——–

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

David Lynch

——-

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

mnmsnickers <twitter>

——-

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

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

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

Why?

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

But let’s step back a second.

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

Compromise?

Play the game?

Those words never enter your head.

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

Call them dreams.

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

Call it hope for a good Life.

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

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

What do I mean?

Well.

You take a job because you have to.

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

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

Ah.

‘Bettering your chances.’

Playing the game.

Managing your hope.

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

But that’s me. I won’t play the game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe better said it destructs real expectations of yourself.

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

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

That is crazy.

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

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

Customizing your resume as you apply for a job.

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

That’s playing the game.

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

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

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

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

And maybe give a couple back.

But you have to make some choices.

Hard choices.

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

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

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

Bottom line.

The odds suck.

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

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

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

——-

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

 ——–

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

But all line drawing does.

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

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

That said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup.

Every.

Single.

Day.

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

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

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

A LOT.

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

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

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

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

Everyone needs to learn the line they will draw.

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

Ponder.

=======

“I am the sea and nobody owns me.”

Pippi Longstocking

======

i would fight myself if i could

(letthechipsfallwheretheymay)

========

So. “Not being owned” sounds like a simple thing. Yet. Over and over <and over> again we permit something, or someones, to own a part of you.

It can be direct or it can be indirect.

It can be consciously or subconsciously.

To be clear.

This is not a society thing <albeit society is a nasty twit on occasion>; this is a self thing.

And this is not a corruption thing <albeit money is a nasty twit on occasion> … this is a self thing.

So what do I mean by a self thing?

One of the very very few things you can actually control in life is “self ownership.”

Owning who you are as a person. Owning your integrity. Owning your character, dignity and moral compass. And, I imagine, owning your behavior & attitudes. These are all things clearly in your control. These are all things, clearly, you own.

Now. This ownership isn’t easy. It isn’t because what you own, well,  there are a shitload of people and things and Life are constantly seeking ways to steal it. Yeah. I said steal. They try to wrest all of, well, “you” out of your control so they can steal it and replace it with something they would prefer (or want).

Please note: I will also say owning a good security system will not do shit for you.

You need to learn self-defense. And by self defense I actually mean defending against your self <and not someone or something else>. You have to choose to fight – that is your choice.

Fight against some nasty instincts <which more often than not head you in the wrong direction>.

Fight against temptation <of which the world has an endless array it constantly parades in front of you>.

Fight against some internal mind games <think doubt, fear, acceptance, etc.>.

Regardless. Many of us flippantly state “I am my own person and nothing owns me” and, yet, under the glaring spotlight of truth & reality we will find that more of us is owned by someone or something than we would like.

So what do we do when that happens?

Many of us shrug our shoulders when faced with this harsh truth and say “those are not the important things” or “that’s just Life.”

Well. Here is some harsh truth you better get a grip on. It is not ‘just Life’ and they are not just ‘little unimportant things.’ It is your Life and they are your things.

More of us should stop, take a moment, and think about whether we want to react to external ownership efforts <stealing> or proactively “fight myself” over the right to own myself. Yeah. Sometimes you not only have to be aware of what you own, you also have to be aware enough to fight your instincts to let them be stolen. Let them? Yes. We do it far too often because its either not important enough in that moment or maybe just too hard to fight at that moment. Be careful. Be careful because those moments can add up fast.

Anyway.

Each of us is the sea and no one owns a sea. Do not be owned.

Ponder.

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

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

–

Albert Einstein

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

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

 –

Price Pritchett

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

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

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

(Shockley-Zalabak 1999, p. 438)

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

Look. Here is a truth.

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

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

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

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

source: Faris Yakob

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

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

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

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

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

They do so in a number of ways

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

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

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

Stephen R. Covey

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

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

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

Believing that character takes involvement & commitment & work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This leads me to leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Reeves

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

Look.

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

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

In the end.

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

—–

“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.

==========

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

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

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

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

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

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

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

That said.

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

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

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

And then everything in between.

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

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

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

How does that most often happen?

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

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

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

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

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

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

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

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

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

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

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

Look. My point is hope is hope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

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

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

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

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

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

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

=========

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

Stephen Crane

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

“Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

Johannes Kepler

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

The universe has no real obligation to us. Period.

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

That said.

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

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

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

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

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

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

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

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

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

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

Now. Two things.

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

Just mine.

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

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

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

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

I want neo-Nazis speaking on campuses.

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

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

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

First of all.

We should all want that.

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

Second.

We should abhor silence.

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

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

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

Uhm. This makes me say …

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

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

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

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

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

We complicate our lives needlessly.

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

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

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

=======

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

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

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

==========

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because all speech does is to start a dialogue.

It forces people to talk.

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

I want to challenge my assumptions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===

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

Khaled Hosseini

==

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

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

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

That, my friends, constitutes a crisis.

Let me be clear on this issue.

A trust nobody attitude is for the weak.

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

A trust nobody attitude is a cowardly attitude.

Let me be clear on why.

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

==

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

Graham Greene

==

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

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

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

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

Look. We should question everything and anything worth questioning.

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

That said.

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

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

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

Regardless.

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

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

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

In addition.

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

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

Wow.

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

Ponder that a moment.

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

Yes.

In fact, behavioral research tells us why it matters: 

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

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

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

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

It actually produces <or promotes> economic growth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trust dropped off in the more stable 1980s.

Which leads me to who should we blame?

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

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

And then there is us – the people,

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

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

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

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

Ah. Which brings me to religion and trust.

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

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

Nuts to all that.

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

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

The fate of trust is in our own hands.

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

In the end.

Trust nobody?

That is the plight of fools and cowards.

You will slowly suffocate with every breath you take.

To trust is to live.

Ponder.

======

“The combination of technology and capitalism has given us a world that really feels out of control.”

Jonathon Franzen

=====

 “Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis.”

Martin Luther King 1967

====

Why am I writing my umpteenth article on capitalism?

I keep seeing research in the United States that says something like 50% of people under the age of 30 do not believe in capitalism.

Ok. Let’s get this out of the way:

Capitalism is good.

Capitalism is not bad.

But that does not mean there isn’t always a tension between good and bad in the soul and system of capitalism. It is an incredible wealth-creating & life bettering mechanism and, yet, left to its own devices can run off the tracks <morally and financially>. Capitalism needs guard rails or, as some smart guy called it,“embedded countervailing power.” It needs guard rails because humans will be humans.

When business is good, human beings become greedy.

When business is bad, human beings become fearful.

And I would like to remind everyone that culture is created by, uhm, human beings. I say that not to be a smart ass but to suggest there is a real culture war in America, maybe the world, and it is occurring in the business world. I purposefully use ‘culture’ because it has to do with some ethics or moral fortitude, some personal responsibility and some pragmatic hope for the future. In fact, if we fix how capitalism works <systemic & infrastructure aspects>, the net result is addressing income inequality, wage stagnation and overall economic prosperity as well as some individual “self-stuff” like meaning and mattering <kind of all the big societal issues we tend to discuss>.

Anyway.

A moment on the role of government.

It is both a fallacy to believe Government is not the problem nor believe they are the solution. We have a mixed economy < I stole that term from Foreign Policy magazine>.

Capitalism is not supposed to be a system which is about maximizing corporate profit at the expense of the citizenry. Therefore, effective governance curbs greed objectives & regulates capitalism so that it bends the arc of the system to encourage the good things it is supposed to do <innovate & bring prosperity to many> and doesn’t do the bad things <be driven solely by greed & self interest>.

Let’s be clear.

America is not based on an unfettered capitalism nor has it ever been <nor was it ever meant to be by the founding fathers>. It is a managed capitalism system <always has been — I say that to head off any of the ‘government is too involved’ today talking heads>.

Government attempts, sometimes better than other times, to put reins on humans within a capitalistic society.  Let’s say it’s something like giving enough range for wild horses to run free, but not to trample the gardens and lawns of the surrounding areas. This ‘fettered’ managed capitalism idea is not perfect. It ebbs and flows and morphs into different shapes as time passes, but it IS an effective economic and political system.

I would suggest that, while polarizing, capitalism is balanced – when balanced.

That said. A better version of capitalism really is not dependent upon governance and laws <and putting banks out of business>, but rather personal decisions, choices & responsibility.  Yes. I just suggested <again> that people, not the system, will define the better version of capitalism. Adam Smith suggested the three pillars of a society are: prudence, looking after oneself as best as one is able; justice, keeping the law of the land; and beneficence, caring for others and society where there is need. Yeah. Adam Smith deceived in the collective interest beyond self interest.

Clearly our main issue is not how to survive on true scarcity <that is not a perceived scarcity or a “less than” scarcity> but rather how to live well with plenty.

To date we have chased double digit growth and higher GDP all the while seeking higher material happiness <sometimes confused with higher standard of living>.

We have become societally insatiable. In other words, we cannot have enough and are reaching what Hirsch called “the social limits of growth“.

This funny Maslow chart reflects that as additional personal needs are fulfilled it induces new needs <which we, as humans, constantly improve ourselves in order to further attain these ‘self actualization’ activities>.  Think about this from a non-funny sustenance perspective in growing from poverty to non poverty <but the dimension perspective will always reside in the human mind>. This is also called ‘hedonic adaptation.’

Yes. Capitalism has certainly vastly improved our lives and our means to live. But it has also fed this insatiability.

Some guy named Sandel wrote in “what money can’t buy … the moral limits of markets:”

• the more things money can buy the more the lack of it hurts.
• buying and selling can change the way a good is perceived (he used “giving children money as incentive to read a book may make reading a chore rather than a simple pleasure”).

This all leads to an overall attitude that endless <and double digit> growth is essential to maintain and improve our quality of life. While I will not go into the detailed debate … that is simply not true <this is the typical efficiency versus effectiveness argument>.

Now. All that said. The issue is really about the attitudes & attributes we are attaching to capitalism.

As I share some thoughts to try and address the young’s lack of belief in capitalism I will lead with two things:

• Communism promises to make everyone equally rich and instead makes everyone equally poor.
  

• Youth thinks it invents the world. Maturity respects the world it finds.

Suffice it to say that Capitalism is becoming some evil entity in the minds of many young people. In addition, aspects of other ideologies <communism being one> are being used relatively flippantly as ‘better than’ what is occurring within capitalism. I actually believe it is a lack of understanding, but it is also quite possible there is a deeper lack of faith with capitalism.

If you step back you can see why the young <and the shallow thinkers> feel this way:

• Real unemployment is nearly in double digits and young people are struggling to gain a positive financial foothold.
• On average, according to Gallup, Americans believe that 50 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is wasted. Democrats, who are supposed to believe in big government, guess that 41 cents of every federal dollar is wasted. Republicans think it is 54 cents, and independents put the number at 55 cents in the dollar.
• A poll found that most Americans would rather their government did less. Some 57% said it was doing too many things that were better left to individuals and businesses. Only 38% thought it should do more.

And many people have genuine complaints. Many working-class men have lost their jobs. Those who are still employed have seen their wages stagnate/decrease. And overall they don’t trust government not to make it worse.

This is a sad state of affairs <for government who CAN make shit happen> because regulations can positively address stagnation & inequality without intervening in entrepreneurial decisions or in the price/profit mechanism. The harsh black & white truth no one wants to say is that regulation is what makes free markets, well, free <free markets cannot sustain themselves and constraints actually benefit fresh ideas>.

Anyway.

I have been thinking about capitalism for a while nudging my mind toward discussing morals and character <society & culture>. In doing so I found it interesting to think about Schumpeter when addressing the youth capitalism challenge.

• what Joseph Schumpeter called ‘the cultural contradictions’ of Capitalism

One of the cultural contradictions <I believe he outlined 5> was Rationality. In that Capitalism encourages rationality in behavior and that culture creates, and demands, a natural conflict by insisting on some ‘irrational’ behavior. Rationality comes to life as the “maximization” of particular interests of individuals and groups. This same rationalization concept then bleeds into both personal lives <family & home> and ultimately becomes embodied in some form or fashion into cultural forms. Children become quasi economic assets <or their rearing incorporates rational ‘maximization’ theory embedded in capitalism>. At its extreme, maximization bleeds into soulless wealth and extreme consumption thereby substituting saving and societal salvation. Oddly, but fairly, Schumpeter suggests consumption wins against accumulation. This leads to a certain diminishing of the desirability of incomes above a certain level. At the same time, however, when the breaks of certain values associated with ethical or religious tradition fail <called the sophrosyne: Greek philosophical term meaning healthy-mindedness and from there self-control or moderation guided by knowledge and balance. Roman poet Juvenal later interpreted sophrosyne as “mens sana in corpore sano” – “a healthy mind in a healthy body”> individuals and groups come into natural conflict with capitalism. The basic human instinct is one of core values <in some degree within everyone> and therefore the natural contradiction forces some balance within capitalism.

This means that the irrational components of behavior are critical for capitalism to emerge and withstand rational arguments especially when based on long term considerations.

But. That said.

===

“This is the genius and the Achilles’ heel of American culture. We … have a strong belief in self-determination and agency, even when our expectations fly in the face of reality,”

Katherine Newman, who studies social mobility

====

Capitalism in America is not functioning efficiently for a variety of reasons, but that doesn’t make it bad.

Which leads me to the issue of Confused capitalism … or being confused by capitalism.

No matter how altruistic and non-materialistic you may be the psychological issue is simple — as we sit perched on a stool at the bar of society where we can scan the room and see the danger of those who have nothing or little … as well as those who have the most <and lots of most>.

If the majority of us begin to look like we are either nearing the dangerously ‘nothing people’ or, contrarily, appear to be too distant from those who ‘have the most’ <no matter what your exact status is> we get nervous if not angry. Materialism, culturally, is therefore naturally cyclical in that it will always seek to balance itself or find some equilibrium. For we always ‘want’, but most of us want it to be within the realm of ‘hopeful that we can get more’ … without appearing too greedy. Hence that is fairness <in an irrational sense>.

In other words.

Give me a chance for something more than I have and give me more and I won’t be too greedy.

While everyone can debate the role of money with regard to people’s happiness it is true that economic health does make people happier <more secure, more comfortable, more sustenance>.

This actually means that free-market capitalism is not devoted to integrity and a reliance on trust but rather economic growth. And this suggests the people need to be regulated.

Why do we balk at regulation?

The US has always been a wide-open, free-wheeling country, with a high tolerance for big winners and big losers as the price of equal opportunity in a dynamic society. Even though the US brand of capitalism has rougher edges than other democracies, most citizens inherently believe it is worth the trade-off for growth and mobility. Yet, at the same time, while we like the free wheeling we also recognize that we are going through some type of crisis, therefore, it just becomes a discussion on what type of crisis.

Some think it is a crisis of capitalism. <I don’t>

Others think the crisis is moral. <I do>

====

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

Bertrand Russell

====

First there is attitude. What is maybe a disregard for societal fairness versus what could be construed as individual ‘winning’ or ‘what I deserve.’ A lot has been written about the effects of globalization during the past generation. Much less has been said about the change in social norms that globalization enabled. Many people, particularly people in power positions, took the vast transformation of the economy as an excuse to rewrite the rules that used to govern their behavior. I say that because while there will always be isolated small groups of lawbreakers in high places what truly destroys morale is a systemic corner-cutting, rule-bending, self interest behavior type of construct.

I have thought about how and why this happens.

It starts early.

As young children we start off with a healthy core of greatness, but before long it gets covered in layers of doubt, fear and guilt. Often this is caused by people we trust most like parents, teachers and managers who put us down in subtle and less subtle ways. It’s as though people were flicking bits of mud at us until our core of greatness is totally covered. Even worse, we flick mud at ourselves by accepting smaller versions of ourselves through negative self-talk and poor thinking; and we become a tiny fraction of the potential that once existed.

Once potential is curbed we seek to find success in other ways sometimes circumventing “what is right” to make small excusable steps in our behavior to attain ‘small personal successes.”

Second is our propensity to consume <and its self perpetuation>.

Our propensity to consume without thought for the planet, the poor or even the person next door is a sign that greed and fear are the motives of the moment <or self interest trump collective interest in a zero sum world>. Freedom certainly creates problems (inequalities most notably), but it also solves them.

But the central aspect of freedom advanced by these thinkers was the market, or what Adam Smith had described as the propensity to truck, barter and exchange. In this area, freedom allowed dispersed individuals—disposing of their own resources and choosing for themselves what they want to buy—to generate a level of prosperity that has had no precedent in human history. And the pricing system that emerges from the market—that is, from the push and pull of supply and demand—provides the indispensable knowledge needed to guide the economy.

So. All that said.

I would tell young people that Capitalism is not the issue.

It is the people within the system <and young people can fix that by entering the system>. The system can work just fine it is simply being abused at the moment. Capitalism needs to be managed to be more oriented to the long term and socially more responsible.

Interestingly, Richard Branson has formed an initiative to do just this. I found it amusing that initially he sought to have a board of Business Elders — but there were too few candidates from the business world of sufficiently unimpeachable character to staff it <insert ‘oh my’ here>.

Anyway <to conclude part 1>.

Since World War II in particular, America has been on a consumption surge/binge. While wages have certainly stagnated, family disposable income has grown, life standards have improved, health has improved and overall quality of life has improved <and showed a continuous growth>. Unfortunately, at the same time, while families busily lived their lives they also had access to the finest inventory of toys capitalism could provide. Each generation was doing better than the one before, life was good and standard of living acquired a layer of ‘non essentials’ as part of how the people lived a successful & happy life.

At the same time. Televisions starting bringing news, influential people talking and capitalism toys into the family living room. Television allowed busy families the opportunity to be exposed to complex issues through professionally crafted sound bites and talking points. People were now becoming more informed from a larger perspective, not just local perspective, and we ushered in the inevitable “keeping up with the Joneses” aspect.

What we face is the natural rising tide of ‘better than before’ facing the ebb and flow of time. The ebbing waters are not appreciated by those who drink from the current place. Is it greed for most people? No. It is simply a desire for the status quo – “better is a right not a privilege.” Therein lies the social & cultural task at hand. Ponder.

Anyway <to conclude part 2>.

Doing something.

Me? I write and post on my blog. And speak about it wherever and whenever I can <especially to young people>.

It is easy to talk about it because it seems like if we take a moment and reflect on the problems in the world today we might easily come to the conclusion that it is mainly due to deterioration of our morality compass.

It seems like everywhere we see people filled with greed and intent on self-gratification. It seems like people are always willing to compromise on values/morality to make personal gains. That means we need to start talking about values and create some sort of awakening in the minds of people.

Will everyone do it? Of course not. But someone has to go first. Someone has to become the catalyst for change.

Why not the youth? We should encourage them to enter the system and build what they desire from the inside out rather than simply breaking the system as unfixable. Ponder.

=====

“Our culture made a virtue of living only as extroverts.

We discouraged the inner journey, the quest for a center.

So we lost our center and have to find it again.”

Anaïs Nin

====

I used to think society’s, or civilization’s, journey could be followed left to right, maybe not on a horizontal line and more like a roller coaster, but definitely like a timeline of sorts. I imagine I thought of it a bit like continuous improvement even if it had some fits and starts.

I do know we certainly talk about it this way.

Agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, whatever revolution. Internet 4.0 <implying 1.0 and upwards>. And we relentlessly tie #’s to people to show “growth.”

But I think I was wrong. Heck. I think everyone was wrong.

I actually think the better mapping of society and civilization is viewed like an atom.

Different cultures and people and ‘civilizations’ zooming around like electrons circling the nucleus.

From a grander narrative perspective this seems like I am suggesting who we were is what we are and what we will be. And, yeah, simplistically I imagine I am on some level.

And if you buy that, conceptually, because all these electrons zooming around … because culture, and civilization, is made up of billions of ‘ones’ it may often seem like we lose our ‘center.’

We really don’t.

Honest.

We don’t.

The center is always there. It is solid. It remains, and will always remain, the compass for that which is right.

The nucleus holds it all together.

However.

What circles the center, the billions of ones with different demands and different needs and different likes and dislikes all of which desire different accoutrements for happiness, they never remain still and very often collide with each other. 

And exactly the same time there are media channels and advertising and movies and magazines all screaming at the top of their lungs trying to distract us from our center with slivers of less then meaningful distractions. Distractions that make us question our center or maybe what we think is important <which can be very different from our center>.

Let’s face it. some of the people circling the center can be real noisy shits. In addition, the shit that circles our centers can be noisy sonuvabitchs. All so noisy that … well … it can be the only thing you hear.

And therein lies my point.

I disagree with Anais.

Society, or civilization, doesn’t lose its center.

It cannot.

Why?

Because the ‘ones’, the billions of electrons themselves, never lose their center.

Because we, the ones, the individuals, don’t lose our center and have to refind it.

We just cannot hear it on occasion.

Or maybe we just don’t listen to it hard enough.

Or … well … maybe it whispers to make it more meaningful for us.

I don’t really think it matters.

Because we don’t lose our center.

The center is always there, it is within us, as individuals and as a whole. It is the 7+ billion <give or take given the few raging assholes in the world whose center is in their ass> and it is within the ones and it is all the same center.

Call it the moral compass.

Call it the good that resides within everyone.

Call it ‘knowing what is right & what I wrong.’

Call it the soul of humanity.

But ever suggesting we lose our center?

C’mon.

We never LOSE it.

We may misplace it on occasion.

We may just not be able to hear it over the cacophony of Life.

But, we never lose it.

===

“Let your hopes, not your hurts, shape your future.”

Robert H. Schuller

===

Well. Happy Easter <if you celebrate it> tomorrow.

By no stretch of the imagination am I religious, however, I think it is silly to simply regard religion & religious believers as ‘followers of fantasy. Faith, in and of itself, is a strong complex concept. Inevitably a strong faith is grounded in two things – faith in oneself and faith in some external beliefs <be they something specific , like God or Allah, or something less tangible, like morals & an ethical compass – all of which can also be intertwined>. I say the two things because just faith in oneself is … well … narcissistic, and, just faith in something external … well … most likely absolves you of any self will or individual thought.

Anyway.

My apologies to my religious friends because I tend to believe I am going to bastardize the true concept of Easter to make a couple of points.

If you want to be successful in business, you learn very quickly the balance between confidence & humility as well as understand its affect on uniting & dividing.

All you need to do is to change jobs once in your career and face a new organization and new community of employees as a stranger that you need to earn trust & confidence & respect  & ‘likeability’ <assuming that last one is important to you>.

You need to prove your competence and trustworthiness and ability to work within a team <or manage a team>, therefore, you must demonstrate dedication and commitment to hard work and some empathy toward the existing community of workers & working and the way things are done.

Trust precedes any change. And that includes progress & outcomes. Trust is typically slow to build and it seems like a ceaseless struggle especially if you truly are trustworthy and have the best intentions.

Now.

Humility can be a tricky word.

Tricky in that in some case it can connote some meekness or ‘lack of leadership skills.’ But it can also refer to a willingness to self assess, recognize self limitations, recognize gaps in knowledge, recognize that ideas can come from anywhere and anyone and an ability to recognize good advice.

Humility, when genuine and when tied to a good self esteem & confidence in one’s beliefs & skills, unites. It unites people to a way of doing things and a way of thinking about things. Most importantly, it doesn’t dictate specifics but rather establishes a framework for accepted protocol. If you are in a leader position assuming a new position in a new organization this is the true way to impact existing behavior & attitudes.

And you know what?

That is what Easter reminds me of.

We are all shaped by the cultures in which we were raised. And change is difficult. And, yet, change is our constant companion. The other constant companion we have is unrest somewhere in the world at any time. The world, heck, the universe, is never totally calm.

Far too often we bluster our way thru change and transition & unrest trying to convince everyone we not only know what the hell we are doing, but also we know where the hell we are going and that we know where the hell a ‘calm place’ resides.

** note: we don’t.

The fact we really don’t know what the hell we are doing or even where the hell a calm place is creates a general fear of failing or not being good enough <in the moment or in totality> which makes us say and do things we may not really want to say or do in our heart of hearts.

It is only being centered on humility which permits us to forge thru the change & transition ceaselessly and arrive out the other side not only better, but having made those around us better — and while there is no guarantee of ‘no unrest or turmoil’ we all end up a little better able to face it.

Humility permitted Jesus Christ to unite people behind an idea and a way of doing things and saying things.

And he did so by never standing at a podium and boasting about his beliefs, he didn’t do this by making non-believers the enemy or suggesting anyone should be shut out <in fact he welcomed non-believers to hear his message in the hope they would … well … believe>, he never sought endorsements, he never built an election headquarters, he never solicited an endorsement, he spent more time among the working people than anyone else and he explained ideas that were complex and simple at exactly the same time.

This Easter?

Almost 1/3^rd of the world’s population will gather somewhere to remember not only the person called Jesus, but ponder the words & thoughts.

Portions of the other 2/3^rd will look on and think “I don’t believe in this resurrection thing … but … I do wish I had some sense of what those people have and I like the hope aspect.”

That is the power of humility.

That is the power of building change not thru violence or bombastic rhetoric or even false promises, but rather thru words & thoughts of love, caring and hope.

Look. I get grumpy with the people who say that “today’s world demands you to shout to be heard & noticed.”

That’s bullshit.

A voice that has something meaningful to say will be heard whether it is whispered, written or done in sign language.

I would also suggest that “hope” need not be shouted for, even when whispered, it echoes throughout every corner of the world.

Hope unites any and all.

And I know I learned that from changing jobs.

People do not want for kings or people to simply tell them what to do or who to hate or even where to hide <or how to shut out ‘those driven to destroy us’>.

People want one who believes ‘people don’t want to destroy us … they just do not understand our way, our words and our beliefs’ all the while protecting us, all people, along the way.

People want one who protects my freedom and my rights.

People want one who doesn’t sacrifice morals under the guise of ‘it is good for us to do so’ or ‘we have to in order to be successful.’

People want one who believes in my dreams, defends my dreams and doesn’t permit my dreams to slip down the slope of mediocrity.

People want one who creates an environment for me to rise, stand or fall on my own merit all the while not blaming anyone, and not permitting me to blame anyone, should I fall and equally insure I have a fair chance to receive what is due me for my successes.

People want one who is inclusive not exclusive and one who unites and not divides.

I know I learned all that by assuming a leadership title in a new organization <and having to earn the leadership mantle to match the title>.

Maybe if I were more religious I wouldn’t have had to learn it that way.

Maybe that is part of what Easter does for me. It reminds me of great lessons and lessons learned in a variety of ways.

And maybe Easter also reminds me that Hope & Faith never truly dies.

Change, and big transitions, can often look like the death of something … and, yet, in the end … something new is never really born … something, more often than not, is simply reborn.

And maybe, just maybe, that is why we should let our Hopes and not our hurts define our future.

Ok.

Once again.

I apologize to my religious friends because I would be willing to bet I got a shitload wrong from a religion standpoint. But, in my defense, I think Easter made me think about some important things and share some thoughtful thoughts and I hope that is part of what God would hope for everyone.

This Easter just take a moment and think a bit. Even if you don’t believe in Christianity, just think.