===========

“For in some ways the world was like a shopping centre, and he himself was a doubtful customer, often ineffectual, being talked into buying things he didn’t want, things indeed which nobody in their right mind would want to buy.”

Margaret Mahy

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

I admit. Similar to most people I have always thought of choices and decisions as forks in the road … go this way or go that way <although I have suggested in the past that Life is a game of chess with choice making>.

But what if choices are like a shopping center?

What if the world exists as a shopping center of choices and decisions in which you can be bamboozled into some choices or maybe out of sheer exhaustion you just buy something or because this one store is more convenient you buy that choice; never seeing another choice in the store on the other side of the shopping center?

Well. Let’s be honest. That sounds more like reality with regard to choices and decisions that some simplistic ‘fork in the road.’

===

“Why can’t I try on different lives, like dresses, to see which one fits me and is most becoming?”

Unknown

===

“Explain the value and justify the cost.

People don’t mind paying; they just don’t like to overpay.”

Chris Murray

===========

Anyway. Life decisions.

You know something? We bitch & moan about making decisions and the angst over Life choices, but, in general, we don’t really mind making them. Generally speaking we make about 30,000 of those suckers daily.

We just don’t like to overpay for our decisions and choices.

And that is where choice shopping centers screw us up. We wander into stores looking at crap we think would look great on us, and maybe we even buy it, but when we get home it not only doesn’t look as good … it looks like shit <or stupid>.

Uh oh.

It is non returnable.

It is non refundable.

You own it.

The choice, the one you made, is yours.

And maybe we made that choice because some ad suggested it or something in the store whispered in our ear or we even get some good sales pitch or someone we respected suggested it would be a good choice. In all cases we are, in some form or fashion, explained the cost of our choice <by Life in this metaphor>, we think we see the value, and then we decide to pay or not pay. That is the value equation.

But here is the biggest problem with regard to thinking about choices as a shopping center. You cannot leave the shopping center having bought nothing. Buying nothing is not really an option.

Yeah. I just said that. You will not leave empty handed.

And I think most of us know that <even if we do, on occasion, simply decide to make … well … no decision> because we know that we tend to seek reasons to make one choice over another. And that makes me think about the fact there may be nothing worse than thinking you have a chance when you don’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell.

Thinking you have a chance is normal. In fact it is so natural to think it you almost have to convince yourself that there really truly is no chance. Here is what I mean. Standing in some store in the choice shopping center, and maybe you have visited five stores already and bought nothing you end up thinking even that one choice that is maybe just not your color or not exactly your size or, well, you get it; you convince yourself you have some chance it will end up looking great on you.

This thought process gets reinforced by Society which is constantly seeking ways to convince you that that ‘no chance’ is simply a sign of pessimism or lack of ‘positive thinking’ <or … “it would fit you if you only worked harder” type shit advice>.

Well.

That is bullshit.

No chance is no chance.

In fact I would suggest a sliver of a chance is still no chance.

A shopping center of choices always offers you, uhm, choices. They may not be perfect and in fact you may find that all the stores with the good shit are closed that day and the only choices you can buy are in the dingy Dollar Store.

Regardless. Life is more often than not about making choices on where to invest energy rather than a simplistic ‘right versus wrong’. Investing energy in ‘no chance’ situations are a drain.

Most good choices have nothing to do with ‘beating the odds.’ Most are about honestly assessing chance and probability.

I am certainly not suggesting this is easy.

Having been to dozens of shopping centers where every store fights to sell you something shouting at the top of their lungs ‘you do have a chance,’ I fully recognize it absolutely sucks to have no chance let alone admit to yourself “no chance”.

I take some solace in the fact that I know what sucks more. Thinking you actually have a chance when you do not. And I fully recognize the suckiest decision of all … not even going to the shopping center. Even if you hate shopping showing up at the shopping center is what it is all about. It seems almost weird to even suggest this, but simply showing up can have dramatic consequences.

Yup.

Even something as unspectacular as ‘showing up’ can be a choice which has dramatic consequences to your destiny.

We far too often think of fate when looking in a rear view mirror.

We far too often think about fate when looking at choices as “this way or that way.”

We far too often think about choices, and the choices WE made, which actually led us to the place where we saw what we saw in that rear view mirror rather than all the other choices that possibly impacted ‘fate’, i.e., we far too often reflect linearly or ’cause & effect’ rather than complexity.

We far too often think about the sea in which choices are made as something controlled, and controllable, by us rather than some invisible hand.

And I imagine, we far too often rarely think about showing up as a key choice.

===========

“No matter what choice you make, it doesn’t define you. Not forever. People can make bad choices and change their minds and hearts and do good things later; just as people can make good choices and then turn around and walk a bad path. No choice we make lasts our whole life. If there’s ever a choice you’ve made that you no longer agree with, you can make another choice.”

Jonathan Maberry

===========

Anyway.

I tend to believe most of us do not think of Life choices in a shopping center like way because it can seem pretty overwhelming. In addition, it possibly forces us to think about how easily we are bamboozled in a retail environment to buy shit we don’t need, or buy shit that isn’t really good for us or even buy shit that doesn’t fit us.

It is much simply to say “right or left” or “this way or that way.”

Unfortunately.

Life is just not that simple.

Unfortunately.

Choices are just not that simple.

More often than not we are, well, a doubtful customer, often ineffectual, being talked into buying things he didn’t want, things indeed which nobody in their right mind would want to buy.”

That sucks.

Ponder.

=====

“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.”

Henry Clay

====

ah. “When statistics get in the way of a good decision.” Let me get this out of the way upfront. I like numbers. I have an Economics undergraduate and accounting and statistics  accounted for several of my <of the few> good grades in college.

I like that if you weave your way through numbers they can tell you things that can inspire the ‘real’ thought.

I like the fact that numbers can sway an “I think” based opinion to a “here is what I know” based opinion.

That said. I purposefully used Henry Clay (so think maybe 1800 as to date of the quote) so that some contemporary statistical wonk doesn’t come out of the woodwork saying something along the lines of “statistics have only evolved in the last 20 years” or something crazy like that. “We have never had better data to make decisions from than today!” <with the exclamation mark> is a statement that was as true in 1800 as it is in 2000’s and as it was in 100 BC.

This is an eternal issue.

People have looked at statistics since the time good ole Adam started calculating how many apples fell out of the tree to figure out how often he was gonna get laid. Henry Clay just had the luck to be quoted on it.

So before I begin my rant let me say, yes, I get decision-making is a cognitive process where the outcome is a choice between alternatives. And that numbers can play a role. I also get that people have different preferences as to how to approach decision making and that there will always be a varying degree between thinking and feeling and numbers and experiential. And I do believe all decisions, at least the worthwhile ones, have to incorporate some sense of logical decision-making. Logic in that we seek to exclude <or marginalize> emotions <as well as personal biases> and try to use only rational methods <perhaps even mathematical/statistical tools> with the intent to isolate what is typically called the decision utility.

I get all that.

Oh. And, by the way, I hope no one tries to dump the whole your view is driven by whether you are “left brain/right brain” mumbo jumbo on me because science has already proven that is an urban myth. There is no right brain left brain.

And. There is no “numbers are facts” crap.

Yeah. On that last one.

==========

“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.”

Gregg Easterbrook

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

Sure. Numbers don’t lie. But they also don’t tell you what to do.

Now, in saying that, let me suggest why I believe this statistical ‘torturing numbers’ issue has been an issue for eternity.

The thought: many people don’t want to make decisions. Okay. Maybe people just get nervous with accountability and use statistics to make the decision; not inform a decision.

Why? There are boatloads of reasons, but suffice it to say that without using numbers you are getting paid (or at least judged) not just on decision-making skills, but on your judgment skills. That means accountability is solely on you (the person).

Think about that. But also think about this (as you get judged). The following is an explanation on decision making using statistics:

Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory

I’d like to start today’s lecture with a reminder about something I said a long time ago when we finished our survey of population viability analysis. Population viability analysis is best seen not as a way of garnering precise predictions about the fate of a population but as a way of ensuring that all relevant life-history variables have been considered, that they have been considered efficiently, and that we have a reasonable sense of the trajectory that the population is likely to follow if current trends continue. It provides a way of structuring our thinking about the problem. That’s precisely the way I think we should regard the approach to decision making that I’m about to describe.

One of the most difficult tasks facing conservation biologists, as I have emphasized repeatedly, is that decisions must often, perhaps usually, be made in the face of woefully inadequate data.

<ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>

So. From that incredibly dry mind numbing analysis of statistical decision theory they dropped this little bombshell in toward the end of the ‘how to use statistics’:

There is the recognition from statistics that there are two types of errors we can make in evaluating an hypothesis:

–          We may say that something is happening when it isn’t (Type I), or

–          We may say that something isn’t happening when it is (Type II).

Say what?

=====

“The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.”

Robert Heinlein

(I wish I had written this in response to the statistical theory thingamajig)

Ok. What that means (to those of you solely dependent upon statistics). You may use the statistics to prove something is or isn’t happening and it may not be happening or it is happening <anyone now wonder why statisticians are avoided?>.

Anyway. I will back off the ‘accountability through numbers folk’ for a second. Trying to give statistical-using people the benefit of the doubt, let’s think that maybe when you are stressed out, frankly, any option seems pretty good — especially one which seems factual (numbers seem more factual to people despite the fact that once you start combining them they become less factual). I imagine it is like someone dying of thirst and drinking from whatever looks like the safest pool.

Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.

And, unfortunately about this stress theory of mine, when the adrenaline from the stress wears out, you realized that the statistics you leaned on for the decision YOU made — were all bullshit (or someone points out they were bullshit when you actually invest some energy trying to explain them later).

And you are screwed. Screwed because of statistics (although people will inevitably try the “but the numbers told us what to do”).

Ok. Here is the good news (relatively speaking). You can do something about the stress decision making leaning on numbers thing.

Most people, given enough experience, become aware that stress can do a number on your decision-making skills.

How do I know? Well. Of course someone has done a study on it. Scientists have some statistical based thinking about exactly how stress screws up your ability to make decisions. According to ScienceDaily, psychologists Mara Mather and Nichole R. Lighthall (who completed a review of the literature on stress and decisions) they found that, even though you’d think being stressed would turn people into pessimists and therefore more careful, stress actually makes us focus too much on the upside of our decisions. Says Mather, “Stress seems to help people learn from positive feedback and impairs their learning from negative feedback.”

Uh oh. That sucks <maybe you cannot do something about the bad stress decision making thing>.

Nuts.

I guess my point in bringing up the study is that maybe under stress it is easier to grab on to statistics to make a decision <all the while thinking positive thoughts> and therefore avoided the judgment call on your own.

Uh oh (again).

Look. I was wrong. You can do something about this judgment thing. Judgment isn’t easy, but at some point you are accountable <or you should be> and hiding behind statistics just won’t hack it.

As Yoda would say “the answers are within you.” The key to making a smart decision is giving yourself the time to gather all the information you need <and, yes, that can include statistics> and move forward with whatever proactive thinking method approach you have some confidence in and make a decision.

A daunting decision doesn’t have to put you in an analysis paralysis death grip.

Use a logical decision-making method to help you evaluate your choices and pull the trigger.

And make a decision.

And not let statistics make the decision for you.

Here is the net on statistics: It helps us formalize and categorize our thinking to make sure that we have considered all relevant possibilities.

Quantitative analysis should be viewed as explorations of possibilities; not hard predictions.

I believe being able to use numbers, and statistics, to explore possibilities is truly a skill <or an art>.

Not everyone can do it. Ok. Well. That’s not true. Anyone can do it, it’s just that not everyone can do it well.

Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.

In fact, just to circle back to the main topic of this post, let’s call it, well, judgment.

Yeah. Judging numbers. This means learning how to weigh the importance of one number versus another as well as learning which numbers are unimportant. To be honest, not many people have mastered that art.

But. That doesn’t mean everyone should get bogged down in statistics and numbers because if you do, yup, you can torture any decision you want out of numbers.

And, frankly, you are lying to yourself if you believe that is a decision. That is simply being a coward (in the decision making world). You have deferred decision to ‘numbers.’ And inevitably you are deferring accountability.

Sound harsh?

As harsh as this?

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

David Ogilvy

Harsh.

Sound like truth? Yup. Suffice it to say everyone should use numbers and statistics to inform decisions, but, inevitably, all good decisions demand some level of judgement. Ponder.

–

“Not adding value is the same as taking it away.”

Seth Godin

–

“Truth has two main problems. Truth tends to be complicated and truth tends to be painful.”

==

• Opening note/warning: let me be clear that what I am suggesting today is simply representative of business as it exists today, not how business should exist. Soe part may be maddening to those who, like me, who believe in fostering emergent, dynamic, generalist-skewed, organizational behavior. Just imagine how maddening parts of this were just in typing.

Value-extracting creates nothing new: it simply moves money around. It does not grow the economy, it does not lead to innovation, and it contributes to greater inequality. Well. That is certainly one vein of wisdom. But let’s talk about an uncomfortable version of value extraction. Yeah. We talk in business about value creation all the time. Maybe we should talk about value extraction just a bit more. Why? Because a lot of business is extracting value and ideas and thoughts from semi-formed value, ideas and thoughts in the people around you. Oh. And to exploit those extractions. Yeah. I just said that. That sounds bad, doesn’t it”? Let me explain. The business world is, and has been, a specialized world for a while. Decades and decades of ‘specialize to optimize your career’ has wrought a world of, well, specialists. And because business is business, they have tripled down on that specialization encouraging people to invest their outside energy honing that specialization and honing their ‘productivity skills’ surrounding that specialization. As a consequence, that means the business world is strewn with specialists who really aren’t adept at offering value, and value creation, ideas beyond their constrained specialist zone. I am not suggesting that zone cannot be deep and valuable, just that it isn’t particularly broad and valuable in a larger scope. Given what I just said, a minority of good business people are good at plucking out the ideas, thoughts, skills from the people around them. Uhm. Extracting and exploiting.

Which leads me to best practices.

Best practices extract value. Yeah. I just said that. Let me slice this two ways. It extracts value potential in a creation standpoint (bad) and it extracts value from those involved in the process (semi-good). The latter is actually the real reason leaders love process. It extracts replicable value, not optimal value, from the organization. But let’s be clear, management loves to use best practices to extract value and exploit worker “time”. Once again, a significant portion of this comes back to that specialization thing. Business has this weird belief that if you reduce everything it will expand, well, something (I am unclear what). Anyway. I am not anti-process, but using process TO extract is wrongheaded. Process should be a baseline ‘way to work’ so that workers have an opportunity to think and create the shit that an ‘extractor’ will be scanning for.

Which leads me to technology.

Here is the weird thing. Much of what technology offers business, at least as implemented, extracts from value. Its weird because we should be seeking, relentlessly I may add, to use business as a value creator. Anyway. Technology gets you both coming and going. Coming in it extracts effectiveness because for the most part people are asked to fit to technology rather than technology augmenting people. Going technology gets you with technical debt which inevitably clogs up any chance of increasing value. That said. Let’s get back to the uncomfortable part. Technology, used well, can extract the value from the minds of people. Some people may suggest this is augmenting people. Shit. I am a proponent of technology crafted to augment people. But for today I am discussing pure and simple extraction. While much of digital transformation is useless in terms of expenditures and effectiveness, there are many technological tools available to isolate individual’s who have the knowledge, wisdom, skills and thoughts that can be extracted from the organizational machine and incorporated into the larger value creation machine. It may sound creepy to say that but, what the hell, if I am going to infringe n people’s privacy I may as well figure out how to do so in a way that permits the individual to contribute beyond their specific skill cage.

Which leads me to how technology could augment positive extraction.

Within the next decade we ought to develop tools that would allow us to interact not only with information, but also with simulations and predicted futures, concepts, that might emerge depending on the dynamic marketplace and the choices we might make to exploit the market opportunities. It would be silly to ignore the fact technology offers the best opportunity to do this. knowledge graphs, AI which analyzes computer usage, LLMs which pluck out individuals for the extractors to go seek out. There are a number of semi-creepy ways to extract and exploit – in the interest of generating business value.

Which leads me to ‘culture fit’.

Oddly, or maybe paradoxically, hiring for culture is counter to value extraction. Yeah. Culture fit extracts value potential from the organization which means if you are scanning about seeking to extract dormant value you will see less and less to extract. It becomes a reductionary universe in which ideas and thoughts inevitably get smaller and smaller and incremental value creation gets smaller and smaller. Circling back to the thought that part of today’s business world is actually figuring out how to extract valuable thoughts and ideas from an organization, culture fit makes that more difficult. Culture fit will tend to emphasize not only similar thinking but emphasize specialization. Uhm. Both reduce the possibilities for larger value creation thinking, thoughts and ideas.

In the end.

I know it sounds horrible to speak about extract and exploit in some semi-positive way, but it is kinda true in today’s business world. In order to maximize the potential in an organization you almost are forced to put people in a room that on the surface seem more a pain in the ass than a valuable contributor and, well, set out to extract from their strengths in order to exploit the knowledge to the benefit of the business. Ponder.

==========

“Life, too, is like that. You live it forward, but understand it backward.”

Abraham Verghese

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

“It’s the one thing we never quite get over: that we contain our own future.”

Barbara Kingsolver

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

Thinking about what legacy you want to leave behind can make you start thinking a little bit about what you may want to stubbornly stand for and demand of Life and what you may decide to compromise with Life to insure you have something, i.e., some progress to show at the end. A significant part of this grand bargain we negotiate with Life is how we decide to compromise with those around us and those who affect the arc of our lives.

Ah.

That word “compromise.”

Therein lies maybe one of the most difficult topics of the current generation.

The topic is that the concept of compromise, meeting someone half way, giving something up and getting something back, is now a nebulous concept.

Why? Because I am not sure I know where the hell half way is.

And I tend to believe a shitload of people are standing with me, on one side or the other, not really sure where the hell half way is.

And if you cannot even see the middle ground how the hell can you figure out how to make a stand on it?

This gets compounded by a massive online communal world in which we all live side by side where even the marginalized people <real or perceived>, nutjobs & experts, now have a place to gather into likeminded groups and share as much a space as mainstream views. For good, or for bad, online any group of people can organize & mobilize & challenge the status quo … or pick & choose which status quo fits their view. The internet amplifies discourses critical of, well, any status quo you can think of.  And, as anyone could expect, all the critical discourse triggers a corresponding equal backlash from those who fear an uprooting of their beliefs <and the self identities that are inevitably attached to these beliefs>. Needless to say much of that backlash is a bit unhealthy and a lot unmoored to accepted reality.

It just becomes one huge mosh pit of criticism and cocooning of likeminded people.

Likeminded people – all who are angry.

Within all of this situation & anger civil discourse tends to be tossed in the trashheap. And maybe worse is the fact there is this ‘digging in’ aspect where we refuse to see any merit in other people’s opinions. Sadly, I can only conclude that we have lost the ability to converse, discuss, debate and have a dialogue with one another.

It seems obvious <at least to me>, but if we could figure out how to come together and compromise, that we could go a long way toward not only creating a better version of society in general, but it may give me, and all of us, at least a fighting chance with regard to where we make our own personal stand and where we compromise and how we attain the future that we contain.

As long as people cling to unbending attitudes & beliefs, the divides between us will not deepen, but will remain an unbridgeable divide.

I tend to believe most of us want better that that.

I tend to believe most of us would be willing to work to make this a better and more civil world to live in.

And if you do not embrace this thinking?

I would remind everyone that America is representative of a great compromise. The U.S. Constitution is possibly the greatest Compromise ever negotiated <it created a nation>.

But as a first step to bettering this entire situation we need to figure out how to better define Compromise.

Far too many loudmouthed people have ripped the meaning out of the word, twisted the value of the word making it seem valueless, and ultimately created an environment in which  we demonize the entire process of trying to reach compromise.

Compromise no longer means understanding your differences and working together toward a common goal, but now it seems to represent weakness, losing and not being strong enough to get what you want. This attitude and unwillingness to work together creates a dysfinctional society where the unwavering stance seems to be “don’t compromise, stick to your guns, don’t give in to the other side”.

Sigh.

Look.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of America is really that selfish and that stubborn. Sure. I know the people most passionate about any issue tend to be the ones less willing to compromise on them. And, yeah, I would guess most of us are fairly passionate about ourselves – what we decide to stand for … as well as what we will decide to sacrifice within compromise to attain some progress. But within this wacky world where no one seems to want to compromise anything on anything … well … shit … some of us are trying to think a little bit about what you may want to stubbornly stand for and demand of Life, and what you may decide to compromise with Life, to insure you have something – some progress to show at the end.

It seems like the situation we are in has arisen because we have permitted the stubborn voices of the radical marginalized <real and perceived> to drown out the pragmatic voices, the majority, of realistic positive compromise. If we want society to start working again we need to embrace compromise — and let it retain the positive definition which has served it well through time.

To end this I will go back to the beginning.

The “I” aspect.

I tend to believe all of us, with the intent of finding the best version of ourselves from which our ultimate legacy will be defined, will seek to find the balance of being stubborn and demand that Life bend to us and our principles and compromise where we make a grand bargain with Life in order to continue progressing.

Uhm.

If we believe this, then why wouldn’t we want this in Life and in business and in politics and in … well … everything.

There was a book that discussed this. In The Spirit of Compromise <Amy Gutsman and Dennis Thomson> they note that Americans support general compromise as an idea and like the idea of ‘other people’ working together to get stuff done <statistics support this in a variety of studies & polls>.

However. The authors then note that support for compromise breaks down when it addresses specific issues <Americans are much less likely to support a compromise on a specific issue>. What this means is that, as with most things in Life, we enthusiastically embrace the conceptual behavior and balk at the actual behavior.

I shared that to say compromise is complex and simple.

What I do know is that we contain our own future and building that future demands that we will have to make some compromises.  That is simple.

Making the specific choices is complex.

And while I am mostly interested in my own future and making my own compromise choices, I tend to believe we would all find the better version of ourself contained within if the society as a whole were more willing to refind the value in compromise. Yeah. I just suggested our best version is not an “I” thing but rather when we are part of the weave of societal fabric, i.e., “We” thing. Ponder.

====

“So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.


You’d better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can’t rearrange the universe.”

Isaac Asimov

====

We talk about changing the world and ‘rocking the universe’ not only when young, but in discussions where we are thinking about maximizing our potential or maybe we do it simply to convince ourselves we can do something that matters.

In other words …

We have a plan.

Ok. Maybe its not a specific step-by-step plan, but we have a general schematic of a plan which showcases key lines and dimensions of what, where and how.

It is kind of a rough blueprint sketched out on a cocktail napkin.

Uhm.

But then some stranger randomly puts their drink on your napkin and the ink runs a little and there is an obnoxious ring cutting thru a key line or two. In other words, things get a bit fuzzy.

In other words, basically the universe you had planned against has conspired against you in a seemingly random way.

Yeah.

The universe is as it is. Despite all your wishes and dreams and desires to disturb or disrupt the universe you, well, you cannot. The universe arranges itself without consulting you or your plans.

That doesn’t mean you don’t have any control of what happens to you nor does it mean you shouldn’t attempt to shape things so you may achieve what you desire, it is just that sometimes you need to rearrange your beliefs.

Now. I write a shitload about maintaining you character and the core of who and what you are as well as maintaining a focus on the more important things <because a shitload of unimportant things are gonna be bright shiny objects that can easily distract you>.

To be clear. The universe is not something that is distracting; it is a consistently inconsistent environment in which distractions appear. Despite that, you need to stay the course of who & what you are and all the while rearranging some of your beliefs with regard to … well … what I will call ‘strategy & tactics.’

Simplistically, in my mind, you reside in this consistent inconsistent universe maintaining your individual ‘brand essence’ <distinctly different than personal branding> and grounded in a sense of purpose, i.e., what you want to contribute and maybe an idea of what matters to you, and rearranging your strategy & tactics to accommodate the universe.

This may sound intellectually challenging and mentally tiring and … well … a lot of work <when you were kind of hoping Life would be a little simpler>.

Well.

It is kind of tiring.

But that is kind of the price of living a full Life, well, okay, maybe at least some kind of ‘non-stagnant’ life.

I imagine everyone has a choice.

Try and stand still and weather the universe as it rearranges itself or attempt to move <forward, sideways, diagonally, or whatever direction you can  – because progress is not always ‘forward’>.

Most of us?

We just go on.

We step forward, backwards, diagonally and sideways, all with an eye on whatever version of progress we may have in our heads.

We do so because … well … what is the alternative?

====

“You just do it. You force yourself to get up. You force yourself to put one foot before the other, and God damn it, you refuse to let it get to you.  You fight. You cry. You curse. Then you go about the business of living. That’s how I’ve done it. There’s no other way. “

Elizabeth Taylor

Anyway.

It is quite possible that the business of living is grounded in the thought of ‘rearranging your beliefs’ because the universe is certainly not going to rearrange its beliefs.

Ponder <but do some rearranging while doing so>.

“If you don’t think, then you shouldn’t talk.”

– March Hare <Alice in Wonderland>

Well.

Thinking and talking.

This sounds so simple.

But it is actually a little more complicated than it appears.

There is often a significant difference what you think <and saying it> and thinking about what you think <and actually saying it>.

Let’s maybe call this uninformed opinions versus informed opinions.

Let’s maybe call this lazy or shallow thinking versus invested thinking … or enlightened thinking.

This may sound crazy coming from a guy who has consistently been a proponent of thinking, any thinking, as a good thing and a sign of progress and improvement for an individual’s mind <from which we all benefit>.

But.

Maybe I have realized that not all opinions are created equal.

Uh oh.

This is dangerous ground. Very dangerous ground. For what makes someone’s opinion greater than some else’s? <assuming they are both opinions>. More reflectively, what makes my opinion more valuable than yours?

Well.

It’s the thinking.

That’s what differentiates between opinions.

Not critical thinking or adeptness at thinking <although they help>, but rather the depth of the thinking.

And this gets to be REALLY dangerous ground.

Because I can guarantee you that a shallow thinker, or someone who has pegged their opinion upon one, what they view as unequivocal fact or truth, believes they have depth behind their opinion.

Because what can be deeper than truth?

Oh. Let me be clear.

Truth is truth. Neither shallow nor deep. Even in it’s ‘wafer thin being’ it is stronger than anything else in the world. Stronger than the strongest metal in the world. Stronger than any lie <no matter how crafty that lie can be>.

However. Truths are truly hard to find and truths are actually made up of a number of coherent facts <so confusing a fact and a truth within a discussion can create some issues …>.

And herein lies the trouble in dealing with a shallow thinker.

They confuse truth with what they are actually using to support their opinion.

Often they will torture numbers to make them tell the story they want to tell and extract splinters from houses of information to challenge the entire foundation.

Deep thinkers understand that truth is more often found in a compilation of learnings and the consolidation of coherent facts.

A strong opinion is supported really only by one of two things:

–          One of those truly unequivocal truths

–          A solid foundation of a variety of learnings

That said. I believe life would be a shitload better if we just assumed the majority of us just aren’t smart enough to recognize real truths even if they hit us in the face. Therefore, we are required to actually do some thinking … and some real enlightening type work & research to truly offer a ‘deep’ opinion.

Regardless.

I say this in combination with the quote because I believe far too often we offer flippant opinions.

We may not truly be lazy, but we may not be working hard enough before we speak.

And I have written before, this matters because words can be weapons. But what may be worse is that shallow opinions tend to have really sharp jagged edges that can tear apart even the best thoughts.

I say that because have you ever noticed how the really smartest people, those who have actually thought about their opinions, tend to keep them to themselves? I think it’s because they know that often they cannot protect their thoughts from the shallow sharp edged opinions they will inevitably be attacked with.

Yeah. Shallow opinions are really really hard to defend against.

Reason seldom works <which is REALLY aggravating>.

Anyway.

If you really haven’t thought about what you think, don’t speak. The odds are your opinion isn’t equal to someone who has actually thought about what they think.

You may not like to hear that and I bet you certainly don’t like to believe it … but … well … that is a truth.

No.

Don’t say anything.

Just think about what I just said.

=====

Everyone was born with a limited amount of fucks to give.

During your teenage years you give a ton and slowly give less and less from there.

just shower thoughts

=====

When I saw this quote had to sit back and think.

Why?

Because I could read it two ways.

First.

As you get older you just get worn down and just stop giving a fuck about a lot of things.

Second.

As you get older you learn that not everything deserves ‘giving a fuck’ and you give less, but, you should give more of a fuck when you do.

I pondered this a little.

And then I got curious and found that if you type “give a fuck” in google search you will get about 4,610,000 results (0.38 seconds), but … here is the interesting thing  … you get page after page on ‘philosophy <or ‘the art’> of not giving a fuck.’

Basically the internet is strewn with articles and advice on how to not give a fuck. How crazy is that? It is almost like the google world is attempting to offer some extraordinary justification for being indifferent, to actually practice being indifferent, which, in my mind, is maybe a different slant on how to be a complete moron.

I mean, c’mon, if we really only have a limited amount of fucks to give, well, wouldn’t you expect some really good advice on how to prioritize and parse them out? I say that because it seems like we could all use some good advice with regard to knowing when to give a fuck and when not to give a fuck.

I will say one thing about giving a fuck. Caring about shit is the essence of Life.

Ok. Maybe two things.

Caring and actively engaging in shit is the essence of Life <I actually called it RSVP and Life once>.

But. The moment you become indifferent, the moment you just don’t give a fuck, well, there is no Life. There is no heartbeat. Life is dead.

I am certainly not going to suggest you care about everything. I will not because I agree that we do not have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. But it just doesn’t make sense to not care.

Now. Life does a fairly good job of suggesting not giving a fuck is a much easier way of living Life.

Life is full of a lot of shit we don’t understand.

Life is full of a lot of things that just do not seem to make sense.

Life is full of a lot of things that just doesn’t seem logical.

Life is full of a lot of things that seem different than what you want or think about.

Life is full of a lot of questions and a lot fewer answers than we want.

Life is full of a lot of answers that don’t really solve anything.

Life is full of a lot of things that make you scratch your head and say “I never understood why.”

All of those things seem like “slow” as in “a lot of shit that will slow me down from getting to where I want to go and getting what I want to get.”

I imagine after reading that list and my last sentence many people may think “then why give a fuck.”

Well. Because none of those things make Life any ‘less’ or any less meaningful. They just make it a little less certain. They just make things a little more risky. They just make it all a little less straightforward.

In fact I could suggest that almost all Life throws at you could fall into the “WTF category”. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give a fuck.

Anyway. I agree with the opening quote. I don’t believe we have an unlimited amount of fucks to give. That doesn’t mean we only have one or two just that they are not unlimited.

But that doesn’t mean you should embrace the thought “well, I have no more fucks to give … so … I just don’t give a fuck about anything anymore.” Nor should it mean you should start seeking opportunities to not give a fuck under the belief it will help you get what you want and where you want to be faster.

Look. Here is what I know about giving a fuck.

If you give enough of a fuck about your life, and trust it to give a fuck about you on occasion, well, a fuck of a lot of good things can happen if you just fucking go out and work hard. Ponder.

===

“Words are chameleons, which reflect the color of their environment.”

Learned Hand

—————

“Words …

They’re innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they’re no good any more … I don’t think writers are sacred, but words are.

They deserve respect.

If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little or make a poem which children will speak for you when you’re dead.”

Tom Stoppard

——————-

Words.

On almost a daily basis I am reminded that how you say something is possibly more important than what you say <at minimum I would suggest it is a symbiotic relationship in which the life of ‘what you say’ is in the hands of how you say it>.

That thought alone should make us respect words. They hold life, and death, of thoughts in their hands.

What makes words tricky is that word meanings are not always a true reflection of the speaker’s thoughts because as they enter into the ether they become chameleons.

Yeah. Your word gets transferred into someone else’s brain and becomes their word and in doing so they often take on the hues of that brain’s environment.

Whew.

This makes choosing words even more difficult.

More difficult in that a word can mean several things at exactly the same time … what it means in your head, what it means as it leaves your lips, what it means as it floats thru the environment <slowly, or quickly, changing as it is bombarded with contextual environment> and what it means as it is heard.

That, my friends, defines the challenge of stimulus – response. If any of those moments in which the word floats thru is not aligned then incomprehension, or chaos, reigns.

Worse?

This happens with every word and every combination of words.

This is a multi-dimensional constantly in flux contextual challenge. Let’s call it a quantum verbal world.

Within that quantum world words are chameleons.

Oh. Last thought on these chameleons.

And while we would like to envision those bright colorful chameleons you see on National Geographic channel it is more often, in this mish mash moshpit quantum world, that words begin to blend in together and become almost unseeable & unrecognizable.

Worse?

When this happens they fall like snow blanketing thoughts covering the landscape of fresh thinking muffling inspiration and allowing unique features and anything interesting to become unrecognizable.

Yeah. That was just as horrible to write as it was to be read.

Here is what I know about words.

Empty words are evil.

==

“And empty words are evil.”

Homer
<The Odyssey>

==

To be clear, if your chameleon words blend in to the environment so much so they become invisible, they have become empty.

To be clear, you may have uttered them full of something, even a lot of something <passion, thought, insight, whatever>, but as they wove their way through the environment they slowly got emptied of everything they were once full of and, as good chameleons do, they blend in and become invisible.

It would be easy to suggest they have then become harmless.

But if you think about it, they have not become harmless because, well, they are still words, its just that they have become empty … an evil. Evil in that they have not prompted any thought, any idea or any new thinking energy. They are evil in that they have not inspired anything new and everything old, or that which exists now, remains unchanged. Evil that in their emptiness they permit evil people to fill that emptiness with fear, lack of hope, conspiracies, lies and all the things that stifle progress.

That’s what evil does … it fights change and thrives on inertia.

Regardless.

I imagine my real point is that words without their corners knocked off, or ground down, and used well can be good words … and used for good. They need to be shaped, protected and guided through the environment instead of being flippantly flung out assuming a basic stimulus – response world.

Ponder.

—-

==

“There are times in life when people must know when not to let go.

Balloons are designed to teach small children this.”

Terry Pratchett

————–

Well. I have written about how difficult it is for people, in business & Life, to let go of things so much I am not sure I can find any new words to share on that topic.

In fact if you google “reasons to not let go” you get nothing. Nada. You get jack shit on the topic.

All you get is page after page of ‘reasons to let go.’

And, yet, there are certainly times to know when to not let go.

To be clear, a purposeful ‘not let go’ is a different difficulty for us. While not letting go is something that is mostly based on some version of fear or doubt, knowing when to not let go of something seems to be more about our difficulty in discerning what is important, or good, and what is unimportant, or bad.

In fact. I think part of the ‘not letting go’ difficulty resides in how we learned to hold on in childhood <the balloon thing>.

We learn very early on that when you let go of something good it floats away never to be seen again. So we have learned to hold on a tightly as possible to anything that could be construed as good <note: even if it is really a crappy balloon>.

We have become so good at it we are almost proud of not letting go. Therefore the problem isn’t our ability to actually hold on … it is choosing what to really not let go of.

Not letting go is a complex decision compounded by the fact we are complex people.

Why does the complexity matter? Because there is no formula. No ‘rules of not letting go.’

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Some things are obvious. The self stuff, the character stuff, the ‘who you are as a person’ stuff you don’t let go of. They are good balloons. But if you are not careful, after a while, you have so many balloons you can’t discern the good ones from the bad ones. Which leads me to suggest I sometimes believe the ‘what not to let go’ choice is an acquired intuition thing.

Yup. I just typed acquired and intuition side by side.

I like to remind people that you are not borne with good intuition. You may be borne with a good intuition muscle, but experience strengthens the muscle and it takes some time & experience to ‘acquire’ the intuition necessary to ‘not let go’ of the right things.

Regardless. I suggest intuition because unless one of the balloons has lost all its air and has sunk to the ground you are choosing amongst a shitload of balloons that maybe all look pretty good to you.

This may sound crazy because balloons float above you and should seem obvious at all times, but the connections to many of the balloons in your life are actually like links of a chain underwater.

==

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition.

Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flushes, or short-circuits of reasoning. In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness.

The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

==

You see the balloons. Okay. You see some of them.

But the strings get all tangled up and you cannot tell which string to let go of <because you are not sure which balloon will go away> and which one to hold on to. Some of the choices you make as you look at the strings are intuitive. And given some time and experience I imagine the string feels a little different in your hand as you pluck it out from all the others. That is this version of intuition.

So. One of the things I admire most in people is consistent great intuition and how they manage what to not let go of.

It is an interesting characteristic to assess when you meet people and is fairly easy because you can just look up and see the balloons they carry with them.

So, in the end, maybe the balloon metaphor is bad, or maybe I simply overused it, but suffice it to say that while there is a lot of free advice on ‘letting go’, there isn’t a whole shitload of advice on ‘what to not let go of.’

I think it is obvious that there are certainly some ‘be yourself’ characteristics that you should never let go of <although figuring out what to not let go of as you try and improve yourself is not easy either>.
What is less obvious is the other stuff in your life. Experiences, knowledge, even people.

I don’t have any answers today. Just questions. And maybe some prompting that this is something we should think about a little more.

Most letting go advice online is vapid and a waste of time <albeit with good intent>.

I don’t have any advice for ‘not let go’ other than think about it. We all learn to hold on to balloons because they represent freedom and hope and good things waiting above us. Paradoxically, despite the fact it may appear like they should be let free so we can benefit from them, it is actually those that should be the things we hold on to and not let go of. Ponder.

==========

“An expert is someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore.”

Edward de Bono

====== 

“Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.”

Simone Weil

====

“Genius is nothing but continued attention.”

Claude Adrien Helvetius

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

So. Targeting customers in business, for business, used to be about, well, targets.  More specifically – demographics.

Well. Not anymore.

First.

Attitude, or attitudinal targeting, has replaced age & income & crap like that. What I mean by that is if you develop a compelling message that connects with aspirations & attitudes, well, I don’t really care about the demographics of someone <or it becomes significantly less important>.

This means a business goes forth ignoring who someone is physically and, with an intent to connect with or maybe change a mindset <or at least make the mind think> and create some desired behavior, goes out and connects with aspirations and expectations by delivering ‘something’ <it could be a variety of tactics, images & words> with relevance and resonance.

And then it all comes down to tactics <connection points – which is place & timing>.

Second.

Beyond the actual targeting of people <who should I aim my message at> it seems more and more we were actually paying attention to, well, attention. Someone actually called this topic “the attention value equation.”

The equation is fairly simple:

“I give you my attention … I expect to get something in return” = some value

This value equation is almost like a transaction. My attention is the currency which I am going to lay out on the table expecting to get something for it. And the true value? The attention giver actually feels like they got an additional ‘gift’ <that’s the highest order of attention value>.

Now.

Of course, in today’s word this creates some massive, but not insurmountable, challenges.

The opportunity exists in the fact that over 90% of almost the entire business targeting population now is interested in maximizing their ‘mobility.’ I once called this the ‘nomad generation’ but let’s just say that we are being socially conditioned to live much of our daily Life from wherever we are <enabled by some smart technology>.

The challenge is that “live much of our daily Life from wherever we are” is a self-empowered decision where attention is ‘given’ … uhm …‘spent’, if I continue with the equation theory.

Whatever I spend I, well, don’t want to “lose” <get nothing for it>. And while many people smarter than I would step in here and suggest we should treat attention as a gift, I will not. I will suggest that attention is money extended as part of a transaction. But with a twist.

They are paying upfront. You get the money no matter what. They get nothing if you give them nothing <uh oh>. That thought places attention unequivocally into a transaction equation.

And that is the reason why from the ‘attention receiver’ standpoint content marketing is an essential tactic. Because it isn’t really a tactic, it is an intimate engagement in which money has been exchanged and someone wants to receive, at minimum, value for the exchange and , at maximum, some acknowledgement of the intimacy <but this does not need to be done in every exchange>. The danger in taking what I just wrote literally is that someone could view exchanges as one-on-one transactions at some given point in time.

Why is it a danger?

Because it avoids the fact that there is a constant ever increasing flow of information in which people are often not only drowning in that flow but also unsure of how to enter into the flow and not get swept away. It’s the flow of memes, animated GIFs, updates, events, questions, conversations, breaking news updates and every other digital drop of water creating the flood of information.

In addition the giver of attention has a constant flow of attention running through everything available on the ‘must do’ and ‘should I do’ and ‘want to do’ at exactly the same time.

Now.

This is where most marketing people stand up and say “do break thru executions and you will win!” The intent is quasi-correct, but the challenge is steep.

First.

It implies one engagement & connection is sacrosanct.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

You gotta start somewhere and treating each moment & engagement as ‘important’ is important. But it ignores the fact that managing ‘touchpoints’ is like staring at beautiful trees while the forest could be burning down.

Second.

Did you know that 4.6+ billion pieces of content are produced daily?

Tweets / Videos / Whitepapers /Email / Listicles / Instagrams / Webinars / Vines /Infographics / Podcasts / eBooks / GIFs / Blogs /Memes

4.6 billion.

<yikes>

Ok.

I mention this because, getting back to targeting and attitudes, if you want to discuss attention & attention value unfortunately you have to discuss data.

Yeah.

Most people who formulate attention/connection communications have an aversion to data.

Now.

I encourage everyone to think about data a little differently. Think of the fact that Data is actually the result of someone doing things over and over again through connections with other people. Maybe think of it as a massive research program of ‘one-on-one interviews.’ And, as with any research, when you compile the interviews you can very easily lose sight of the fact that each data point represents real people who dedicated their real attention at some particular identifiable moment.

But, if you look at data that way, you realize that each moment matters. Each moment is possibly very important. And each word, image, story, factoid needs to be thoughtful and purposefully constructed as part of a larger ‘forest’ we want people to wander and inevitably to arrive at some beautiful clearing we have created just for them.

Access to data has given us the opportunity to capitalize on the most important, sometimes personal and uniquely relevant moments. Frankly, it has never been easier to find the right people or the right moments. Sure … you may have to dig into the <research estimated> over 20 trillion moments of smartphone ‘moments’ each person has each year, but, go ahead and assume 20 trillion will trend or pattern and trends & patterns can offer extraordinary insights.

But.

Most importantly <and possibly what all those ‘big data experts’ fail to see> is that all these data points reflect WHAT SOMEONE HAS CHOSEN TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

—————–

“Attention is the most important currency that anybody can give you, it’s worth more than money, possessions or things.”

Steve Rubel

———–

Discussing data is a completely different, and complex, topic. But do not disregard data as a means to examine connections and what people pay attention to.

But let me get back to attention itself.

Google getting someone’s attention and you will get a gazillion <46,900,000 to be exact> results in less than one second.

And I have seen dozens of presentations from really smart digital market people on capturing attention. But of everything I have seen I would have to say Ben Parr <author of Captivology: The Science of Capturing People’s Attention> caught my attention in Harvard Business Review <HBR> with a couple of deeper thoughts.

• Capture … or … “THE capture”

Anticipation and motivation.

It fuels our desire to “want” food, sex, money or more intrinsic rewards like self-satisfaction and a sense of purpose. The prospect of capturing these things makes us pay attention.

Rewards we can touch, experience, or even just visualize have a greater impact on our attention.

First.

This does not mean we live in a visual world <and a visual is all that matters>. This suggests “strategic use of visuals.”

Second.

This does not mean the visual has to be ‘beautiful.’ Many business people suggest that something beautiful is so attractive that everyone looks. I would argue that is a lazy argument.

Third.

The big thought? “Capture” is at its best when tied to intrinsic rewards <not rational>.

Fourth.

This Ben Parr guy suggests sensory cues actually direct our attention automatically. It’s a safety and survival mechanism that helps us react faster than our brains can think. Thinking about capturing someone’s attention that way permits you to think aurally, visually and any other more subtle way that plays on people’s instincts rather than just plastering some beautiful visual in front of them.

• *** note: there is an entire book, “The Case Against Reality” How Evolution hid the truth from our eyes” by Donald Hoffman on this topic. I highly recommend the book.

• The Expert.

From the same HBR study the author suggests that attention increases with … well … credibility.

Consumers consistently rate experts as the most trusted spokespeople, more than CEOs or celebrities. There’s a scientific reason for this: in a 2009 study, Emory University neuroeconomist Greg Berns found that the decision-making centers of our brains slow or even shut down while we are receiving advice from an expert.

This is a phenomenon Dr. Robert Cialdini calls “directed deference.” So, especially if you’re trying to capture the attention of people who don’t know you, feel free to lead with your credentials, establish your expertise and cite others who are most knowledgeable on the topic at hand.

To be clear, the use of “shut down” in this case means “filter our distractions and focus.” Well. Many digital experts expound upon the importance of ‘personal ‘in digital and mobile communications, but, maybe we should be thinking about establishing ‘expert’ first?

Just a thought.

All that said.

I do believe that while discussing gaining someone’s attention and the value equation it is incredibly easy to focus on one connection and one moment, the truth is that to gain someone’s attention within a multi trillion mobile connection person’s life you have to be relentless, persistent and omnipresent <because the smartphone is omnipresent in that person’s life>.

This is hard to do.

Like.

REALLY hard.

Mainly because to be persistent you need a shitload of content and it needs to be relevant content <remember the credibility, the capture and the intrinsic reward opportunities I outlined above>.

Truthfully? This is a glorious grind. I say a grind because, well, that is obvious. I say glorious because you are constantly seeking to create that one post, article, tweet, video, picture, whatever … that connects, converts and is remembered.

You are constantly seeking to briefly say what needs to be said – with care. And, yeah, you have to do all this. Why? Because if there truly is 4.6 billion pieces of content created daily then you almost have to assume that most people are ignoring anything that could be construed as mediocre content.

Anyway.

I would suggest it all starts with the attention value equation.

While almost everything I have shared today suggests “overwhelming”, the one thing I have been clear on and offers a strong central filter is the attention value equation. All questions you may ask about relevance and interest and connection can be answered by using the value equation.

No value and whatever you are offering is useless.

This also suggests you can put “creating dialogue” on the backburner <because if you don’t gain someone’s attention in the first place and don’t actually offer some value once you do gain their attention there ain’t gonna be no dialogue>. Create connections that are useful, likeable, memorable and shareable … and what people value. And create an overall journey in which the value equation is driven by purpose and intention <that insures no connection is wasted>.

It is easy to say in today’s world you are competing for attention. It is actually a little lazy. While living Life from the palm of your hand may create some ‘noise’ challenges … we have always had to compete for attention. In addition, as I have stated before, the whole “shorter attention span than ever” is bullshit.

Attention is attention – was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow.

And the attention value equation is the attention value equation – it was yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow.

Sometimes we forget this shit. Most likely because our attention is caught by some stupid cat video and then we sit back and think “oh, that is what needs to be done to gain someone’s attention!”

That is stupid thinking – yesterday, today and will be tomorrow.

Just keep your eye on the attention value equation and you should be good. Ponder.