===

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

===

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

===

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

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

Which leads me to the renegotiation.

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

Which leads me, specifically, to business and capitalism.

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

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

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

====

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

Henry David Thoreau

====

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

It’s all about the expense.

It’s all about the exchange.

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

Look.

We make many decisions in life.

Every day.

Every hour.

Every minute.

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

And each decision is an exchange.

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

Uhm

Yeah.

I typed the word ‘sacrificed.’

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

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

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

I could argue this is the truest of true exchanges.

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

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

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

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

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

John Green

Is that too simplistic?

Shit.

I don’t know.

What I do know is we often over complicate Life.

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

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

Not sucking seems like a pretty nice simple guideline.

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

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

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

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

** not sucking maximizes the pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

Well.

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

====

Author’s note:

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

=======
“The trick is in what one emphasizes.
We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy.
The amount of work is the same.”
Carlos Castaneda
==============

“That’s the thing about pain.  It demands to be felt”
John Green
=============

“Anyway, I wanted to end this on a hopeful, positive note, but, seeing as how my sense of hope and positivity is still shrouded in a thick layer of feeling like hope and positivity are bullshit,
I’ll just say this: Nobody can guarantee that it’s going to be okay, but — and I don’t know if this will be comforting to anyone else — the possibility exists that there’s a piece of corn on a floor somewhere that will make you just as confused about why you are laughing as you have ever been about why you are depressed.
And even if everything still seems like hopeless bullshit, maybe it’s just pointless bullshit or weird bullshit or possibly not even bullshit.
I don’t know.
But when you’re concerned that the miserable, boring wasteland in front of you might stretch all the way into forever, not knowing feels strangely hope-like.”
Allie Brosh
==================

I have written about attention as currency , how time is elastic (but important & finite), social media distractions and even focus. All of them are partially right and partially wrong when it comes to emphasis and its demands on us. I say partially because all make demands on us at the same time. So, parsing them out one by one is an excellent exercise, but also slightly disingenuous to reality.
Suffice it to say that Life, in & of itself, is demanding.

Well. Suffice it to say that whatever we emphasize has a nasty habit of demanding attention.
And, more often than not, in our analyzing of ourselves and what is around us we emphasize the ‘less than’, the ‘imperfections’ and the pain.

They all demand to be felt.

In other words. Many things in life demand to be felt. And maybe it is because of that we numb ourselves to as many things as possible figuring it is the only way to manage our way thru the onslaught of things demanding and demanding and demanding. Pay enough attention, or give them enough emphasis, and the clamor of their cries for attention seems deafening if you listen too closely.

Regardless. I imagine it depends on what one emphasizes.

Now. Here is where I will leave the beaten path in the discussion.

There is gobs of information and advice on how to selectively focus on the right things at the right time. Smart people, Warren Buffett , Shane Parrish, etc. have weighed in on this topic and they offer some great thoughts. But. Here’s the deal. Life for most of us every day schmucks doesn’t work like ‘selective focus.’ Oh sure, we may try. But the truth is life demands to be felt, even the shit you have elected to not focus on.
So therefore, it comes down to emphasis, not choice.

====
“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

Longfellow
===============

Personally I believe most of the advice ‘expert’ books/articles give people about focus/emphasis is absurd, if not impractically nuts. I’m not opposed to encouraging focus nor do I dispel the notion that one can improve focus, but, for the most part, most advice ignores how Life demands attention. What I mean by that is most advice isolates a decision/choice and suggests you:

A. Tune out the unnecessary/unhelpful, and
B. Tune in on the specific contextual variables which are necessary/helpful.

Conceptually fabulous. Reality-wise absurd.

Here are 3 reasons why it is absurd:

1. Life never stops. If you stop you inevitably have to catch up and, well, the doom loop of onslaught of the demands increases. In other words, what the experts neglect to share with you is that there is a price to pay for selective focus.
Emphasis is a moving target and you must focus on the move.

2. Life never stops demanding attention. Selective focus is risky. The demands Life will put upon you do not cease simply because you have decided to focus on something or decide what you want to emphasize.
Often emphasis is managing some things while focusing on something else. That’s the gig.

3. Life never stops offering demands OUT OF SEQUENCE. Life is not orderly. It may not be totally random, but its rarely consistent other than through its overall consistency of demands.
Life is like a restaurant with odd little waiters bringing things you don’t always like.

—————————
“Fate is like a strange, unpopular restaurant filled with odd little waiters who bring you things you never asked for and don’t always like.”
Lemony Snicket
————————————

None of what I just shared should suggest you shouldn’t seek to emphasize some things versus others. In fact. I tend to believe if you don’t figure out what to emphasize you will, well, just become numb. This is where life is particularly unforgiving. If you do not choose, Life will choose to bludgeon you day in and day out with things demanding your attention … and pain.

That is unsustainable. For anyone.

Make some choices. Choose things to emphasize over others. You may not always get it right, but my own experience suggests even your poor choices, while painful, are survivable. And maybe that’s my point. Life demand to be felt. If you do not choose what to emphasize and Life emphasizes everything, I fear that is not survivable. Ponder.

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

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

BBC discussion on Hamlet

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

Well, fortune favors the brave, sir.”

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

Richard Woodman

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

Ok.

Success can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

Winning can be a, well, a deceitful sonuvabitch.

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

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

Success has that effect on people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

======================== 

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

Peter Drucker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Petr Grigorevich

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

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

Shit. Their convictions are more like chameleons.

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

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

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

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

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

——

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

The act of being scorned?

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

Coco J. Ginger

——–

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

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

Writers have to live with the words they write.

Once shared they can never be erased.

Thinkers have to live with the ideas they share.

Once shared they can never be replaced.

Why is that so important?

Well.

Couple of thoughts.

First. Most of us play it safe.

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

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

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

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

Now. All that said.

Words, once inscribed, never change.

Sharing words that showing disdain for the habitual?

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

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

I wish I had written this thought.

It is spectacular.

But I imagine I couldn’t.

For she also wrote this about herself:

—–

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

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

Coco J. Ginger

—–

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

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

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

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

===

“We are witnessing the crack-up of consensus. Most previous societies have operated with a broad central core of commonly shared values. This core is now contracting, and there is little reason to anticipate the formation of a new broad consensus within the decades ahead. The pressures are outward toward diversity, not inward toward unity.

This accounts for the fantastically discordant propaganda that assails the mind in the

techno-societies. Home, school, corporation, church, peer group, mass media—and myriad

subcults—all advertise varying sets of values. The result for many is an “anything goes”

attitude—which is, itself, still another value position. We are, declares Newsweek magazine,

“a society that has lost its consensus … a society that cannot agree on standards of conduct,

language and manners, on what can be seen and heard.”

Toffler, Future Shock, 1970

===

“Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe and which mean very little.”

Eleanor Roosevelt

===

The world has become a confusing swirl of realities. A mixture of fantastical thinking, alternative universes, and an absurd mix of selectively used facts/data points.  The urge for clarity—for a logical articulation of what we’re experiencing, of a mosh pit of realities world suddenly beyond our understanding, is never stronger than in moments of fantasy realities. Of course, by definition, fantasy realities refuse logic, living in a space beyond comprehension, beyond reason.

Which leads me to the battle between fantasy and reason.

One of the most underdiscussed reasons for our deepening sense of crisis and confusion is grounded in the fact while we talk endlessly of individual freedom there is an incredible pressure for conformity or, let’s say, some common thinking. This conformity is often grounded in ‘reason’ or ‘common sense.’ But let me focus on reason (because common sense is possibly the penultimate fantasy).

All the weird ideas that could have been considered counter to reason basically went mainstream. Common sense got flipped on its head. Anything is possible meant it was possible. We became unshackled, free to indulge in our own opinions with fewer and fewer fetters in the forms of facts, rationality, and reason. We began creating reality out of fantasy grounded in, uhm, ‘reason.’ But this reason was grounded in our own truths which made reality something you were free to construct on your own. At some point it seems like the majority of people just rejected the claims of reason and rationality, and reality, and began to embrace fantasies.  As a consequence, experts got thrown under the bus. Fantasy realities demand rejection of expertise, okay, well, the expert advice that didn’t agree with our own opinions that is. This became significantly easier to do the moment we started attaching so called experts with whatever bias we wanted to insert. We began attacking credentials and everyone was on the payroll of someone. At least in our reality so we could craft the reality we want (unfettered by facts).

Here is where we are.

We have turned reason into either (a) a process, i.e., a fantasy tangible thing to build a house of truth on stilts or (b) a method to manipulate, i.e., dubious logic crafting dubious reason. The former creates a cult of some beneficial machine bereft of sense and morality. The latter is a tool of corrupted experts and charlatans. Both, and all, of which means people increasingly dwell in a world of illusion, i.e., fantasy.

Which leads me to nostalgia as a major fantastical illusion.

Nostalgia has been turned into a pathological ideological tool. Nostalgia’s vague outlines gain mythical concreteness as we apply it to our fantasy realities. The problem with nostalgia is that its defining quirk is a weakness for illusion and delusion. As a consequence of this nostalgic whimsical thinking, we begin to believe that we have an accepted standard of reason and truth, but unfortunately a significant portion of the population actually becomes less reality based and more myth-addled. Yeah. it gets worse. Fantasy realities demand a ‘bad guy,’ an enemy, a “reason” why nostalgia isn’t exactly perfect and why the present isn’t using all the perfect nostalgia. That enemy is always tied to some mysterious manipulator. That’s bad, but even that gets worse. If manipulators lurk everywhere, well, we start believing that evil lurks everywhere. We all begin to feel like we are all holding onto an overhead hand hold on a careening driverless bus.

But nostalgia explains everything – the good or bad – which means the present is, well, made up of whatever you want (because all that past stuff is mostly an illusion anyway – note: does creating an illusion present from an illusion past mean we are a reason-based delusional population?). Anyway. The present doesn’t exactly help. The constant 24/7 exposure of actual conspiracies have led many people to assume that anything bad is the intentional result of some conspiracy. I mean, well, if there are that many, certainly they have to be intentional? That asked, this makes it harder to expose and dismantle the truly rare real ones. We’ve moved beyond isolated events to exposure to an onslaught of relentless sudden events. The societal discourse is now clogged more than ever with conspiracy theories and fantasy realities. Reality, the real one, is being bludgeoned by fantasy. One of the most worrying consequences of this is that all the conspiratorial noise obscures the occasional signals of the important things we should pay attention to, but we don’t. To be clear. This fantasy reality issue is highly asymmetrical. Or let’s just say the asymmetrical has gone too far out of whack. Fantasy reality thinking has taken on outsized gravitas versus reality not because the fantasy is any more believable, but rather because the believers have become more strident, more vocal and, well, more. Not to bring politics into this we should just admit that there are more absurd, and just, well, more, fantasy realities on the American Right then on the left. To be clear. I am not suggesting if you are on what is deemed ‘the far right’ you believe in fantasy realities, but of the people who believe in fantasy realities they are most likely somewhere on the Right spectrum. That said. Politicians, in general, thrive on fostering fantasy realities (see opening Eleanor Roosevelt quote as reference) so on this point I am not sure if it is a chicken or egg discussion.

The truth is America’s unhinged right has become much larger and more influential than the unhinged left. In addition, the unhinged right now has significantly more power and effective control than it is ever had. The truth is only the American right has a large and organized faction based on paranoid conspiracism that has spanned over decades.

Kurt Anderson

So. Maybe my point is that fantasy thinking has seemed to gain momentum. There have always been people with fantasy realities and those random beliefs have been incredibly resilient and enduring. They have had the ability to morph into other forms to fit into different groups as time and context have changed. This can partially be explained in that in the past (and worryingly too often in the present) most of the reality-based people typically ignored the fantastical thinking, if not were amused by it, as the quacks, charlatans and paranoid conspiracists pushed and pulled and encouraged people to believe their fantasy realities. Uh oh. Over time the quacks, charlatans and paranoid conspiracists carved out ‘believable-enough’ slivers of fantasy factions and we saw more people gravitate towards them. ‘Believable-enough’ is key here because as with most things, for every force, there is typically an equal and opposing force. In this case the slivers of fantasy realities grew as a force as the world became more complex, more un-understandable and, consequently, more difficult to explain, i.e., less believable. What were once vague unbelievable dangers now seemed very very real and believable. From those seeds grew fantasy realities. Yeah. I just rationalized fantasy realities with reason.

Which leads me to sensemaking.

Sensemaking is the weapon against fantasy realities. The sensemaking process is a cognitive and social process of creating meaning and understanding out of complex or ambiguous information. It involves interpreting and making sense of data, information, and experiences in order to develop a coherent understanding of a situation. The sensemaking process typically involves the following steps (source lost or maybe this is a good ChatGPT response):

1. Perception: This is the initial stage where we perceive or become aware of information or data that is relevant to the situation.
2. Attention: We focus our attention on the information or data that we perceive as being most relevant or salient.
3. Comprehension: We attempt to understand the information or data by organizing it into a coherent framework or mental model.
4. Interpretation: We make sense of the information or data by interpreting it in light of our existing knowledge, experiences, and expectations.
5. Integration: We integrate the new information or data with our existing mental model or framework, making adjustments as needed.
6. Evaluation: We evaluate our understanding of the situation, checking for inconsistencies or gaps in our understanding.
7. Action: We take action based on our understanding of the situation, either by making decisions or taking other appropriate actions.

Sensemaking, in my words, is transactional and structural. What I mean by that is while everything above is iterative and an ongoing process, sensemaking performs on two axis: the current situation (finite in its time and resources) and the situation as it evolves (a seeming infinite onslaught of information, data and inputs that make the situation dynamic). Effective sensemaking accommodates the challenges of the “now” (the law of the situation) as well as offers a foundation to navigate ‘the long now’ by offering a coherent set of lily pads in an uncertain, dynamic, in-flux, world barraged by fantasy reality spewing charlatans.

I would also point out that from a societal perspective sensemaking is largely a social process or, as James Carse suggests, “the smallest unit of change is a conversation.” The more conversations that take place with regard to reality, the less likely some fantasy can impersonate reality. The social process, the conversations, make everyone an individual and, yet, part and parcel of all reality (Hanzi Freinacht calls this being a transvidual). Try this thought on for size. If we encourage sensemaking, conceptually we all become accountants. Not in the traditional sense, as in dollars and cents, but instead you keep account of political trends, ideological thinking, military actions, religious leadership, technological developments, communities, local news/activity and even the price of wool, oil, cheese, milk and tea, i.e., reality. In some way you keep account of the ten thousand threads that make up the tapestry of reality. Yes. That can sound a bit daunting. A bit overwhelming. A bit like, well, it makes fantasy realities sound a bit more appealing. I will end there because, as well know, our favorite indulgence always looks appealing – the Haagen Daz ice cream, the double chocolate cake, even the favorite brand of shoes – but we know we can’t afford it all the time because it isn’t healthy; for the body, mind or wallet. Fantasy realities are exactly the same. Appealing but unhealthy. Ponder.

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

“Before beginning a hunt, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it.”

Winnie the Pooh

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

“I’ve often noticed that we are not able to look at what we have in front of us, unless it’s inside a frame.”

Abbas Kiarostami

===

“The difference between successful executives and unsuccessful ones is not the quality of their decision making. Each one probably makes good decisions 60% of the time and bad ones 40% of the time—and maybe it’s even 55% to 45%. The difference is, the successful executive is faster to recognize the bad decisions and adjust, whereas failing executives often dig in and try to convince people that they were right.”

===

Framing, frames, frameworks, models, all are attempts at offering some level of constraint to a discussion. At their best they can put a border around something so there is some clarity, at their worst they squeeze out substance, reduce something meaningful into something meaningless, and offer a misguided solution.

That said. Successful framing is 90% of success.

That statement is my version of ‘teaching people to learn’ not by telling, but maybe nudging them into a different learning space or, let’s just say, ‘some space.’ Maybe what I am saying is we don’t need to teach people how to learn, but rather remove the obstacles to learning and put them in spaces within which they can, well, learn. I do not know one person in the entire world who does not like to learn things. This means we don’t need to teach people to learn, and it certainly means we should stop telling people what they need to learn <implying they are stupid or learned the wrong thing>, but rather get out of their way and tell them to learn what they want and maybe give a little nudge on occasion to expand the learning space. What I just shared is partially my point of view as well as an example of framing. Learning is a positive thing (that’s framing) and the most effective learning is self-directed within a defined space (that’s a frame).

Which leads me to the space itself and framing.

Far too often we permit framing to be defined as some nebulous idea. And in doing so we talk about framing a shitload, but never really seem to get around to doing everything that needs to be done <implementing it in an effective way>. This doesn’t mean most framing people are not truly trying hard to bring about what they have framed. It’s just that their attempts get trapped in the wretched hollow between ‘ideology’ <conceptual shit> and the practical <which is by no mean easy or simple>.

And it gets even more complicated if someone can only envision what is <the current system> which leads to framing only tweaks & improvements. The best framing people not only see the system that exists, but also envisions a system that does not exist and creates a frame within which people can see the possibilities of all. That said. Outlining the outlines of an existing system is extremely valuable.

Inevitably successful framing is a reflection of several things all embodied in a process of information, education, dialogue, and ultimately, the insights generated from the process which will drive the choices. This sounds reasonable, but it ignores the world in which framing must occur.

Which leads me to larger context and frames.

The internet has eroded a sense of belonging to a large single community of humanity. I say that because society is a frame. The technology has relentlessly pried apart society, and civilization (as well as civilized thinking) so common sensemaking has less value than “I think opinions.” We have moved way beyond healthy skepticism of expert opinions to a more simplistic ‘whatever I believe is reality’ world. yeah. everyone has conflated ‘what I think’ with reality thereby encouraging everyone to not discus/debate but rather retreat to “I am happy with my opinions’ space. What this means is that while in today’s media and internet world we have far more choices than ever we see much less common information. The consequences of this less common information is that common sense making shared thinking is much less likely.

Which leads me to framing and dealing with this new reality.

Depending on the audiences and their needs, you want to “frame” the issue in terms of their interests. The proper framing of an issue helps shape the issue in such a way that it resonates with the audience and generates the “listening traction” in order to expand an audience’s existing framing. This is where both heroes and villains have an equal opportunity. Most framers, or thoughtful people, use some model – a 2×2, an X & Y axis, a 3-dimensional box – in order to help some confusing information seem, well, less confusing. Beware the model and beware the framing within the frame and beware the variables chosen. Yeah. User beware for heroes and villains use the same tools. That said. I, personally, don’t believe in focusing on fewer messages or fewer data points. I do believe you should be choiceful with regard to both, but I imagine this comes back to my opening point – learning. Framing is about opening minds, not filling minds. At this point many people would shift into the importance of stories to ‘engage emotionally’ beyond rationally, but I will not. Framing is different than storytelling. The truth is a story is a cage. What I mean by that is once a story has engaged with people it imprisons not only the ongoing narratives but minds and thought-making frameworks. Frames, on the other hand, are not cages. They are simply constructs within which there is freedom of thought and choicemaking.

Which leads me to framing is not just about a good plan nor is it just about effective adaptation … it is about having the flexibility to accommodate the unforeseen.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

A framework creates a layer between what you know, and do not know, and what you should know.

That said. As noted earlier, framing simply sets the stage for the discussion, a framework is simply a way to make sense of what you have framed, and a plan is something to be executed from all of that – and as you gain knowledge, know more, the framing changes, the input into the framework changes and, therefore, the plan should change. True framing is reflexive, we learn through questioning and discussion and trial and error and success. We learn from action and reflective observation. Frameworks shouldn’t constrain thinking/ideas, but rather promote growth of knowledge and progress.

I imagine I should point out this means because the world is increasingly complex this makes framing complex.

===========

Vague sucks and, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, how effective or ineffective a leader is and any specific relationship between cause & affect. This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

But the majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it and instead focus on effective framing. Why? In this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief, i.e., “I think” realities. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the outline or raise doubts and more questions. This is their frame.

All the while this is happening more information barrages the outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed. The frame becomes a bit more solid.

Once again. This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. But at some point, the questions gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways but let me point out two:

• The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.”
• Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this vague outline will replace the one they had in place, i.e., the frames and frameworks morph.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists.

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First. We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions.

This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty. Within this framework the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty in which all can reside quite comfortably within the proper frame.

Second. Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed. It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline. A vague outline is a choice. No more and no less. We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline.

In the end.

The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … well … there is conflict. And this is where framing is 90% of success.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

While we tend to simplistically state ‘people don’t like to change,’ the reality is life is restless and “frames” are always shifting in some form or fashion. Effective framing accommodates both what exists and some of what is shifting. Vague outlines are both good and bad. Good in that they offer opportunities to expand existing mindsets, beliefs, and attitudes. Bad because if attacked most people will retreat into reduced frames of “I think-isms” realities. Once again, framing is how to effectively navigate those issues. So, yeah, framing is 90% of success. Ponder.

===

“Change your thoughts and you change your world.”

Norman Vincent Peale

===

This is about marketing communications <and good advertising>. And this is also about the globe, or let’s say, the people around the world and the interesting fact that often, more often then we may think,  we are pretty similar with regard to our quirks.

First. Let me say that any time a marketer can actually do something that may suggest that people are people, wherever they are, people like it.

Uh oh.

That may sound contrary to marketing 101 <and marketing experts> in that most everyone invest a lot of energy  expounding on ‘individualism’, personalization, and ‘treating everyone one-by-one’ and, well, you name it when it comes to making people feel distinct and special.

In fact. This rhetoric has gone to such an extreme that it seems like everyone suggests that ‘mass’ anything is bad.

This is wrong.

Well. Not wrong all the time, but in point of fact, we often like to know that our quirks are not just ours. We often like to know that while being ‘individual’ we aren’t so weird that, well, we aren’t weird.

Embarrassing? Sure. Weird? Nope.

It’s nice to smile and say ‘hey, I do that too.’

• *** note: Byron Sharp and Ehrenberg Bass have a lot of smart high falutin’ theories along these lines in How Brands Grow which is a smart companion to this piece today.

Second. I actually have an olderTV ad where they figured out a way to suggest exactly what I just described.

Chevrolet.

This is the one that suggests people in cars all around the world terrorize their fellow travelers with their singing.

Ah.

Singing in the car.

I imagine I have never really thought about it, but why wouldn’t everyone anywhere make a fool out of themselves … uhm … have silly fun … singing in the car.

Now I know <and I have Chevy to thank>.

Chevy suggested that the Chevy Cruze is ‘loved in 119 countries’ and have attempted, fairly well, to showcase that it is loved by not focusing on the cars, but on those who are in the cars — and the fact that maybe we’re not so different after all.

==

Chevrolet Cruze TV Spot, ‘New World’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lWZIO6j-MQ

==

Is this a spectacular tv execution?

Of course not.

It is excellent not because people will be talking about it or it will become a viral sensation <although you could do a very fun viral campaign similar to what Pharrell did with his Happy song … Happy every hour>, but instead because people see themselves in it. It may not make me buy a Cruze <it will not>, but that does not make it an ineffective piece of communications.

It is good. And well done.

And I find it funny to know that people in their countries are just as ‘weird’ as I am as well as pretty much everyone I know.

Sometimes a great insight to develop great communications is NOT about ‘being different’ or ‘unique’ but rather in ‘we are not so different.’

Well.

That last sentence would drive a shitload of strategy thinkers to some heavy drinking <and lots of angst> and begin questioning their career. Strategy, or developing a good insight, is not some formula that anyone can pull out of some magical bag, or do, insights are called insights because someone sees something “in” that matters. Please note I didn’t suggest disruption or anything grandiose. All I suggested was that an insight is about having the sight to see something within life or people to highlight.

And not everyone has good eyesight.

In the end?

I say “well done Chevy.”

===

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,

it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us ….”

Charles Dickens (Tale of Two Cities)

===

This may be the most famous literary opening to a book of all time. Well. At least the first line.

I tend to believe everyone knows “it was the best of times … it was the worst of times.”, but I also tend to believe most people don’t know the rest. Especially “we had everything before us … we had nothing before us …”

My belief?

The thought you can have everything and nothing at the same time is a Life truth. Your experience of the moment depends on what you choose to focus on. Dickens has done an amazingly simple job outlining the contradiction, and tension, life gives us. I believe this opening sums up the contradictory nature of every year, and indeed every day, of our lives. How it suggests that good and evil, wisdom and ignorance, and light and darkness stand equally matched in their struggle. That while we truly have everything ahead of us at any point in life, life is simply an empty vessel to be filled with whatever that ‘everything’ may be.

It reminds you of the ‘perfect’ day (it was the best of times).

It reminds you of the imperfect day (it was the worst of times).

It reminds you of believing in dreams and the faith and trust that it will work out if you work hard and how you envision the outcome with all your heart and soul (it was the epoch of belief).

It reminds you of how incredulous life is in its abundance of splendour and surprise – both good and bad (it was the epoch of incredulity).

It reminds you of hope, hope for something good, or better than what is (it was the spring of hope).

It reminds you that sometimes hope is simply that, hope, and not a guarantee of reality or what will be (it was the winter of despair).

It reminds you that while we may want to always live life ‘in the moment’ and in the ‘now’ in an attempt to maximize what is …  lives and experiences and moments are built on duality.

I kind of think all of this is pretty important today as we seem to wallow in dystopia and fear. Its almost like we are ignoring dualities and submerging ourselves in only one aspect of “the times.” Sure. If we don’t experience the moments of sorrow or despair, we can’t fully appreciate the moments of hope attained and joy. But you can’t only focus on the despair and you shouldn’t disproportionately weight the despair.

Look. I believe people don’t have to revel in the duality, but possibly find solace, if not hope, within the duality. And possibly find joy in the contradiction rather than despair at the unevenness.

Failed dreams can beget new dreams.

New realities can lead to needed life changes.

Even in times of feeling like you have everything you desire <or at least a lot> you can still experience lack of something.

Regardless.

Many people have a view that a happy and fulfilling life should consist only of highs <or maybe better said … a significantly higher % of highs than lows>. , Or that a positive life should consist only of certainty <shelving fear and doubt in order to be successful>. Or should focus on success without failure.

This is flawed thinking in my mind.

Frankly it sets us up for disappointment.

Worse?

It probably sucks the life out of … well … life. It attempts to take the duality, or the importance thereof, out of Life.

No matter how you plan your day, year, or life, it will have times of the best, the worst, wisdom, foolishness, belief, incredulity, light, darkness, hope, despair, everything and nothing.

If you accept that fact, well,  it is awful hard to plan a life if that is the case. So maybe instead of planning we should just live it and enjoy the duality and the contradictions. That may sound a bit nuts in today’s world but i would argue it only sounds nuts because we are focusing too much on the despair and fear and ignoring the light, the hopes and dreams and the best humanity has to offer and actually gives on a daily basis.

Which leads me to end with another Dickens thought.

“In a word, I was too cowardly to do what I knew to be right, as I had been too cowardly to avoid doing what I knew to be wrong.”

Great Expectations

So. Maybe being a hero is to choose, actively decide, to not live a cowardly life. Maybe step into life and society and communities and accept what is right, and wrong, about Life and still, well, do what is the right thing <when you know it is right> and not doing the wrong thing <when you know it is wrong>. Maybe step into life and shove despair off to the side and embrace hope and dreams and possibilities.

Simple thought, but a difficult thought.

Well. Maybe just a thought. Ponder. This seems important.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein

===

“The more stupid one is, the closer one is to reality. The more stupid one is, the clearer one is. Stupidity is brief and artless, while intelligence squirms and hides itself. Intelligence is unprincipled, but stupidity is honest and straightforward.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

===

“Dumbing up” is taking dumb, simplistic, thinking and attempting to make it look smart. While I would like to claim credit for ‘dumbing up’ it is actually the name of a World Party album.

Dumbing up is never positive and it is almost always counterproductive. But. It sounds smart. It looks smart (when it is delivered in meme form). And there is almost always a grain of smartness within it.

My favorite example continues to be when someone says Leonardo Da Vinci said “simplicity is the highest form of sophistication.” Why is this dumbing up? Well. anything that generalizes simplicity is dumb. Simplicity is no more, and no less, than understandability. Second. Da Vinci never said this. And that is where dumbing up makes it bones – by attaching the simplistic dumbish twisted good idea to someone or something which credibly could be categorized as insightful, brilliant, genius, smart.

Which leads me to say dumbing up is the key to simplicity, branding, short term versus long term, organizational design, well, any complex topic in the world today.

Why do I say that? One of the signs of dumbing up is the implication that they are doing it to make it more ‘understandable’ to everyone. Dumbing up implies you are the smart one, not them. Yeah. Once again this is the alternative universe in making something dumb look smart. Like “It doesn’t matter unless there are results.” Another one of those vapid inane ‘dumb up’ comments. I mean, seriously, what does that mean? Results can be whatever you want them to be so meaning is meaningless to anyone but the result you decide to use.

Which leads me to businesses and organizations.

We have been floundering about attempting to showcase some metaphor for how a business actually works. To be fair. This metaphor rummaging exercise has the objective of changing a fairly persistent belief a business is a machine. But here is where dumbing up comes into play. Businesses are about people. Period. As James Carse said “a business is what people do together.” Period. No metaphor. Just, well, people interacting (conversations, connectivity, collaboration all cascade out of that simple sentence). But then we get dumb from there. From here on out we attach ecosystems, biology, bees, forests, fungus, networks, and a slew of other metaphors to dumb up the idea.

And here is where dumbing up shows its negative value underbelly. Businesses actually hear and see all the metaphors and either (a) get confused as “all that mumbo jumbo” and revert back to machine (because it is easy and can be easily attached to performative bullshit) or (b) lovingly embrace and ignore the substantive shit that really matters (people creating something, and things, of value, that is valued by the market).  Simplistically, in business, “dumbing up” promotes superficiality and undermines genuine expertise and understanding.

Which brings me back to simplicity.

Simple” and “simplicity” are related terms, but they have slightly different meanings. Simple refers to something that is easy to understand, uncomplicated, or straightforward. It can also mean something that is plain, without unnecessary embellishments or complexities. Simple unclutters for the mind to grasp. Simplicity refers to the quality or state of being simple. It can be used to describe a wide range of things, from the design of an object to the style of writing or speech. Simplicity implies a focus on the essentials and a rejection of unnecessary complexity or embellishment. It is often associated with elegance, efficiency, and clarity.

In summary, “simple” describes something that is easy to understand or uncomplicated, while “simplicity” is a broader concept that refers to the quality or state of being simple, unembellished, and focused on the essentials. Yeah. What I just described is Occam’s Razor. Say what is essential – nothing more and nothing less – not the least. And I end there because if there is a dumbing up example , it is Occam. The ‘dumb uppers’ use Occam to suggest simple is least. Occam never said that. He said “say the least that says the most.” The difference between the two is the difference between being dumb and smart. Ponder.