======================= 

“It’s easy to make a buck.

It’s a lot tougher to make a difference.” 

—–

Tom Brokaw  

============================ 

“In a dream world, everyone is treated with the same amount of respect. But until we reach that goal, I will lend my ear, I will lend my voice to any boy, girl, man or woman who does not feel like they can protect themselves.”

———-

Jennifer Lawrence

===========

Well. When you get to my age you sometimes pause and think “has anything I have done really made a difference.”

I tend to believe it is a reflective thing we naturally do because most of us have invested gobs of energy in some career, gobs of energy outside of the workplace with home & family responsibilities as well as gobs of energy in at least some ‘self fulfillment’ stuff.

We kind of want to assess life in maybe an ROI type way. That ROI idea may sound a little weird, but starting all the way in grade school where they pound into your head you should be involved in extracurricular activities <on top of schoolwork> all the way throughout your career you tend to measure your Life in an “energy-to-achievement” ratio way.

To be clear <part 1>.

We draft resumes being encouraged to espouse “differences we made on a business” wherein we take basic responsibilities, shit we are paid to do, and stretch it out into some dramatic outcome. Our professional lives seem to be driven into some simplistic ‘where I made a difference’ encapsulation which sadly derives it of the true rich & royal hues.

And, yeah, that matters. It matters because it is, more often than not, in those swirling colors where you personally find satisfaction – and meaning.  Yet, almost all of us distill our differences into simplistic black & white terms, or, in other words, we are encouraged to sell ourselves as “I am a good ROI.”

Now.

To be clear <part 2>.

This ‘pause & think’ isn’t about doubting any personal ability, or smarts or even accomplishments. I assume I am not that different than most people my age that I assume I have some ability, some smarts and some accomplishments.

The ‘pause & think’ is more about the ‘degree of.’

Am I really that good?

Am I really that smart?

Are my accomplishments really that good?

You start thinking about whether you have truly made a difference or if your “wins & accomplishments” were simply pedantic grind-it-out every day shit and that your losses were losses that didn’t mean anything anyway. Or, in other words, we are encouraged to think of our lives as “was I a good ROI.”

Now.

If you truly think about that you start thinking about what you have done and ROI.

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

“Hey, if I am going to lose, let me lose doing something.”

Sam Seaborne

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

Ok. I say all that because I received a couple of unexpected messages recently. The kind of messages that makes you pause & think … “maybe I did make a little bit of difference in some corner of the world”:

—————

Hi Bruce! I hope you’re doing well! It’s been a little while since we’ve talked. I just caught up with +++++ and a group of <college> students in Chicago last week. You set such a great example of leadership and teaching young people, including myself, a few years ago. I can only hope to have the same impact on this new group of students. I sincerely hope you’re doing well and I hope to keep in touch!

—————————–

Thank you so much, Bruce. You know I think about the day you pulled me into that little conference room at 151 W. 4th Street to tell me you were bringing me on to +++++++ – a lot. You saved my career that day. I will always be grateful to you for teaching me so much over the course of that year. Thank you for everything.

——————–

I am fairly sure no one gets a lot of these messages so I am fairly sure almost everyone cherishes them. They reflect some “return” on whatever we have invested.

But. You know. It is quite possible I look at ‘making a difference’ and my own personal ROI a little differently than a lot of other people. I know I would love to leave behind a legacy-like idea but, maybe more importantly, I would like to leave behind a legacy of ‘he made a difference’ – however that comes to Life.

That drives me and what I do and say <and write>.

The dilemma with pursuing thinking like this is while it has a high appeal for success <because it means ‘something’>, it is difficult, time consuming, <honestly> has a relatively low chance of success and is not the kind of thinking that really pays the bills. I imagine any life ‘purpose’ decision, combined with the fact you have to sustain and maintain everyday life responsibilities at exactly the same time, makes you ponder this unfortunate dilemma.

I can unequivocally state anyone who makes a conscious decision to ‘want to make a difference’ should make sure they think that decision through. It is not one to be made flippantly and while I shared a couple of notes which makes it all worthwhile to me, mostly you do not get much positive feedback.

That said.

I will offer a thought as you think about the dilemma.

Some guy named John William Atkinson wrote Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior in Psychological Review in 1957. He suggested that if you can choose the grade of complexity <difficulty> of a task most of the decisions are taken in a mid-complexity-level. Too easy tasks or too difficult tasks can neither provoke a strong feeling of satisfaction nor a strong disappointment and vice versa.

Highly motivated people often choose a realistic complexity of tasks whereas low motivated people choose tasks that are finally to easy or too difficult for them.

But. Here is where I think I would sit good ole JW Atkinson down and have a debate. If I set aside the fact bills have to be paid at some point, I would say he doesn’t give ‘appeal of success’ enough emphasis. Especially if the appeal of success is tied to “doing something” or maybe better said ‘doing something that may truly matter.’

Huh? As Sam Seaborne says “if I am gonna lose let me lose doing something.” What I mean is that if you consciously decide to ‘go big and win big <or lose big>’ your satisfaction criteria changes and, therefore, you are willing to plow your way through more complexity and difficulty.

Look. I don’t think I am different than most people. We all want to ‘do something.’ Deep in our heart of hearts we want to know that we have done something that matters. I imagine, in a ‘big impact’ thought kind of way, somewhere in all of us we would like to leave the world a better place than the way we found it <and everyone can define the extent of ‘better place’ in their own minds>.

A friend of mine once pointed out that this ‘go big ideal’ can often simply be making a smaller difference in someone’s life. He is right. And if that is as good as it gets, well, that ain’t bad. But sometimes the desire to ‘do something’ is bigger than individuals or individual moments. That doesn’t make it ‘better’; just bigger. Bigger as in my case I take ‘world’ literally and not figuratively.

That ‘bigger’ matters because Atkinson is suggesting that the size of the ‘do something’ legacy task can often lead to a complexity that increasingly makes it difficult to be successful <but the prize more tantalizing>. I think what he misses is that a desire to make a difference can mentally shake the motivation etch a sketch.

Anyway.

At some point I think we all make some decisions on whether to compromise ‘greater purpose’ versus ‘everyday grind it out needs & responsibilities.’ Day to day responsibilities <not just bills but true responsibility to others who count on you> is a real life factor in whatever you decide to do or not do. It’s not like you have a blank Life sheet and put on it “do something that matters.”

The sheet is never blank.

You have cars, mortgages, children, mates/partners, work obligations, general shit that needs to get done. In fact, if you think about it too much, you will start thinking “holy shit, I want to make a difference but how the hell does it all happen?”

Well.

In the kindest sense you learn to balance or juggle.

In its harshest sense you compromise.

I would argue far too many of us confuse those two things and more of us actually compromise than we juggle. And I fear compromising has left far too many people numb to life or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe, more specifically, numb to ‘doing something.’ or, maybe worse, numb to making a difference.

Me? I think I have always had some fear of that numbness if I end up compromising and avoid it like the plague.

I don’t know. What I DO know is that when you get to my age you focus a lot less on the ‘what did I do’ and ‘what did I not do’ and ‘compromise’, and a lot more on “difference achieved.”

Sure. I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. Learn. And have offered some value in all that.

But, today, I’m focused on “doing something that matters.”

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

“The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little.”

Thomas Merton

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

Did I really do something that can leave the world a better place?

Did I really do something that made a difference?

Atkinson is/was probably a shitload smarter than I, but I gotta tell ya … even with all of his complexity & poor likelihood to succeed thinking, well, in my mind if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big … something really big … something that matters in a big way … something that someone would know really made a difference … I think you gotta go for it. It sure seems like you would want to do something, anything, which lends a voice to those who aspire to greater things themselves.

I mean, what the hell, if, in the end, I am going to lose or look like a loser, I want to know I lost doing something. In my mind I want to work hard at making a difference so that at some point, when all is said and done, there was a bunch of people saying “I wish I had sent Bruce a note.”

‘Cause I don’t need the notes. I just need to know they felt like they should have. In other words. I made a difference.

Just to close off this thought:

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

“You know the Greeks didn’t write obituaries, they only asked one question after a man died, ‘Did he have passion?’”

quote from the movie Serendipity

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

Even at my age making a difference can happen starting today. As I wrote in my obituary post years ago:

An obituary is not about what you can undo from what is done.  You don’t undo. It’s about moving on.

That, my friends, is a big thought.

Because a lot of people want to go back and fix or ‘undo.’

 Once again.

 You can’t. 

But obituaries can be written at any time.  In fact.  Many obituaries are written … well … when they are written … and that means they are written with “what is” as the case and point.  I guess what I am suggesting is that you can choose to unburden yourself from the past at any point. The good, the bad, the indifferent … none really matter.

Write your obituary from today on.

In other words, start making a difference today if you have not already.

In other words, seek to maximize your ROI to the world around you.

=====

“Our culture made a virtue of living only as extroverts. We discouraged the inner journey, the quest for a center. So we lost our center and have to find it again.”

Anaïs Nin

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

I do know we certainly talk about it this way. Agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, whatever revolution. Internet 4.0 <implying 1.0 and upwards>. And we relentlessly tie #’s to people to show “growth” on this semi-linear journey.

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

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

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

From a grander narrative perspective this seems like I am suggesting who we were is what we are and what we will be. And, yeah, simplistically I imagine I am on some level. And if you buy that, conceptually, because all these electrons zooming around, because culture, and civilization, is made up of billions of ‘ones,’ it may often seem like we lose our ‘center.’

We really don’t.

Honest.

We don’t.

The center is always there. It is solid. It remains, and will always remain, the compass for that which is right. The nucleus holds it all together. However. What circles the center, the billions of ones with different demands and different needs and different likes and dislikes all of which desire different accoutrements for happiness, they never remain still and very often collide with each other.

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

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

And therein lies my point.

I disagree with Anais. Society, or civilization, doesn’t lose its center.

It cannot.

Why?

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

Because we, the ones, the individuals, don’t lose our center it’s just that sometimes we lose sight of it. Or we just cannot hear it on occasion.

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

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

I don’t really think it matters.

Because we don’t lose our center. The center is always there, it is within us, as individuals and as a whole. It is the 8 billion <give or take given the few raging assholes in the world whose center is in their ass> and it is within the ones and it is all the same center.

Call it the moral compass.

Call it the good that resides within everyone.

Call it ‘knowing what is right and what is wrong.’

Call it the soul of humanity.

But ever suggesting we lose our center?

C’mon.

We never LOSE it.

We may misplace it on occasion.

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

But we never lose it.

Which leads me to losing sight of the center.

Society is an abstract idea grounded in concrete norms, principles and beliefs. The problem is that the world has become less and less concrete and more and more abstract. This creates a societal shift in which structures that bound some individual choices, institutions and guard the valuable repetitions of routines and patterns of acceptable behavior struggle to maintain their shape long enough to let society gain some shape and structure. The cacophony of the world, and some of the tools bludgeoning society, deconstruct time and space so nothing can settle. Open societies have always been vulnerable to those in power (hands of fate), but in today’s world, a globalized world with a myriad of conflicting ‘hands of power’, many of the past certainties just can’t be obtained. So society and social life retracts not to some ‘center’, but rather to safety (they are often not the same). People hide within tribes, live behind walls, carry guns, and start embracing a number of activities and habits which simply increase the sense of disorder in the world through the paradox that the individual feels they are building order. The problem is all of these actions and activities are a function of the fact that a sense of fear is embedded within, stifling our ‘center,’ and, simultaneously, permeating daily routines, attitudes and mindsets. Circling back to fate, this gives us a sense fate will always strike without warning and is indifferent to not only us, but the order and certainty we are trying to construct for ourselves individually. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that infinite progress becomes unattainable in this situation as we substitute an uninterrupted game of finite objectives and tactics and our dreams get smaller and smaller. This all gets compounded by a governing elite which encourages us to believe there is no possibility of existential security through larger collective actions and shared interests. Instead, they encourage everyone to focus on individual survival, i.e., everyone for themselves, all cloaked in self-responsibility and individual expression. All this does is increase fragmentation and continue to tear apart the basic principles of collective action and shared interests and that tears apart our natural, human, center. Paradoxically, this creates some significant issues for governance. By encouraging all of this, society no longer believes they can be protected by the state or, at minimum, they are unlikely to trust the protection offered by those governing. As a consequence, the citizenry will encourage lashing out with military force or simplistic things like tariffs or isolationism as a reflection of an acceptance that there are certain forces that they cannot control and even worse there are no longer any hopes to be able to subdue the forces which could infringe upon individual survival. This is a negative mindset, negative against globalization, negativity against collective interest, negative against interdependence, basically negative against anything that optimizes or maximizes potential progress and prosperity and certainly negative against our ‘center.’ This is a world of despair. As Oscar Wilde said: “a map of the world that does not include utopia is not worth even glancing at for it leaves out the one country at which humanity is always landing. And when humanity lands there, it looks out and seeing a better country, sets sail.” Progress always resides in the chase of utopias never the realization. A utopia is always simply just an image of another universe different from the existing universe we know, or know of. What does this have to do with a quest for center? Well. The center of our being, collectively and individually, relentlessly anticipates a universe originated entirely through human imagination and human betterment. If you seek to leave a universe of grindingly monotonous life, you must imagine another world. It is at our center in which this imagination resides. Ponder.

==

“That proves you are unusual,” returned the Scarecrow; “and I am convinced that the only people worthy of consideration in this world are the unusual ones. For the common folks are like the leaves of a tree, and live and die unnoticed.”

The Land of Oz

---

“Men have become the tools of their tools.”

John Stuart Mill

==

Let me begin in an odd place. Progress is the inevitable increase in complexity. This means when we speak of a simpler past, in many ways, we are correct. The less things are connected, the more simple it is. And if there is one thing one could say about civilization’s progress, it is that we have been quite good at inventing things that connect us. The consequence of that progress is, well, increased complexity. This complexity has a variety of different consequences, but let’s focus on individuality today.

Which leads me to self-expression as a tool for individuality.

Today’s world demands that we each, individually, cultivate a habit of constant self-expression. More and more we are encouraged to ‘be yourself,’ “bring your whole self everywhere,” and more and more we are encouraged to become more aware of our ’emotional selves.’ This is encouraged whether we want to or not or whether it’s healthy or unhealthy with regard to the health of “me.” This happens because we live in a self-expressive culture and society. In addition, we are constantly encouraged to trust our instincts and our impulses above anything else. In other words, trust the things inside ‘me’ and distrust the forces outside that we perceive discourage our instincts and impulses or even suffocate what is best for me. All of this means self-expression is a weapon against a world attempting to make us less unusual, less distinct, and less of ‘me.’ I would argue this isn’t really a true battle’, but I don’t think it’s too far off to suggest that everyone wants to etch a sense of self in the walls of the world – through behaviors, habits, and attitudes. The trouble arises in that, paradoxically, self-love has a nasty tendency to encourage unhealthy focus on instincts and impulses. Unhealthy self-love isn’t always ego-ism, but it does encourage ignoring wisdom from others and the outside world. Along those lines, true love demands connectivity and through that connectivity it has a nice tendency to counter unhealthy instincts and impulses by balancing them out with what other people value. In fact, true love eliminates the distinction between me and you. I want to be careful with the word eliminating. I do not mean to suggest that ‘me’ is completely erased, but rather me has a reflective mirror with which to objectively and subjectively reflect upon itself. “Me’ becomes a bit of a blend of all the people one has met and all the conversations one has had. Its kind of like Hanzi Freinacht’s transvidualism. Anyway. In other words, your personal and unusual no longer reside solely in the purview of ‘me,’ but also in the context of the collective. I would argue this is where the healthy unusual resides.

Which leads me to ‘me’ and competition.

I don’t think it’s a big stretch to suggest society encourages competition as a means of maximizing one’s “me potential.” Well. That is fraught with peril. For example. In recent research lower social-class university students (and other adults) do worse than their higher-class counterparts on a reasoning task only when they’re led to focus on outperforming others. Competition, in other words, exacerbates social inequality. In other words, competition constrains potential.  I would posit this occurs because people with higher status, and wealth, believe life offers them more chances even if they get something wrong, while lower class people feel like there is less margin for error. I would also posit competition encourages ‘less unusual’ among the masses, i.e., conformity enhances probability of survival/some thriving, as well as encourages mediocrity. I would argue that in a competitive world, every ‘me’ must to start with where power lives. This is counter to self-reliance, self-responsibility and ‘power of me’ narratives because all of those things suggest you should think in terms of your influence on the world. Instead, in a competition-based world, you need to first and foremost understand your influence is in the hands of the existing power. This is painful to say, but there are no real independent individuals in this world. I would be remiss if didn’t point out technology has exacerbated this issue. Technology makes us feel more independent and, yet, the reality is it makes us more dependent upon other people’s opinions, attitudes, beliefs and input. We have, in other words, become tools of our tools. Which leads me to communities of unusual. Communities of unusuals may seem weird to suggest. And, to be clear, I am not suggesting a conformity of a certain type of unusual, but rather I am suggesting a coherent community of those who are unusual in some way. I suggest a community because when you are in groups, you can be very powerful. You can change things. You have confidence when things go wrong that you don’t when you’re on your own. It changes the concept of power. In fact, it is Grace Blakeley, at the end of Vulture Capitalism, who reminds everyone that when people work together, they have more power than any system.

Which leads me to eccentricity (the word most associated with unusual).

I, personally, do not believe unusual is equal to eccentric, but let me explore eccentricity a bit. I could find the only person to have looked into eccentricity: David Weeks, an Edinburgh psychiatrist and co-author of the 1995 book Eccentrics: A Study of Sanity and Strangeness. What he discovered during a ten-year study of 1,000 peculiar people < including a Chippewa Indian who walked everywhere backwards and two Californians who hypnotized frogs> might surprise you. I think most people believe that extreme eccentricity is a short step from serious mental disorder. But, in fact, Weeks’s subjects suffered less from mental illnesses such as depression than the majority of the population.

Fewer than 30 had ever been drug or alcohol abusers. He also found that eccentrics visit the doctor 20 times less often than most of us and, on average, live slightly longer.

The study conclusion? People benefited from non-conformity. Simply put, those who don’t repress their inner nature in the struggle to conform suffer less stress. Consequently, they are happier and their immune systems work more efficiently. Overall, Weeks found that eccentrics tend to be optimistic people with a highly developed, mischievous sense of humor, childlike curiosity and a drive to make the world a better place. Well. Kind of maybe makes you start thinking about envying eccentric people rather than laughing about them, huh?

Anyway. I believe eccentrics are the people who tend to see problems <and life> from new and unexpected angles.  Their slightly odd, off kilter, perspective allows them to conjure up innovative solutions. They are the visionaries, even within smaller individual life moments, who make giant imaginative leaps. Weeks, in his study write up, suggested maybe that like the occasional mutations that drive evolution, eccentrics may provide the unusual, untried ideas that allow human societies to progress. Not too shabby for folk who are very often dismissed as cranks and crazies and nutjobs.

“No new horror can be more terrible than the daily torture of the commonplace.”

H.P. Lovecraft

Which leads me to I am worried about the world.

Society, and communities, appear to have abolished any type of eccentricity <or individuality> within meaningful power positions. Society, which tends to dictate behaviors, seem designed to promote the rise of the ‘accepted and acceptable’ behavior.  Think about that. One can be fairly sure that you won’t find too many Teslas surfacing in the next few years as they are weeded out early by the application of standardized policies designed to produce standardized human beings. When I was younger it seemed like businesses had their share of quirky, slightly nutjob, people and they added color to the office. They added a dimension to the work, and workplace, which sometimes made a tough day better and a tough assignment less challenging. Not always, but at minimum it made the experience more interesting by far.

Anyway.

Look. I am not suggesting more people be eccentric, but maybe possibly less people should find conforming as important as they do. Maybe embrace being, well, unusual. That’s it. If for no other reason than a research study suggests you may be happier.

“Success is liking yourself, liking what you do, and liking how you do it.”

In the end I imagine the challenge remains that we reside in a world that glorifies individual success, yet, our greatest power lies in our ability to come together. A truly empowered and resilient society can only arise from a sense of unity and collective purpose, not self-interest. How can we reclaim the power of the collective without losing our sense of self? Maybe we should be asking how we can create more communities of unusual. Maybe it will be the communities of unusuals who will be most likely to have the ability to navigate increased complexity and ensure progress for civilization. Ponder.

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

But resounding with the truth of things prophesied,

But of things with truth resounds

Но    вещей    правдою  звучат

No v’eshchej   pravdoju   zvuchat

Its lips are covered with blood!

Lips covered with blood

Уста, запекшиеся  кровью!

Usta, zap’vekshi’esa krovju!

——

Ophelia’s Song: Alexander Bok

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

“Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.”

–

Leonardo da Vinci

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

59squared.

3,481.

3481squared.

12,117,361.

12,117,361squared.

1.5 billion.

That’s three degrees and I am at almost 1/5^th of the entire world. Yeah.  The numbers are really not that neat, but you get the point. With a single event, a single death, one person can set off a chain of events that will affect hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of people.

Some people call this “6 degrees of separation” <although I showed it to you as only 3>. I didn’t make up the squared concept. In some form or fashion it reflects the truth of the internet of things and connectedness and it shows the likelihood that the majority of us have some connection to any event in which 5, 59 or 559 people are part of.

I say this because it makes a lot of things, well, personal.  The main point here is that a person now has access and is aware of more people <true friends as well as web based friends> and can have more frequent communication due to the ‘digital revolution’.

Yet.

Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network <personal or professional> and friendships can be more expansively realized than before <it amplifies>. This means that truth resounds more quickly & clearly & bluntly than ever before. The other truth is that our own experiences, and Life, can then be at the mercy of crowds of friends & acquaintances — crowds providing unsolicited input & feedback & experiences all influencing hordes of additional people’s thoughts on a daily basis. This means whether you are present in one place, or not, you can be impacted in the present place you stand. You are a nomad in which the world remains your home.

Our world is now one large network consisting of two basic things – people and connections. And while many times we look at this as some forced or constructed network <Facebook, twitter, etc. provides hubs and constructs> the reality is that most people networks & connections are organically constructed. So while we like to draw out nice symmetrical shapes to define how connections work and networks are constructed the reality is that networks are more often not symmetrical.

The unique patterns in the connections determine the shapes. We reach out in asymmetrical ways to places, events and thoughts and bring them near in seconds. In addition the ties between the connections can be complicated – spanning from intense or passive.

In the business world we try to characterize networks and connections in a variety of ways. The trouble is that people are not that orderly and certainly not stagnant and they actively reshape their connections, interests and networks all the time.

But I am not here to discuss how the internet can, or cannot, affect personal relationships or a sense of individual isolation but rather this is a thought on how the internet can make things, and Life … well … smaller.

On most days the ‘quasi-truth’ that resounds in the echo chambers of what we talk about and ‘think we know’ is that the internet is isolating us … disconnects us from reality and social interaction.

So … is it possible that the internet increases connection and decreases connection at exactly the same time? Yup. The Internet connects and it isolates.

The usual assumption that most of us make about our computing and communication environment is that we are ‘always’ connected. Indeed, most of us are ‘nomads’ when it comes to computing and communications. We live in a disconnected world much of the time as we travel between our office, home, airport, hotel, car, coffee shop, bedroom, etc. We now recognize that access to computing and communications is necessary not only from one’s `home base’, but also while one is in transit and/or when one reaches one’s destination.

It is an anytime, anywhere access world. It is also, paradoxically, a ‘be anywhere at any time’ world.

That is the connected aspect which creates the whole disconnected aspect.

Well. Let’s just say we feel slightly disconnected in a connected way, of course, until something happens that tightens all the lines of connection.

It is within moments like that where the supposed 6 degrees of separation becomes less degrees and more links all of a sudden the 59squared aspect of connectedness occurs.

The world gets smaller … in fact … really fucking small.

We are brought together and something that happens to 5 people, maybe 59 people, or even 559 people, becomes an experience within our own grasp.

Which brings me back to truth and resounding.

The majority of our social networking constructs today are on the internet <or have a foundation on the internet>. Simplistically, we, the people, are connecting via the internet. What this means is that the internet muffles or amplifies our voices, events and truth <as well as lies unfortunately>.

What this means is that … well … an event, a moment, a death, an injury, resounds … resounds as in 59squared.

What THAT means is we have to face a truth whether we want to or not. Now. At that point we have a choice – see what we face or don’t see what we face. And if we refuse to face it we will remain disconnectedly connected in our little asymmetrical networks of friends & acquaintances.

That was a sad sentence to type.

At this point, my conclusion, I imagine it may be relevant to remind everyone of 59squared and the fact that I can do one thing, one right thing … or one wrong thing … and it will resound.

Choose your ‘one thing’ wisely.

==

“In a world with abundant computational resources where nothing is forgotten and where we are connected in pervasive, unexpected ways beyond our choice, it is reasonable to stop and ask ourselves just what kind of world we hope to create.”

Grady Booch

==

Generally speaking, how we ask ourselves what kind of world we hope to create will inevitably find that ‘how’ battling between two conflicting views. One view is that human beings are inherently altruistic and that greed and selfishness is not actually part of human nature, but rather constructed from the norms, and what is valued, of society. The other view is that human beings are centered on self and that the pursuit of self-interest is absolute. Unfortunately, this binary thinking creates some flawed structural thinking impeding how we can actually create the kind of world we hope to create. The flawed “how” creates a flawed foundation from which to build upon. What would help would be to understand people are neither inherently altruistic nor selfish. We are actually what researchers call conditional cooperators and altruistic punishers. I believe this is called ‘social reciprocity’ and is defined as a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish, even at a personal cost, if necessary, those who violate the norms of that cooperation. Reciprocity behavior is grounded in an inherent understanding that teamwork and cooperation and working with others will always create “more” than what one individual can create alone. I also believe that this binary framing conflicts against a general understanding that the most extreme, or purist, implementation of any ideology, model or belief system is not effective, i.e., effectiveness is not achieved through simplicity. For example. State run systems turn into bureaucratic nightmares and free market constructs lead to dysfunctional societies.

Which leads me to suggest, generally speaking, most people have reached a pragmatic consensus that markets and governments each have a role to play in society.

Despite this understanding the vacuum between is wretched. And it is within this vacuum within which society and humans and humanity continue to evolve typically at a snail’s pace – despite popular belief everything is rapidly changing. And even within this slow evolution there is conflict because humans get trapped in-between the fact we slowly evolve endosomatically, through our genes, and the fact there is a more rapid evolution exosomatically – through our culture. This conflict means that we will constantly drift from order to disorder, entropy and energy, self and collective, all wrapped up in an uncomfortable blanket of uncertainty.

Circling back to my opening, within this wretched inbetween we ask ourselves not only what world we want to create, but actually how to build it. Within this ‘how’ we enter into the next conflict: closed system versus open system. Closed systems always have a predictable end state. Humans like that. To be clear there will always be some unpredictable things occurring in the closed system. Regardless. All closed systems eventually find their future resides in entropy. Open systems are significantly more complicated and complex. They oscillate between stable equilibrium states and complex and unpredictable patterns far from any equilibrium (or anything that would be comfortable to greater society and people). Open systems are uncomfortable to people because if an open system continues to be fed energy and resources, it is impossible to predict its ultimate end state (or whether it will ever even reach an end state). People hate that kind of shit especially if they are thinking about how to create the world we hope to create. Unfortunately, the world, itself, is an open complex adaptive system – a system of interacting parts and pieces that adapt to each other and their environment over time.

Which leads me to what should we hope to create.

Let me begin with some economics. Ultimately, economically, the objective should always be helping poor people to get richer rather than economically punishing the rich This is easier said than done because it is never as simple as rich and non-rich. A bunch of things, and how people think, get bundled up in this discussion (individual power versus environment systemic issues being the main framing). That said. If we focus on non-punishment, then we just focus on a positive vision of growth which gets fairly distributed. And that conversation, in today’s world, gets warped in a confusion between value creation and value extraction. As Mariana Mazzucato said this has serious economic and social consequences. The main consequence is we would need to dismantle, in some form or fashion, how the existing economic system incentivizes, and rewards, those with power who thrive on extraction versus creation to offer value. Now I am going to get nerdy (but this is about what kind of world we hope to create, so …). At the core of this confusion is a misunderstanding of marginal utility. The marginal utility theory of value states that ‘all income is reward for a productive undertaking.’ Without saying anything else, I believe it is obvious that that is not the way our current economic system works. Well. Certainly for the majority of the working people. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Marx becomes essential reading on this. His labor theory of value was not simply an abstract idea, but an act of critique of the system. He asked, if labor produced value, why was labor continuing to live in poverty and misery? He asked, conversely if a group of people did not create value, how did they become so rich? I point that out because all of a sudden, a positive vision of growth then becomes a little bit more complex. What I mean by that is that there can be produced value growth and, separately, there can be individual wealth growth. I say that because we often look at GDP as tied to production growth in how we view whether the system is economically healthy (referring back to Mariana Mazzucato; it is not). The problem gets compounded by the fact that the outcome of production growth (as defined by today), and the growth and distribution of wealth – indirect & direct – created from that production, may actually be quite unhealthy for society. This isn’t to say that I don’t understand that everything must come from somewhere (extraction) and once something has been created it must actually go somewhere (distribution), but what we hope to create will need to be shaped from a reshaped system.

Which leads me to shaping.

If we seek to shape the world we want to create, we need to shape the extraction and distribution. By “shape” I only mean constraints, parameters and nudges; not direct activity. And, yes, shaping often refers to government. And therein lies the next conflict we need to resolve in order to create the world we hope. Does government enhance productivity and add value or does it hold back the economy because it is actually unproductive and can even destroy value? Once again, just as I stated at the beginning of this piece, the truth resides somewhere betwixt. Government, in and of itself, is not bad. Regardless of how you specifically define the role of government, I believe most of us can agree the future will always reside in some combination of reducing activities which inhibit the society and economy and increasing activities which more closely create a truly productive activity and a productive healthy society. Government has a role.

Which leads me to the mindset necessary in the kind of world we hope to create.

We need an adaptive mindset. An adaptive mindset is pragmatic while still embracing possibilities. It values doing shit over doing nothing and values tangible facts about today more than guesses about tomorrow. This mindset doesn’t expect that everything will work out as planned and prefers lots of smaller failures to big ones even while embracing “going big” over “going home.” This paradoxical thinking is willing to say we learned something new and now we need to change course. Basically, we learn by doing and to end up doing what is necessary to make progress. But maybe one of the unsaid things within an adaptive mindset is the fact that it embraces a belief energy potential is the key to pragmatism, possibilities, the present, and the future, i.e., energy is abundant and accessible – if you choose access it. This leverages an idea physicist James Prescott Joel: “nature, itself, is stingy with its energy and energy is neither created nor destroyed, but converted from one form into another.” I bring that to the forefront because what this suggests is that the energy within a system is one of the few guaranteed resources available. Energy always exists and if we want to create a world, we need to control and employ the existing energy. Which leads me back to an adaptive mindset (rather than talk about encouraging massive change). An adaptive mindset recognizes the pragmatic innovations in the present which can be leveraged to do the things to create the world we desire. This is helpful because it is always easier to create something from something rather than create from scratch. To be clear. This is not to suggest we should not challenge ‘the past imaginations.’ I would argue imagination is iterative thereby naturally inventing the future rather than resurrect the past. And from there we need to acknowledge that in the past almost all innovations, and imagination, were limited by their dependence upon nature in some form or fashion. Today’s innovations often strip the limits of nature often optimizing the potential of nature. Solar energy is the prime example of this. Anyway. With that we can begin to envision a world in which machines and technology result in an economy that “potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings.” (Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution, 1964). While this offers some possibilities, it also creates additional issues because machines produce, but do not consume (that’s the job of humans). And the warning here resides in Vonnegut’s Player Piano where we see a dystopian future of an automated economy in which an industrialized business world is managed by few technological elite who do the work while everyone else in society faces a meaningless existence and hopeless future. It is easy to pursue this dystopian thinking especially because advancing technology is clearly pushing us toward making business, and the economy, significantly less labor intensive. It is here I posit: but what would help is if we designed a world to which we purposefully shifted to. It seems like that is the path to make things work out for people rather than simply offer theories.

“but in the end, it did matter.”

In the end, let me remind everyone it was Marx who reminds us that capitalism inevitably creates its own grave diggers. Yeah. If we seek to find the kind of world we want to create, we will have to wrestle with capitalism. Why? Capitalism will always seek to innovate, but those innovations will almost always surround a more efficient productivity and production process. Neither of those things guarantee a more effective society or a better world for people nor create a world we hope for. And maybe that is where I will end. What world do we wanna create? I would suggest if we can imagine it, we can create it, but, uhm, we may need to destroy some things to do so. Ponder.

• ** postscript: “hoping to create” is a big idea, in a typically little idea world. What I mean by that is often the future is envisioned by ‘fixing’ the existing system or iterating from what exists. That’s, well, little idea thinking. A ‘bigger’ idea is thinking about what kind of world we want to create – and then go about creating it. But you gotta believe you can do something like that or, well, you get stuck in the little idea world.

I wrote this back in 2010 and have resurrected it with the news that Dan Hurley, currently the coach of defending NCAA basketball champions University of Connecticut, is talking with the Los Angeles Lakers about their open head coaching job. Regardless of how you slice this, life decision, career decision, ambition decision, or money decision, the money involved is a life changing salary. Coach Hurley, similar to Coach K as discussed in 2010, earns a salary the majority of us will never attain. Its a good salary. But he is now going to be offered money 99% of us cannot even imagine earning. As I tuck in later in the below piece – “you have to listen.”That said. My real point is that we often talk about how life is more than money, a career is more than money, and, well, money isn’t everything. All true; until is not. Sometimes the money is so ‘more’ that it suffocates all the other possible ‘mores.’ Ponder.

====

According to multiple media sources, the Russian billionaire (and owner of the NBA Nets) Prokhorov wanted to make a big splash by hiring Mike Krzyzewski as coach and GM (he has since turned them down). According to the report, Prokhorov was prepared to offer him $12-15 million (salary without extras) per season. Mike Krzyzewski’s 2009 salary as coach of the Duke Blue Devil’s men’s basketball team is $3.5 million.

When I read about this I started thinking about life changing career decisions. And mostly ones based on money. All I really can say to Coach K is if Mikhail Prokhorov is willing to pay that much, well Coach K, you should probably listen to the Nets’ job offer. Listening doesn’t cost a thing.

Because this is life changing money.

Look. Have I ever been offered 15 million a year? Nope.

But have I ever been offered twice or maybe 3 times as much as I was earning for a new job? Yup.

One sports announcer said “How could you not even at least consider it?  Its life changing”.

Now. To us little people it’s hard for us to fathom 3.5 million to 15 million (plus extras on both) as life changing. But 30k to 150k. Or 100k to 350k. Or 150k to 500k. You get it.

Yes. It is life changing. And it makes you evaluate what is important to you. And some people will argue “I will do it so that it frees me up to do something else later on.” And that kind of logic is as good as any I have heard. But. In the end. It is most often a life changing decision. And not just moneywise.

I did it once. I took the money. And it was wrong for me (that’s a personal decision and I am not suggesting everyone should think of it the same way). I ended up quitting to do what I felt was right for me.

Yes. I sacrificed a lot of money.

Yes. I thought about it afterwards.

Yes. I made the right decision (for me).

But that decision helped clarify some later decisions. And made some following similar decisions a little easier. But. Not easy … just easier.

Why just easier (and not making everything clearer down the road)?

Because Life changing money is just that. Life changing. And no matter how good you felt about the last decision you made if and when the next one rolls around a lot of money is a lot of money.

Should Coach k have listened?  Sure. Listening never hurts. Should he have taken it?  Well. That ain’t for me to say. He is a great college coach. I would envision just like the rest of us he thinks about what’s next when you have existing success. And then all the rest of things get put into the decision blender and you come out with a decision.

I guess my point here is about life changing money decisions. It is easy to say life and career is more than about money. That is until someone offers you double or triple or more what you are currently earning. Then money makes you forget about a lot of other things.

Coach K passed on this one. Does falling back on 3.5 million a year make it easier? Sure. I am sure it does. But 15 million is 15 million.

Making 4 times what you are already earning?

Gosh. Even at the most measly salary level that would make anyone pause and think.

Suffice it to say career choices, and decisions, are life decisions. Do not ever fool yourself into believing anything else. They are so intertwined it is difficult to separate. Especially when money is involved.

==

“And sometimes, against all odds, against all logic, we hope.”

==

It’s not that people should confuse fantasy and reality, but reality has depths and dimensions that go far beyond what can be seen. And it is within the depths of the less than obvious, the unforeseen, and the invisible within which the illogical and the improbable resides. There resides hope.

While, technically, hope is a simple definition, realistically hope spans a spectrum. In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version bookend of ‘offering a fantastical unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.” And then everything in between. Hope has many dimensions and within any and all dimensions even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size. Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities which can make that hope false. Now, false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality> in two ways:

• Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy; it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah.

False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah.

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

Yeah.

Someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something unrealistic, isn’t false hope, it is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

But, to be clear false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested, but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed. Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise. This is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

• False hope is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit.

False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective. How does that most often happen? You are more likely to make some smaller more impactful poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there. By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. Real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes.

Look. In the end. My point is hope is hope. And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up – any hope is better than no hope. It is the power to allow us to do things beyond logic and the odds. To be clear, all actions should be determined by reason, logic, and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.  But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hope is fraught with some potential falseness and some potential truth. That said. Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept and fortune, luck, hard work and preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore, to accept any hope, you have to accept the existence of possibilities.

But. Hope helps people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles and get shit done. Anyway. I read somewhere that the average person will meet 10,000 different people in their lifetime – 10,000 people with their own hopes waiting to be inspired by your hopes. And, maybe in that point, if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s pretty powerful. Ponder.

——————-

Don’t bring up the past of a person who is trying to improve their future

Please, do not stop people from reaching a good place in life because of things they cannot take back. It is so painful.

—-

via poesy

===========

When I saw this posted on a tumblr site it certainly made me think about how often we remind people of their past as a comparison to the good place they may be at today.

For some reason we must feel like the comparison makes the achievement more significant.

For some reason we must feel like we have to show a ‘from there to here’ journey in order to emphasize how far we believe someone has come.

For some reason we must feel like … well … talking about the past in order to emphasize something in the present.

But why?

The person certainly knows all this already.

The person most likely has no desire to revisit the past.

The person certainly reflects on the energy and commitment it took to where they are today.

I am sure we do it with the best intentions. But maybe those intentions are misguided.

I never really thought much about this until I read the opening thought and now I cannot stop thinking about it.

“Look how far you’ve come”

“Remember when you did <insert something>?

Wow.

Realistically, those are pretty shitty things to say to someone who has already put in the work, the effort, the mental fortitude to get to the good place they are in the here & now.

Why can’t we just enjoy the present as it is?

Why can’t we just celebrate what exists in the here & now?

Why can’t we just be happy with the person they are today without having to reflect on who they may have been?

The more I think about this the crappier it sounds.

I know I do it.

I know I often feel like offering perspective is an easy way to showcase the extent of some change I see.

I know I do so with good intentions.

And maybe that is a good and effective thing to do … maybe 80% of the time. Okay. Maybe 90% of the time.

But maybe that means 10% of the time I, and we, should ignore perspective and simply highlight the beauty of what is. And, frankly, accept that what is has value in and of itself.

I say that because a person who is trying to improve their future wants to feel joy and not pain. Or maybe better said … doesn’t need to be reminded of pain to feel joy.

So. Here is a thought.

The next time you run into someone you know is moving on to something better and is working really hard to improve their future treat the moment, the interaction, as a new place you have never visited before and explore it with the wonder of exploration and discovery.

===========

“Each moment is a place you’ve never been.”

Mark Strand

====

If you do this maybe you not only ignore the past but also will not confuse the moment with those silly semi-positive support-like platitudes like “keep going” or “the future you desire is now within your grasp.”

And maybe you help them reach a good place by simply enjoying the moment and enjoying who and what they are in that time and place.

All I know for sure is that having seen the opening quote and taking some time to think about it I will interact with someone who is trying to improve their future a little differently from this point on.

And I will certainly think long and hard before I bring up the past because, well, about the only thing it really does is bring up things left behind. I should assume if it has been left behind it is no longer needed.

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

“On s’engage, et puis – on voit.”

<you commit yourself, and then – you see.>

–

Napoleon

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

Commitment and patience and adaptation. I am fairly sure not a lot of business gurus put these three words together, however, the truth is the combination of these three ingredients is a powerful one.

Oddly it seems like not many of us learn this particular recipe.

First. How we engage. We tend to ‘commit’ one of two ways:

• tepidly. Oh. we claim 100% commitment but the majority of people are already investing in safety resources, redundancy protection and “what if” scenario making. In their words, their ‘commitment’ includes ‘committing to saving my ass’. We all do some aspects of this but we all need to recognize each ounce of energy on this is one less ounce of energy to whatever ‘commitment’ we have claimed to make.
• blinder commitment. Yeah. some people call this ‘focused commitment’, but that’s a nice way of saying ‘with blinders on’.

Second. We then tend to be less than patient. In fact I could suggest we are very often impatient in our engagement <but still committed to some plan>. I would suggest we often underestimate the value of doing nothing <and observing>. For some reason we attach ‘speed’ to engaging. That is a mistake. They are two distinctly different things.

Third. Adapting? Yikes. Paradoxically, if we do adapt, we would <in our eyes> bastardize the integrity of the structure of the commitment. Yes. For some reason many people see commitment in conflict with adapting. What this means is in most situations we are willing to stay the course with a plan … until the bitter end — “committed” in other words.

In business .many of us commit to a plan of action and believe staying the course creates the highest likelihood to succeed. And in our impatience we plow through opportunities to adapt. In other words, we don’t really ‘see’ … we just commit to a plan.

Now. To be clear. Napoleon also said “When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna.”

I share that because the commitment wasn’t to the plan, but rather to the objective. And there is a massive difference. I sometimes believe in business <and Life too I imagine> we confuse this.

We commit and don’t see.

We commit and implement.

We commit to the means <the plan> and not the end <the objective>.

That said. Why?

Now <part 1>.

This may also be a reflection of a ‘cover your ass’ world we live in. What? If I do what I committed to do <the plan> and it doesn’t achieve the objective, well, “Ain’t my fault. I did what I was told to do” <or “I stuck to the plan everyone agreed was the best plan of action”>.

Conversely (the risk). As soon as you “see” <things just don’t seem to be going the way we planned> after you have made the initial commitment and adapt the plan, well … oops, you have assumed some responsibility. You are now accountable for not following the plan.

Now <part 2>.

You can always mitigate that responsibility by going back to the “all those who agreed it was the best plan” people and saying “here is what I see now that we have actually committed … and I think we should adapt in this way <to increase the likelihood we will achieve our objective commitment>”. The problem with this is timeliness. You miss the opportunity to make the change when it should be made. I will note that Napoleon was a master of adapting the original commitment within the proper window of ‘adapting opportunity.’

Gaining consensus on adapting <or a change to a plan> is a frickin’ bear. Let’s call it almost impossible. For sure we can call it ‘less than timely.’ Bottom line. Shirking responsibility <covering you ass> takes time.

Regardless. Risk analysis is simply part of business. Always has been and always will be. And it should be. Running a business without doing so is simply chaos; not running a business.

However.

Eliminating risk is impossible. Only mitigating risk is possible. And I could argue that not adapting after committing actually increases risk. That said. This is about attitude & not risk mitigation so I will say I wish in today’s business world we would spend less time building ‘the perfect plan’ and instead build ‘the best plan we can’ and commit … and see.

Look.

I opened with a Napoleon quote because Napoleon won a shitload of battles. He wasn’t perfect and his planning and plans were significantly less than perfect.

But the dude knew how to commit.

He knew how to engage when the window of opportunity existed.

He knew how to ‘see’ <adapt>.

He knew how to keep his eye on the bigger commitment <the objective … see Vienna … take Vienna>.

He didn’t confuse committing to a plan and committing to an objective. Frankly, I believe we get confused on this far too often in business <even at some senior levels>. In my mind more business leaders should be saying ‘let’s commit … and see.’ And not just saying the words, but walking the walk so the implementers do not feel as if the plan is something etched in stone.

Adapting is part art <seeing information, data, research and feedback as it is absorbed and ‘feeling’ its momentum & conclusions – remember: statistics can lie as well as people can> and part science <making sure you actually see the most relevant information & feedback>.

I will say that effective commitment, thoughtful patience and opportunistic adapting is not for the faint of heart. You may not need be a Napoleon, but you do need some of his attitude.

Just remember the prize.

To the bold comes the fruits of victory.

==

“Style is the fashioning of power, the restraint of power. The administrator with a sense of style hates waste, the engineer with a sense of style economizes his material, the artisan with a sense of style prefers good work. Style is the ultimate morality of mind.”

Professor Whitehead quoted in Mary Parker Follett ‘professional standards developed and effected through group organization’

==

 “We can never wholly separate the human from the mechanical side .. you all see every day that the study of human relations in business and the study of operating are bound up together.”

Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration

==

We are surrounded by people who do things because the rules tell them to do so, a book told them to do so, some program or process tells them to do so, or simply because it’s the way “I have been told to do so.” This is one of those weird situations in which they are not wrong and wrong at the same time. Its kind of a mechanical way of going about things and it offers structural replication of things that are at the core of offering steady value day in and day out. Conversely, there are people with style. Maybe call it craftsmanship. Call it what you want, but it is style which unearths the potential in any situation in which mechanics are grinding out outcomes and consequences. And noodle that thought as much as you want, but be sure of one thing – humans, and human relations, is the only thing that can offer style. Technology cannot.

Which leads me to the enemy of style.

Technology, AI and data included, are the ultimate immorality of the mind. Let me be clear by ‘immoral’ in this case. It isn’t about ethics, its about stripping away any style. It’s the commodification of doing, thinking and attitudes (if not value creation). Algorithm design for mass usage tends to flatten. Lets call it digital flattening and data flattening. Style, associated with technology, demands both predictive and emergent paths and needs to purposefully encourage non-flattening. Style acknowledges the natural arc of flattening and creates a counterweight to that flattening. I am not suggesting style crafts an ideology (or tautology), but it can certainly enhance the desired behavior/attitudes and tamp down the less-than-desired aspects.

Which leads me to stupidity (a less-than-desired aspect).

A collection of people can be stupider than an individual, in fact, even more stupid, and, an individual can be stupider than a collection of people. The trick is always to find when one is smarter than the other.

Style demands some smartness, but business (and society) encourages people to be stupid. Now. To be clear. I am not suggesting people are stupid, just that we are encouraged to ‘follow along’ even when it feels stupid to do so. Hence, we lean in, far too often, on stupid; not smart. And then there is technology whispering in our ears.

The new patterns of interaction that are emerging in digital environments often blur the boundaries between self and system and between self and others, yet, we would be mistaken if we did not recognize the individual perspective, the “I”, anchors the sense of experience in conceptual thinking and the collective (connection with others) anchors our sense of meaning. I imagine my point is that while making a point about stupid and smart the real point is that the key to style will always be a connection, and interaction, of self and others and by recognizing that a business decreases the odds it will be stupid and increases the odds it will be smart. In fact, I would argue, that it is within style that a business, a group of people, or any system in general, becomes ‘smart.’ Ponder.