immediately gather around their functional campfire and discuss how what they made met a need. Heck, even Starbucks knew a consistent functionally good cup of coffee was at the core of their value and the Keebler elves were grounded in their baking abilities. In fact. Throughout the hallowed halls of business, you got bludgeoned with facts. Crisco layered on pans better which meant having to use less oil and fry better. Clear Eyes actually reduced red eyes better than Visine (but Visine purposefully had an ingredient to make eyes sting so people felt like it was working). Let me just say I wandered through more manufacturing plants, ruined more shoes walking through shrimp factories, grain warehouses, oil refineries than my salary probably could afford. Valvoline could spend hours discussing how their oil didn’t breakdown at high speeds in hot weather and efficiently flowed at coldest temperatures. You’d be bludgeoned with natural ingredients, patented molecules, some manufacturing wizardry and every functional differentiation under the sun. 99% of the time it was dancing on the head of a pin and, yet, 99% of the time it was the functional reason why you believed it was actually worth a shit. It wasn’t about Purpose, or vision, or even experience, the shit worked effectively (or with efficacy).

In those days you had to ratchet up discussions to nudge them into emotional connection space and vivid metaphors which could create visceral responses from buyers. We didn’t talk about ‘branding’ we talked about communicating value and meeting a need. And that’s what everyone felt the brand stood for. Not some fluffy document saying it would save the world. It was a product, or service, that would save the moment for that particular user. It worked. And functionally we tried to hammer home why it worked so well. And people actually trusted the products, services, because they knew (kind of) how it worked. That didn’t mean we bashed people over the head with rational reasons to buy – more often we leveraged the key functional attribute supporting the functional benefit and, well, communicated its effectiveness.

Now. Functional may appear to meet some generic needs but, practically speaking, the best of the best creates visceral value at the intersection of want AND need. In my mind functional is always the brand/product/service core strength, it is what keeps everything grounded in the ‘need universe’ which ultimately is what protects the business from fads, time and the whims of Life. Some people disagree with me <see footnote to see my thought on “Experience”>. That said.  While everyone is tempted to do a little of everything, getting tugged between rational and emotional and aspirational, the product managers <there weren’t brand managers then> of old, despite much flawed thinking, hunkered down on insuring whatever products/services they offered had a rational, functional, benefit to be at the core of whatever it was they want to market and sell. We may debate their ultimate emphasis, but I’d debate anyone who would suggest they didn’t understand the day-in, day-out functionally distinct benefit they offered.

And then something went awry. Personally, I think everyone started smoking the branding crack pipe forgetting about functional reasons for being and convinced themselves perception was reality and we could make people think anything we wanted them to think about our product or service (whether it was real or not). This was the magic of ’branding.’ The problem is it is simply a sleight of hand.

But let me get back to the topic at hand: functional, rational and benefits.

Functional benefits discussions usually start off well. More often than not conversations begin with ‘what makes us different/distinct that our product/service does.’ In other words, good solid practical meaningful “Hey. I got something that can actually provide some value to someone.”

It then usually ends up not so well. More often than not it ends with some version of “here is what we need to say <about us and ‘it’>.” Let me be clear. That is important. It has to be. Ultimately you need to say something to people to distinguish your space in people’s minds and inevitably make a sale or create some engagement/purchase. You have to offer some practical value to match the dollars forked over. But far far too often the conversation gets dragged down into the sinkhole of practicality. And this seems to happen far far too quickly <like right at the beginning>. It is like everyone gets stuck on the rational mind aspects. And, frankly, it is a pretty easy place to get stuck. Rational is rational and when it comes to ‘wallet type’ discussions even some fairly experienced behavioral thinking business people get sucked into this black hole of practicality. And, yet, even as this black hole seems to start sucking the entire galaxy of collective thinking in the room, in the back of everyone’s mind they know that if somehow, someway they could connect their business proposition to a potential buyer’s heart, not just their mind, it is better for the business <they may not be able to articulate the exact whys of why it is better, but most business people know in their gut that a ‘heart connection’ is meaningful>.

But this is almost exactly where this whole slippery slope of mediocrity and practicality discussion seems to veer off into the absurdity which actually encourages business people to sit in the “practical zone.”

The next often incredibly absurd conversation, as everyone ponders how the business can reach into people’s hearts and not just their minds, relates to ‘emotional connection.’ As in “we need to get people emotionally engaged if we want to differentiate in the long term.” This is business people’s version of James’ “win the heart and the mind will follow.” Absurdly, from that point on the conversations inevitably get steered into some practical discussion of how to get people emotionally involved <as if we could pragmatically convince someone to be emotionally involved>.

That looks crazy even as I write it.

Yes. Practicality and rational has a role. In fact, its role is essential to the greater need. The rational enables the “heart” possibilities. But. It is the ‘heart’ aspects which shift success from “we sell something” to “people want our something.” Yet. Most business people are pretty rationale so they approach emotional connection, uhm, rationally. Words come out of some sage manager like “what can we do to create this emotional connection?” I always want to lean forward and say “well, remember that girl in high school you liked and decided you were going to get her to like you? … how did that work out for you?” You cannot actively pursue getting someone to like you. You cannot actively, rationally, build an ‘emotional connection.’ You can truly only control you, your business, your product, your organizational culture and the character which embodies all of that. Once you believe in that and it is truth <and not something some sage flunkie has crafted to be in some poster that appears in the cafeteria> you are on your way to, well, start dating potential users & buyers.

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own.  And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it. “

Audre Lorde

In the end.

You gotta discuss all three core components:

–          aspirational keeps the horizon in perspective,

–          emotional insures you stay true to thineself,

–          rational insures you keep everyone’s eye on the ‘how we make our money’ ball.

Ponder.

• ** footnote on the ‘experience black hole’:

Once again, there is some value in thinking about value based on function and a consistent functional delivery. I thought of this the other day as I endured another “people value experience” discussion. As I have stated a variety of times, to Joe Pine in fact, The Experience Economy was the best, and worst, book to be read by the business world. The best in that it articulated the hierarchy of value in a way so that business people could see how value could be earned (and expanded) experientially not just functionally. The worst in that all of a sudden it spawned a tribe of hollow products/brands (truly commodity or slightly less) which created the perception of value THROUGH experience. It created almost an either/or business world. Needless to say, there are entire herds of marketing and brand people seeking to create value off of experience while treating their product as if it’s a commodity. What that means is the value shifts away from the product itself (basically it, itself, becomes a lowest price widget) and the value, and any premium in the price you charge, is found in “the experience.” Well. Read that closely because that explains a shitload about why marketing is IN a shithole. I am not suggesting experience isn’t valuable or it shouldn’t have some value, but not being able to leverage even a sliver of a differentiation in your product means it is basically the same as everyone else’s and, well, you may as well buy it off the commodity market than invest in any proprietary manufacturing.

===

“After nourishment, shelter and companionship, stories are the thing we need most in the world.”

Philip Pullman

==

When it comes to business creating value through communications there often is a chasm between brand and pragmatic on-the-ground communications (Binet & Fields would call this “The Long and Short of it”; I simply call it the wretched hollow in between long and short). Often, in today’s business world, a business will seek out “an expert”, or specialist in one or the other assuming that if you are an expert in performance marketing you cannot do branding, and vice versa. And you know what? Sometimes this is true. You can get some shoddy thinking if you ask someone to do something out of their wheelhouse (note: there are many ways a specialists can effectively avoid this trap). Anyway. As a consequence of everything I just shared is that performative and branding exist in their own little worlds and the connection between the two is dubious at best. This lack of connectivity leaves a void in value creation of which nothing suffers more than the actual value of the brand let alone the value of the product/service transaction. This is where stories can truly play their most important role in building overall business value and transactional value.

Stories are metaphors, heuristics and parables wrapped up in one.

Since the dawn of time humans have used stories to communicate wants, desires, hopes as well as practical and pragmatic “what’s happening” events so that people can stay within the guardrails of effective life, i.e., making sense of things so they can make good choices and creating a framework for what things should be valued. These stories come in all shapes and sizes and are made up of imagery, words and heuristics. Generally speaking, the rationale for a story is to educate as well as offer a mental shortcut to the learning – and value.  For example. Aesop’s fables were not real, but they communicated real messages. Sherlock Holmes was never real person, but we learned how to think about real ways of thinking. My point is these stories were metaphors for something real and tangible and of value. That’s the true power of stories. They can affect minds and how we think. Which brings me back to long and short. Fables play the long game, timelessness, to communicate the short of it – moral lily pads for everyday life. But I use that as an example to show that’s where many businesses run into trouble. Business isn’t in the fable writing business, they simply do not have the money. Business is on the pragmatism and possibilities writing business – value in the now and next. Writing needs to fill the gap between the brand message and the messages that happen in the day-to-day retail environment. It is within that gap a business should be developing communications, or content if you elect to use that word, to unleash the full value potential. The most valuable company communication isn’t just filled with content that is intended to capture traffic on the back of SEO, it is content that increases value in the mind of a potential customer (of human beings in general). The best content contains opinions, storytelling, data, research, experience of culture, insight, instructions, but all providing connectivity between the ‘long’ (the brand and branding) and the ‘short’ (the menus, table tops, door hangers, store signage, etc).

The stories within the inbetween.

Stop thinking about selling your idea or selling your product/service or even selling your company, think about telling a story. For example. I could work for a nuts & bolts manufacturer and be able to put a picture of two nuts & bolts side by side <one mine and one someone else’s> which look 99.9% exactly the same and be able to say: “Let me tell you a story about this nut & bolt because its story is different than this nut & bolt. They look the same but their story is different.”

Now. This story wouldn’t be solely some manufacturing mumbo jumbo, but rather a story about who counted on it and how my nut & bolt was the best friend to someone and, well, you get the point. I make this point because despite talking about being in the storytelling business we don’t really seem to be in the storytelling business in business these days. Instead, we bore down on manufacturing specifications, stress quotients, side by side rankings and a whole bunch of technically important functional aspects.

And you know what?

That kind of detail is important. Really important. To be sure, if it is my nut & bolt holding a wing on some plane carrying 300 passengers you can bet your last dollar the technical aspects of my nuts & bolts matter. I don’t argue that. What I argue is HOW the technical aspects are articulated and delivered. What I argue is that if I can make my nuts & bolts look like a city of ideas through some story; I win.

• Stories make bland functional aspects take on some color <which equals value>.
• Stories persuade people think <and thinking equals engagement>.
• Stories to motivate us to see beyond the simple nut & bolt <which equates to higher price acceptance>.
• Stories link the brand essence and the product reality and bring value to life.

The “win” is everything a business desires – higher brand value, higher transaction value, higher mental value, higher word of mouth value.

Storytelling has been a mainstay of the marketing world since the dawn of business. I could argue that stories are the essential driver of value, change & persuasion throughout the history of business. And while it tries to sneak into the non-marketing aspects of the business world it often gets stiff armed by functional communicators – “get to the point” people. This ‘get to the point’ point is nonsense.

Storytelling doesn’t sacrifice the functional and pragmatic and practical; it actually elevates it to its highest value. No sane communications expert would ever tell a business to not show the numbers, graphs and facts. It is important. But strategic use of a good story can make those same bland things surprise people, make them become compelling characters in a story and instead of being cold hard facts laying on a page they can become things that make us think and feel.

Story telling is important in that it engages people, communicates relevant meaningful information, builds value on some things that can often be difficult to build value on and, ultimately, it makes you, your product or service and your company distinct. It is within that distinctiveness where salience (top of mind, easy to find) value exists, mental value exists (I think of them), and transactional value exists (the price has some substance). Every brand/product/service has many stories to tell beyond the simple performance marketing tactics and the broad brand executions. Ponder.

The business world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told.*

• * “The world is full of stories, and from time to time they permit themselves to be told …”

An aboriginal saying

=====

 “I finished by saying that it struck me that all the ethical systems I was discussing were after the fact.

That is, that people act as they are disposed to, but they like to feel afterwards that they were right and so they invent systems that approve of their dispositions.”

alexei panshin

============ 

“Christmas is like candy; it slowly melts in your mouth sweetening every taste bud, making you wish it could last forever.”

Richelle E. Goodrich

====

This is about business and also about “the post-Christmas let down”.

What they have in common is what someone once called “happiness hangovers.” I imagine any of us in the business world have felt this after a big meeting or some big trade show or some big thing we have prepared for and had some element of ‘showtime.’

That’s the same kind of funk we fall into after Christmas.

There are a couple of reasons this happens. One scientific and one mental.

Science.

The dopamine let down. Scientifically we juice ourselves up with dopamine in order to ‘meet the moment.’ Think of this as the feeling you get every time the email notification on your phone goes of — every 15 seconds for almost 12 hours straight. Each ‘email has arrived’ notification sends a quick dose of dopamine to the brain, we get jolted <love the high> and then immediately receive another. When we are focused on this specific goal we get the rush of dopamine flowing through our brain and when the goal is achieved your body naturally reduces the levels of dopamine.

The body rebalances itself. The dopamine high goes from high … to low. Then finally normal <assuming there is something normal>.

Bottom line result? We feel bummed. We feel drained. This is the science version of ‘let down.’

Mental.

The positive feelings let down. According to psychologist Gary Stollak, psychology professor, most people have a “happiness set point.” Let’s call that a “5” on the self happiness meter.

Therefore when we get up for something, and it concludes satisfactorily, we rise to a high. Our happiness meter shifts up to 10 <maybe 11 if you are a Spinal Tap fan>.

Unfortunately, your happiness meter balances out. That is partially why your happiest highs are often followed by depressed lows. The worst part of this aspect is what we fill the empty space , which happiness used to hang out in, with doubts, questions, regrets, what ifs, whatever else we could add in that diminished the true happiness and high.

Bottom line result? We go high, we go low and, hopefully, normalize.

Regardless. Suffice it to say, post Christmas, post meeting, post whatever, we are dealing with “it’s over.”

So this year when you sit back with the realization that Christmas is over just take a moment and think about how you (and all of us) deal with the happiness hangover.

The aftermath is so anti-climactic versus the moment itself we tend to fill the space with stuff associated with the event trying to drag it out for as long as we can.

Christmas?

Leave the tree up.

Leave the lights up.

Maybe still play the music.

Business?

Retell the highlight moments.

Replay portions in meetings.

Gather to relive aspects.

As mentioned upfront in this piece, we continuously try to invent things that approve of their dispositions.

We hate to let it go even though our body is telling us we should.

And maybe that is what hurts us the most. Our bodies have left it behind and yet we continue to try and stuff our body & minds with the trappings of “what was” (or, worse, try and make up for how expectations where not met).

We all do it.

And most of us do it unconsciously.

Is it really bad for us to do it?

Well. Research has linked the let-down of perceived stress with an increase in flare-ups of pain and other ailments. One study found that people experience more panic attacks on weekends, and a 2015 study from Taiwan found that holidays and Sundays have more emergency room admissions for peptic ulcers than weekdays do. A 2014 study showed migraine sufferers, in times of stress, didn’t impact migraine occurrence, but a decline in their perceived stress from one evening entry to the next entry was associated with increased migraine onset over the following six to 18 hours <they called this a “let-down headache”>

……………….. Christmas is over …….

Well.

All that said.

The day after Christmas, Christmas is done, but still not completely gone. And just as we do with big work events … we are dealing with the ‘let down effect.’ And while we hang on relentlessly to the trappings even though the event is done and gone at least now you know there are real scientific and psychological reasons behind we are so silly.

Happy Happiness Hangover.

——————-

“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

====

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?”

R.A. Salvatore

====

This was going to be another rant, or criticism, of 50somethings. but, I watched a fabulous documentary on cartoonists and cartoon strips called “Stripped” which details the past, present & future of cartoons and it made me scrap my rant and begin over again.

The documentary made me think of 50somethings and how today’s “flux” found in the massive business transition taking place is affecting this generation gap unlike any other generation gap in memorable history <we can look back in time and see others but not any we have lived thru>.

I imagine while this may be about ‘letting go, holding on’ I think it is more just about recognizing the sense of ‘lostness’ that can be found in any flux.

Look.

Facing progress is one thing; facing massive cultural change is another. One permits someone to ease their way into the progress and, in some cases depending on what you do, you may even be able to ignore the progress and still maintain the life and work life you currently enjoy until you decide to stop working. On the other hand, massive cultural shift cannot be ignored. In addition the people within the shift are bombarded with an uncomfortable sense of ‘what is happening ?’ … because there is no well-defined horizon <the shift will define it in the end>.

Anyway. In the documentary some of the older more established <very popular> cartoonists just looked … well … lost. And, frankly, I think a lot of 50somethings are lost in the cultural flux created by the technology-driven/hand held technology driven Life.

This doesn’t mean that 50somethings don’t embrace the features <the smartphones, the tablets, the wi-fi> … it is just that they struggle to see or accept all the benefits.

Oh. It reminds me there is no “guide to being lost” manual you can pull off some shelf.

Regardless.

In this flux time many 50somethings want their cake and eat it too.

Want the new, but don’t want to lose the old.

Now. This ‘holding on’ aspect is truly a reflection of not only ‘it was always better when I was younger’ <and it is worse now than it was before>, but also an underlying desire to have something solid underfoot … like ‘the benefits of the way it was done before’.

Admittedly … this holding on aspect can take on some aggravating & ‘difficult to deal with’ aspects … like … they sometimes think they are living in the present <their perception> by implementing what is comfortable <the past> therefore their behavior is incredibly difficult to impact because their mind is telling them what they are doing is actually different than what they are actually doing.

Sound complicated?

You bet.

So complicated this attitude is next to impossible to change or impact.

And it gets complicated even further by the fact this 50something generation has made a lot of money doing it ‘their way’ <kind of proof for the method>. Regardless. For once I am actually defending the 50somethings. Not sympathy … just some understanding. This just isn’t a normal every day future, this is an uncharted future. One I which more of ‘the past’ is being shelved than we have seen for many generations.

===

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

L.P. Hartley

===

It is like going to a foreign country where they may use the same words but many of them have new meanings.

They may live in a culture which values different things.

And, well, say you have been drinking coffee all your life … and … they only drink tea.

That said.

So, when facing the difference, you may know you are in a different country … and you may want to respect the way they do things … and you may want some sympathy, or help, as you get lost … uhm … but … after a period of time you start reflecting on ‘how much better this foreign country would be if they would do it our/my way.’

That’s natural.

And inevitably, as time goes on, and you get farther away from what you were comfortable with and what you know, the more you feel … well … lost.

Now.

Where I don’t have sympathy or understanding is I do believe many 50somethings are lazy. Not in terms of working hard but rather they accept what they know at the moment as ‘what is’ and remain cynical of all that “is not.” And, worse, they believe their laziness is earned, earned from years of accumulating information and knowledge and money as well as earned because it was successful.

And then?

The 50somethings place a value on this ‘thing’ they feel they have earned over time as if it was some product that had been manufactured and was ready to be sold.

The problem?

It is almost like 50somethings have forgotten that if someone is paying you a $100 they should feel like they are getting something more than $100 worth. Maybe worse they think the past learning <even though a lot it is no longer relevant> has a higher value than it does. The product has become semi-obsolete.

And.

Uh oh.

Maybe the worst? It seems like they have forgotten that knowledge actually naturally diminishes without some constant nurturing <therefore the value is actually depreciating over time>.

When will 50somethings recognize that they really have earned little <okay … less than what they think> of real value to the emerging world unless they unlearn some aspects of what we know and reapply what we do know to encourage a better future.

Well. Let me go back to defending the 50somethings and their lostness.

Unlearning is tough <and unsettling and often scary>.

Massive flux is tough <and unsettling and often scary>. Many 50somethings are just lost. They know they have value but the current value looks an awful like ‘none to limited’ value as everything swirls around us. I would also point out that I do believe many 50somethings would gladly reapply what they know to make things better if someone could just show them the path or tell them where to go and what to do.

Uh.

‘Show them the path’ and ‘tell them what to do’ , attach that to my point on ‘believe they have earned’, and you have the formula for holding on tightly.

If unlearning is tough imagine how tough it is to give up control when you believe you have earned the privilege of controlling.

I was reminded the other day that I don’t often give 50somethings credit or the benefit of the doubt.

They may be right.

The documentary reminded me that ‘lost’ is an incredibly bad feeling and when felling it … well … it often doesn’t bring out the best in people.

Which makes me ask.

If we invested the energy to help the 50something generation feel less lost, would we all benefit from how they responded when they knew where to go next?

Nostalgia, or viewing the past as something better, is one issue, but ‘lostness’ is something completely different.

Maybe I have been looking at this wrong all along.

All I do know for sure is that I may give my 50something friends a little more benefit of the doubt.

Look.

If you even partially agree with me on his ‘lost’ thought … think of the numbers … think maybe 75% of 50somethings working in the cartoon business, television business, stock trading business, travel agent business, book business <libraries, publishing>, newspaper business, well, this could become a fairly long list … a shitload of 50somethings in a shitload of industries with a shitload of quality experience … is in a shitload of hurt.

They are, well, lost.

They know their craft well. And, yet, they don’t know the world their craft lives in anymore.

This is no excuse for the curmudgeons holding on tight to the past and the way things used to be done … it is simply an explanation for why so many of them are gripping the past with white knuckles.

=========

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.

===

“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===

Now that it appears the psycho-pathological liar, narcissistically crooked Trump will soon return to twitter to reintroduce his unique level of toxicity to the world I decided it was time to thank him.

Yeah. In his general absence from public rhetoric Trump has made me grateful for a variety of things.

I am reminded of the importance of competency.

I am reminded of the importance of dignity.

I am reminded of the value of integrity.

I am reminded of the importance of preparation.

I am reminded of the fact democracy is fragile.

I am reminded of the understanding that the freedom we enjoy in America is unique … and always embattled.

I am reminded of the importance of listening without judgement and judgement based on facts.

I am reminded of the fact that conspiracies have no factual basis and, yet, can be confused as such in a mainstream way.

I am reminded of the unfortunate truth that truth itself can be suffocated if:

1. a lie is big enough, or
2. the lies are relentless.

I am reminded of the ultimate truth: one person can make a difference … for good or for bad.

I am reminded of the importance of decency.

I am reminded of how strong a country is and how much bigger it is than one incredibly flawed & misguided individual.

I am grateful that Mr. Trump has reminded me of so many things I believe we had taken for granted.

And while I am grateful for so many things I found an awesome letter, written during his scorched earth morally vapid 2016 campaign, from someone online who is also grateful for a variety of things:

=====

Dear Mr Trump,

It’s taken me a while to realize this and to admit it, but I’m grateful to you.

For the past few months I’ve spent a good deal of time lamenting your campaign and the poison it has so effortlessly generated. I’ve watched our country imploding, our public discourse become polluted, our political climate grow ever more corrosive, and wrongly assumed you were to blame.

It’s only lately I’ve come to understand that you haven’t manufactured our current national ugliness—you’ve simply revealed it.

By saying the irresponsible, mean-spirited, ignorant things you say so freely and so frequently, you’ve given other like-minded people license to do the same.

You’ve opened up the floodgates for our corporate sewage to flow fully. People no longer conceal their vile mess, they now revel in it, they broadcast it and retweet it.

You’ve made bigotry and racism socially acceptable again and that has been a kind of twisted gift because it’s allowed me to really see people; not as they pretend to be on the surface—but in the very depths of their wounded, weaponized hearts.

Over and over as your campaign has persisted, your supporters would tell me that they like you because you “speak your mind”. It wasn’t until recently that I’ve realized that you speak their minds. You’ve given credence to their prejudices and made those prejudices go mainstream.

Thanks to the terrible ground you’ve broken, politicians, pastors, friends, and strangers, both in person and on social media now regularly out themselves as hateful, intolerant, and malicious—and they remind me just how close they are to me, just how deep the sickness in us runs, and just how far we have to go together.

You’ve emboldened people to be open about things they used to conceal for the sake of decorum, and though it turns my stomach, I know that this is the only way we can move forward; to have that cancerous stuff exposed fully so that it can be dealt with. Our progress as a nation is predicated on authentic dialogue, no matter how brutal and disheartening that dialogue is.

In other words, you’ve let us know what we’re really dealing with here and while it’s been rightly disturbing, it’s also been revelatory. That’s the thing about that kind of harsh light: you’re forced to see everything. Beauty and monstrosity equally illuminated.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think you’re the least qualified, least knowledgeable Presidential candidate we may ever have had participate this far into the process, and if you somehow were elected I’d fear gravely for the world my children would inherit—should it survive your Presidency at all. I believe you’re reckless, bitter, and completely reprehensible; the very worst kind of bully.

But whether you win or lose, you’ve already allowed me the blessing of Truth; about me, about you, about other candidates, about our nation.

And in the process you’ve also shown me that I am not alone in resisting you and this ugly thing you’ve revealed about us.

You’ve generated an equally loud, equally passionate response to it and this is where I find my hope these days.

I find it in those for whom equality isn’t just a cheap buzzword, it’s the most precious of hills to die on.

I find it in those people who refuse to be silent in the face of our impending shared regression.

I find it in those willing to be more bold in defending the inherent value of all people.

I find it in the growing army of those who will not tolerate hatred as a core American value.

I find it in those who reject violence as our default response to dissension.

I find it in the ever rising voice of people who will not let malice and bitterness represent them in the world.

Today I find my hope in those who, like me, will not be complicit in allowing bigotry and intolerance to become a source of national pride, because we’ve seen where that leads.

Yes, Mr Trump, you’ve unearthed our hidden sickness and you’ve allowed it to go viral.

You brought every awful thing about us out into the open.

And for this—I thank you.

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

While I am constantly mortified by what Trump did to the presidential process, the presidency itself, democracy, America’s position in the world, and our constitutional rights & freedoms, I tend to believe one of the most egregious actions he did was by doing all of that lying  and destroying any semblance of the overall standard of respectful discourse a civilized society typically has.

But.

I am grateful he has come along and reminded us of  all these things by showing us what the bottom of the barrel looks like.

I am grateful for his avalanche of lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear because it reminds us all that truth and hope is actually a brighter vision.

I am grateful because his promise to recover the past in simplistic tripe it is ultimately shown as the fiction offered by ‘merchants of clever cheats.’

I am grateful he offers a simple formula “to make your target audience feel good by offering up what is a fantasy to them, but a horrendous injustice to others” because it permits those who know how to articulate the true complexity of reality to speak up.

And, mostly, I am grateful because you cannot solve a problem until you actually recognize a problem. And while he himself is a problem to be solved <which I assume Time itself will deal with> he has uncovered all the problems I have listed above which we should now put our big boy & girl pants on .. and solve.

I have said for years now with regard to Trump that there is really only one word to describe him and whatever he does – carnage. His only plan is to destroy everything in his way. and in his wake, as he sits in his lonely penthouse, i.e., carnage.

I even warned people that when he was finally gone from public office that the next president will be faced with dealing with that carnage.

And I actually thank him for this too.

Yeah. I do.

This will force a new generation of leaders to stand up, speak out and rebuild from the carnage.

This will force a new generation of leaders to, well, lead.

This will force a new generation of leaders to take what was broken and build anew.

This will force a new generation of leaders to embrace a belief that we are actually stronger together rather than apart, a group of people aligned is stronger than an individual focused on self interest and working together is essential to progress.

The strength of a country is defined in how it deals with its worst moments. Trump represents the worst, represented the worst and in his wake he left us with the worst. I say that because, well, he is coming back. Twitter is a megaphone for all his shit.

In closing.

Just a reminder of some Trump trash.

30,573 lies over his 4 year presidency. I begin there to head off any false equivalence, “all politicians lie”, because Trump was in a liar zone of his own.

Also.

-Trump university a sham and a scam and stole money from people

-regularly performed verbal fellatio on Putin

-Russia/ Putin considered him an Useful Idiot

-filed bankruptcy 6 times; sucks at running businesses

-indebted to Russian/ Chinese banks since US banks ceased lending to him

-couldn’t even turn profit running a casino; run out of town in Atlantic City

-claimed tax returns can’t be released due to IRS audit

-lied; IRS claims no rules against releasing tax returns

-lied about being a billionaire, value of his properties and wealth

-sued thousands of times for stiffing small businesses/ contractors/ workers

-said his own sacrifice on par with those of Gold Star families

-dodged draft by claiming bone spurs

-cannot remember which foot afflicted with bone spurs

-McCain was only a war hero because he was captured

-mocks NY Times reporter who has epilepsy

-gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay

-chummy with racists, White nationalists, KKK

-raised dumb sons who are chummy with White nationalists

-refused to repudiate David Duke/ KKK contingent of supporters

-surrounds himself with unhinged far-right advisors

-birther-in-chief

-directed campaign funds to his own businesses

-uses campaign media coverage as free infomercial for his new hotel/properties

-tells blatant lies and denies lies even with video evidence

-often flip-flops within hours or on same day

-needs handlers to keep him from saying crazy things

-has thin skin, keeps Nixon-like tabs on perceived enemies

-said maybe US shouldn’t honor NATO treaties

-said we should have stolen Iraq/ ME oil after Iraq War

-sued for housing discrimination against Blacks, lost but denies guilt

-lied about weight and height so as not be tagged as obese

-used charity money as slush fund to settle lawsuit judgements

-used charity money to buy tacky painting of himself

-said his ’80s man-whoring was his personal Vietnam

-cray cray right-wing Supreme Court appointees affect policy for next 30 years

-disparaged top Generals as dumb and embarrassing

-knows more about ISIS than the Generals

-possible sociopathic/ psychopathic/ narcissistic personality disorder

-posed as own publicist; bragged about imaginary sex life with celebrities

-borderline anti-vaxxer: lied about a child getting autism 1 week after being vaccinated

-constantly says global warming a hoax; denied it in debate

In the end.

Giving Trump a megaphone when he is a con man, fake, pathological liar, amoral bully, incoherent word salad deliverer, seems like it is not a good idea for society in general. But. Thank you Mr. Trump for reminding me to get my head back in the game.

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

“Capitalism is the only engine credible enough to generate mass wealth. I think it’s imperfect, but we’re stuck with it. And thank God we have that in the toolbox. But if you don’t manage it in some way that incorporates all of society, if everybody’s not benefiting on some level and you don’t have a sense of shared purpose, national purpose, then it’s just a pyramid scheme.”

David Simon

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

“It’s not personal. It’s strictly business”

The Godfather

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

I do not get (understand) investing, VC evaluation and startup support in general. Ok. I get it, it just confuses me. And I say that having:

• Been on both the good and the bad side of a VC takeover: buying out a profitable business seeing an opportunity to make it more profitable by running it better & buying out a business to break it apart to make money
• Been in multiple startup incubators (B2B & consumer) and seen a wide range of technology to non-technology startup ideas (good and bad)

All that said. Don’t ask me to explain how startups get funding, how VCs evaluate & invest nor how some ‘successful’ startups continue to get money <although this piece, “What I wish someone had told me about Venture Capitalists‘, does a nice job>. No matter how many times I’ve been involved in the process or been asked to evaluate businesses, I seem to be on the wrong side of the evaluation ‘brain.’ Why? Well. That has an easy answer. I like businesses that make money as in ‘profit’, not revenue, as my main criteria. Doesn’t mean I don’t care about revenue or the bullshit buzzword of the day, ‘scale’ (which is simply another bullshitty way of saying ‘growth’), but I like to stack profit dollars on top of profit dollars rather than cross my finger a business will cross the ‘making lots of unprofitable revenue’ Rubicon to the ‘hey, all this revenue is now profitable’ side.

** note: the exception would be what I call the ‘enabler idea products.’ These are the products which I usually call, in my non-startup pea like brain, the engine part ideas. They see the world as an engine and they develop parts which can replace existing parts or be inserted into the engine to make it run more efficiently or effectively – software ideas often fit this criteria.

What I will say is that the startup industry has become a master pyramid scheme in which the investors hope that one of the pyramid scheme bets pays for all the other bad bets. And you know what? Sometimes they do. And you know what? More often they do not. They have made capitalism a pyramid scheme. They encourage us to view business, all business and the economy, as one big gambler’s bet. And because they do they have reshaped the larger economy (forcing larger businesses to view innovation as a gambler’s bet too – if not their own business).

You may think I may be misguided or even wrong. But play a game. How many well known ‘successful’ technology startup like businesses are making a profit? Amazon? Kind of. Uber? Nope. Wework? Nope. Shit. Go into the best startup incubators, maybe even audit Techstars (who I like and admire). How many are making a profit (but showcase revenue)? Zero (okay … not many). It’s a gambler’s game. American capitalism has become a pyramid scheme. Can big business benefit? Sure. They can look at the gamblers and then buy the winners and absorb them. It limits their innovation ROI risk, but costs them in the purchase.

** note: I would suggest that many larger businesses are actually more well positioned to develop these more successful ideas but they tend to either (a) have a poor new idea evaluation process or (b) do not approach ‘startup idea innovation’ in a way that enables the focus & investment needed to make it successful.

To be clear. Companies like Techstar basically serves as the big business ‘brain’ that a small startup cannot afford.

That said. Even the exceptions I highlighted, the enabler idea products, are a gamblers game.

Here is where this version of pyramid scheme has an even darker underbelly. Conflicting interests. This new model of capitalism is an attempt to get around inefficiencies and costs imposed by larger business, but creates an ambiguous allocation of rights, and ownership as well as an ambiguous business model. Simplistically, everyone is in to get their money (let’s call it at its worst: greed). Even if the founder/owner truly isn’t overcome with a greed muscle and simply is in it for the idea, there is a dilution of control (under the guise of ‘freedom to innovate that engages a market that doesn’t yet exist’). This is nuts. Fringe business malpractice, but, simplistically, nuts. As I have noted most of the most successful businesses, and profitable ones, aren’t particularly disruptive at their onset nor do they ‘think outside the box’, but rather see the box and reconfigure it. And they make money.

I call this lazy capitalism (when I am being generous) and pyramid scheme capitalism (when I am not being generous).

** note: this pyramid scheme has a variety of bloodsuckers. For example, I have sat in on or eavesdropped on dozens of business people looking to pick the pockets of founders – the social media structuralists, the PR scale people, the ‘organic growth’ disruptors, the brand builders, the startup marketing futurists – who slither their way into founder’s (investors) wallets.

Look. I am all for startups with appealing ideas and driven founders getting the expertise they need quickly and the funding necessary to give them some traction that they may otherwise would have no access to. But over 80% of startups fail because, uhm, there is no market for their idea. and, no, this isn’t because they see a future no one else can see (i.e., they are visionaries), but rather because THERE IS NO MARKET FOR THAT IDEA.

** note: I have never seen an angel investor or any investor sit in on those ‘pick pocket presentations’ I mentioned in my last note. If they did, they would not only hear how stupid (nonexistent possible success, i.e., ‘no real market for that idea’) some ideas they have invested in, but would also watch a pick pocket in action.

The flow of money into the startup world is absurd. I look at that money and can only dream about what it could do if invested elsewhere. But it will not stop. Why? Greed. That’s what pyramid schemes work in the first place. Greed. Easy money. All that bullshit.

There has to be a better way – and there is. Startups have a place in the world and investing in them in which dreams turn into viable businesses is actually good for capitalism. It’s a funded Schumpeter Creative Destruction and I love that. Family companies have, and should have, a new lease on life. Public companies SHOULD be challenged as they try and squeeze out more profits through their operations in a variety of misguided ways. Short term mentality, archaic hierarchies, status quo onerous non-digital business models should be gamed out. All that said. A pyramid scheme non profitable lazy capitalism startup investment model is not the way to do it. An insurgent economy should be a hybrid of smart idea, money making, startups and large public company smart non-standardization (I hesitate to call it agile so let’s say adaptable, antifragile) money-making longer-term business sense making.

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

“A job is the ultimate pyramid scheme.”

Ken Poirot

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

I believe we are seeing a shift in the underpinnings of the business world. I may not agree with all the “its about culture” people or the “purpose over profit” people, but I do believe, and have for quite some time, business is transitioning from an outcome only mentality to more of a “business is more than just business” mentality. I do believe technology is playing a role and while not in the ‘digital transformation’ camp I believe augmenting humans and thinking-conceptually-sensemaking is edging its way into the ‘way we do business.’ Someone said awhile back that business is learning that to ‘outbehave’ is the path to better performance. Within that idea is part technology and part people. Within that idea is where the startup world may find its most fruitful investments – ideas that outbehave created by a mindset that seeks to outbehave the status quo (ethically & service). Ponder.

===

“Even damnation is poisoned with rainbows.”

Leonard Cohen

===

I sometimes believe that today’s marketing and branding discussions, most of which are bludgeoning the current practices (and lack of principled thinking), ignore some of the dynamics that got us to where we are today. I was part of the dynamics. I am older and it was my generation who put us on this horrible path. Now. I am not making excuses for my generation because for gods sake I have been merciless against my generation for a number of things. We certainly did not get a lot of things right, but let me explain the aspect of how we took marketing/branding off a sane path and onto an insane one.

It is difficult to describe existential business discussions that took place in angst-ridden conference rooms as the long tail of business dynamics inched into the existing business world – and our particular businesses. It did not matter in what direction you looked; you saw threats. I bring that up because what we tend to neglect to discuss are the exponentially asymmetrical dynamics that the long tail applied against the existing relatively symmetrical complex dynamic business world at the time. To be clear. We business folk understood complexity, we recognized the underpinnings of systems thinking – albeit they had not been fleshed out yet – but the competitive environment was relatively symmetrical. All of a sudden, in an asymmetrical multi-pronged fashion, it was like the business was dying the death of a thousand cuts. Personalization, individualization, targeted multiple pieces of content, even attitudinal segmentation (versus demographic segmentation) all were being used to attack what had appeared up to that point to be a robust business. Once again it is difficult to describe the existential discussions of business survival in conference rooms at Procter & Gamble, Kellogg’s, Nestle, Schering-Plough and almost every significantly sized business with multiple business units and brands.

The long tail of niche quasi-businesses meant that real differentiation was being bludgeoned by meaningless claims, which unfortunately created meaningful perceptions, and distinction was being ‘grayed’ through some extremely colorful positionings (with some hollow functional underpinnings). And, yeah, we understood the difference between differentiation and distinction and we found value in both (the combination created a super value marketing position), but now we were being attacked in an asymmetrical guerilla warfare style. In addition, the guerillas were making up their own rules, some smart & some idiotic, but the main difference was they had no intent in winning a war, just a battle.

Once again, this is no excuse for what we did. We chased bad ideas and often embraced some fairly dubious thinking. At the same time, we also saw the potential and opportunities if we could face down what appeared to be existential issues. But. We got a lot of things wrong and, maybe more importantly, drove the entire thinking in the marketing/branding industry down the wrong path, i.e., we lost marketing sanity and started visiting the loony ward under the guise of “new marketing.”

Look. The business world was always volatile, always dynamic, always complex, always somewhat uncertain <I’ll buy that uncertainty has increased exponentially>, but the asymmetrical velocity was a whole new ballgame and, well, scary in some form or fashion. If you weren’t careful, you would either embrace a game of whack-a-mole or embrace the way you had always done things attempting to steamroll everyone. Either was a potential kiss of death. Yeah. Proportional response sounds good in theory, but in practice is a sonuvabitch to implement.

All that said.

I do believe we are getting to a better thinking space. I like what both Ritson and Sharp say <mostly, I imagine, because they reprise the same positioning principles Leo Burnett, David Ogilvy, P&G – their marketing principles were stellar – and what I consider the gold standard of principled thinking, The T-Plan by JWT>, albeit I wish businesses would implement both rather than attempt to choose <circling back to my original point we knew that business/brand differentiation and distinction was the value high ground>. I also believe while I think marketing and branding, in general, is presently in a thinking shithole there is a ladder being constructed to get out of it. That ladder’s rungs, in my eyes, reaches back to basic positioning fundamentals and applies them in direct proportionality to the world in which they have to thrive. I would be remiss if I didn’t say that is a reflection of a luxury of time and learning with which my generation had neither. Anyway. It was Rob Campbell who reminded me we have taken quite the winding path to get back to saying what we need to say:

+ Where are you?
+ Where do you want to be?
+ What’s stopping you from getting there?
+ What is your strategy to achieve that?

I believe we will end up in a good place, I just wanted to share a bit of how we got to the bad place. Just ponder a bit before you start bludgeoning some of the more stupid looking & sounding ideas that get bantered about.

===========

“The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.”

Paul Valéry

==========

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

General Petro Grigorenko

========

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: ‘At the time, no one knew what was coming.”

Haruki Murakami

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

Well. I have lots of discussions about the future with people and it continuously surprises me on how confident people are with regard to what will, or will not, happen. In fact, I find it slightly incomprehensible until I remember that the incomprehensible, in all its forms, has a certain allure.

The incomprehensible has a certain freshness of inevitable believability that some people are addicted to <and blind to the possibility it will never happen>.

Uh oh.

The incomprehensible has a certain inevitable un-believability that some people are married to (and blind to the possibility it could actually occur>. The incomprehensible appeals to both those convinced it will never happen and to those who are convince it will happen.

Now. That said. We attack the incomprehensible in a variety of ways trying to comprehend it.

Research/experimenting

Innovation methodology: stage gating as an example

Pick your “assessing likelihood of incomprehensible” methodology but, well, 90% of new businesses fail, over 60% of new products fail and The Law of Unintended Consequences guarantees the unforeseen is almost more likely to happen than the foreseen. Yet. Even all that knowledge doesn’t slow us down one bit with our love/hate relationship with the unknown, i.e., the incomprehensible. We love the thought of finding something that seemed incomprehensible. We love that ‘holy shit’ feeling.

Here is the weird thing. Despite our love of the incomprehensible we plan our days to the minute, plan projects and tasks in excruciating detail and ‘plan out’ to eliminate any risk and uncertainty and, well, incomprehensible we can feasibly plan out. I would point out that all this really does is foster the timeless tradition of second guessing and seeking blame as soon as the incomprehensible occurs.

Regardless.

The incomprehensible always remains fresh because, as a Life truth, it consistently confirms to us that at no time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

But, in general, before being proven anything, you are guessing. Sure. You can make an educated guess, and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do, but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way” or “we should have seen that coming.”

That’s bullshit. We do not know. We often guess <sometimes well, sometimes not so well> under the guise of planning. Maybe worse is we often guess under the guise of ‘scrutinizing history.’

Uh oh. A fact.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’

Henry Kissinger

People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come and, in fact, it sure does look like a frickin’ smart thing to do when going backwards in time and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best>. But, just a reminder about what Hank said: History teaches by analogy, not identity. This means that the lessons of history are never automatic or formulas for the future. The truth is that they can be apprehended only by admitting a range of multidimensional factors <unique context matters>, assessing the significance of each factor <individually and in combinations – I believe that is called “complimentarity”> and that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

————————–

“From this, one can make a deduction which is quite certainly the ultimate truth of jigsaw puzzles: despite appearances, puzzling is not a solitary game: every move the puzzler makes, the puzzlemaker has made before; every piece the puzzler picks up, and picks up again, and studies and strokes, every combination he tries, and tries a second time, every blunder and every insight, each hope and each discouragement have all been designed, calculated, and decided by the other.”

Georges Perec, Life A User’s Manual

=======

Like it or not situations exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a moment is but a collection of individuals and things bringing to bear all their collective experiences and things. Reassembling that multi-dimension of ‘collective’ is next to impossible. What this means is that when viewing the past incomprehensible, trying to make it comprehensible, you will find it is contingent to a unique set of factors.

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

“For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Henry Kissinger

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

Uhm. Cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  This is why I scratch my head when some people are so sure on the future. If the incomprehensible is contingent upon a unique set of factors than you would have to be able to look into some crystal ball which unravels what will BE unique (that is impossible isn’t it?) to see what the future configuration of contingent factors is.

Well. That’s nuts. No one can do that.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future and to better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can, most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future, trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made. The intent is good and true.

However. We should never confuse honest intent with ‘what is right.’

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’ At each point in time no one knew what was coming, therefore, no one can truly know what is coming. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible or incomprehensible — it occurs.

Just remember this about the incomprehensible. We don’t know what we don’t know AND we don’t know half of what we really do know. It is difficult to accept the fact that today, in the moment, in the middle of change, no one … let me repeat … NO ONE has the right answer. We are simply asking the right questions at the moment and doing our best to adapt as we learn.

And therein maybe lies the greatest lesson about the incomprehensible – change is about adapting.

Sure. Having a vision is good and there are multiple ways to reach the ‘end game. But, in the end, change is change and the incomprehensible is the incomprehensible. Plus. If we knew exactly what the change was and what was needed and what was truly incomprehensible and what wasn’t, well, we would be really smart sonuvabitches, wouldn’t we ? Almost incomprehensible to think that though. Ponder.

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

Prouver que j’ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort. -Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

“Proving that I am right would be admitting that I could be wrong.”