=========

“The one who wishes to wear the crown … must bear its weight …”

Kim Tan

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

Not all of us actually seek to wear a crown. Well. Maybe not a crown as the queen or king of something or some leadership spot, but I would argue that anyone who decides progress is good will seek out a crown on occasion.

Here is what I mean.

We all wish for something more than what we have. It is kind of inherent into who and what we are as people. Its not that we are perpetually dissatisfied with where we are and what we have, it’s just that there is an inner urge to discover ‘the best version of yourself’ <or at least a better version than who you are at the moment>.

Now.

I would suggest part of that best version of ourselves encompasses how we pursue “more” and how we assume the responsibility, or burden, associated with the “more” <whatever it is> in our lives. And to discover our ‘hows’, well, you gotta push out on current and existing limitations. In other words you gotta look around for a new crown to wear.

While I assume the quote I used most likely was in reference to a person in charge who will have to take responsibility for everything that leadership <the heavy burden of responsibility>, I would suggest that crowns are crowns and the burden is always a weight.

Once you assume a crown … well … assume that any little thing that goes wrong is your fault. You can have a family behind you, a team behind you, a population behind you, but when the shit hits the fan everyone looks to the one with the crown. Crowns mean you are responsible not just for the direction of efforts, and the efforts themselves, but also the outcomes, good and bad, or any and all efforts.

And while many could look at what I just wrote and say “oh, that is personal responsibility” <taking ownership of you actions & words> I would argue that there is absolutely personal responsibility and then there is crown responsibility. They are different.

Look.

There are many different types of crown in Life.

Shit.

Crowns come in all sizes and shapes.

Power, leadership, fame, family, wealth, relationships, love, the list is pretty extensive. But all have something in common. Once you pick one crown to wear, you must be ready for its consequences.

I believe it was Woody Allen who said that 80% of success in life is showing up. I would suggest the other 20% of success is how well you bear the actual burden of the crowns you wear. And, I would note, part of that burden is how well you actually push opportunity to others now that you have that crown. I say that because crown wearing is not just about problem solving or ‘leading’ or even “I” type things, it actually contains some “what am I going to do for you” type aspects.

Yeah.

Sure.

Leadership is one crown. And whether the crown wearer actually fulfills the responsibility well or not, I tend to believe anyone seeking to wear the leadership crown understands that there is a burden that comes along with it and almost all the different aspects of that burden that come along with it. They may not meet the burden, but they damn well sure know there will be a burden with the crown.

Responsibility and leadership is a well-recognized burden.

But all the other crowns?

All the other crowns are a little sneakier. Sometimes I think we forget some of the choices we make represent the fact that someone has just placed a crown upon our head.

Shit.

In fact.

Sometimes I think we actually don’t like to think of some of these choices as a “putting on a crown’ type choice.

What I mean by that is we purposefully ignore the crown.

I believe we mostly do that because it is nice to think of a choice as a choice and isolate whatever burden or responsibility we feel we should assume to that moment in time and that choice. Crowns mean … well … ongoing burden.

I tend to believe more of us, even the ones who really do not go seeking crowns, should think of more choices as moments in which a crown is placed upon us. Maybe then we would view some choices a little differently, maybe add a little more gravitas to a choice, and certainly add a little more truth to the reality of our lives. Hmmmmm … and maybe that is why wearing a crown can be a burden. You are accepting some truth. And truth, in and of itself, is a burden.

Anyway.

We all wear crowns.

And, in some way and in some situations, you actually wish to wear that particular crown. It would probably do more of us some good to admit this as truth, accept the misery it will most likely place upon you in additional responsibility and understand that this understanding will ultimately set you free to rule that particular aspect of your Life just a little bit better than before.

Ponder.

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

James A. Garfield:

“The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.”

=======

“I am the sea and nobody owns me.”

Pippi Longstocking

======

i would fight myself if i could

(letthechipsfallwheretheymay)

========

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

It can be direct or it can be indirect.

It can be consciously or subconsciously.

To be clear.

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

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

So what do I mean by a self thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what do we do when that happens?

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

Ponder.

————————

Come as you are, as you were

As I want you to be

As a friend, as a friend

As a known enemy

Take your time, hurry up

The choice is yours, don’t be late

“come as you are”: Nirvana

————————–

The world, and society, can make Life a bitch to live sometimes.

Be yourself … but behave like we want you to behave.

Think for yourself … but here is how we think you should think.

Be different … but remember we love consistency.

The world expects you to be an individual and even encourages uniqueness in a variety of ways and, yet, encourages a high degree of sameness, i.e., conformity. All the expectations create a shitload of personal conflict on what to do, how to act and what is right & wrong.

The lines in all of this are thin. Frightfully thin. And, yet, day in and day out we are often walking this thin line.

Life can also throw in an additional curveball.

While encouraging you to believe that the choice, and choices, are all yours to make, uhm, it also says don’t be late. In other words, take your time, but hurry up. Life suggests you make your choices wisely, but fast. Let us call this “patient urgency” or maybe even “make haste slowly“. As a consequence of this constant suggestion to hurry up, we tend to lean on past experiences.

Uh oh <part 1>. There is a gap between the actual experience and the memory of the experience. Experience, more often than not, is complex while our memory, more often than not, is simplified into some executive summary of the experience <let’s call it a memory imprint>.

Uh oh <part 2>. There may actually be a gap between the complexities in reality and our ability to realistically experience it. Let’s just say that we tend to view reality heuristically <mainly because of that ‘make your choice but hurry’ thing>, i.e., shortcut thinking. What this means is that we don’t truly see reality, but rather a simplified translation. Unfortunately, this simplified version naturally incorporates some blind spots and lots of mis-perceptions. In other words, we often see what we want to see, not what really is.

<note: there is a boatload of research on this>

Suffice it to say all of this makes Life complicated.

It makes being yourself, while trying to understand who you really are, complicated. And it gets even more complicated by the whole “don’t be late on choices” because it means relying on past experiences and judging off of past outcomes which, unfortunately, none of which are reflective of the here & now choice.

What does this all come down to? Us. In order to survive we recognize our only friend is us and our only enemy is us. We battle against … well … us … as Life looks on and chuckles.

We simplify only to find it is complex.

We seek consistency only to realize ignoring change is actually a threat.

All that said.

I loved the line “come as you are, come as you were.” Day in and day out we change little by little. We come as we are as well as come as we were basically accumulating and deleting day by day. If you think about this, I imagine a relatively intelligent person would start questioning why you would base any choice off of some past experience.

And therein lies the answer to why Life can be such a bitch to live.

Like it or not each choice is mutually exclusive. Each choice has some expiration time <of which is rarely printed on the choice>. In addition. Each choice is influenced by two people – the friend and enemy within you.

Sound fucked up? Well. All you can do is, well, come as you are and make your choice best as you can. Ponder.

===

“When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is.”

Oscar Wilde

—-

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Milton Friedman

===

I’ve been meaning to write about the American debt, balancing the budget, taxes and the asshat politicians who screw up the entire conversation. Let me begin by saying government finances are dynamic amorphous beings that live, eat, and breathe and, yet, we essentially simplify (dumb down) everything into some spreadsheet as if there are no humans involved. Suffice it to say effective government finance is most successful when using a combination of austerity and investment. I will discuss both.

Which leads me to say discussing money on a personal level is uncomfortable at best.

Discussing money, and deficits and debt, on a country or government level isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s often absurd. It becomes absurd mostly because the easiest way for everyday schmucks like me to try and understand governmental finances is to conceptually think about it on a household level, i.e., thinking of a government budget & expenditures at kind of a micro level assuming that it translates to the macro level. This conceptual thinking is not only fraught with peril; it is flawed. Because it is flawed the larger dialogue <mostly driven by politicians> becomes useless and more often misdirected. Economists try and explain the complex dynamics within a framework where there are few absolutes. Politicians try and explain it, okay, they don’t. They simply do whatever is needed to gain and stay in power and trot out the simplistic garbage believing that using the household finance analogy will help overcome the vast difference between a country’s finances and the ordinary voter’s household. Let me just say this. while its more complex then kitchen table budgets, the main problem is what people want – lower taxes, lower debt/deficits, more services/growth – is mathematically impossible; and no one will tell the people that.

Its not simple. Complex dynamic systems need complex dynamic solutions. We may seek simplicity. We may suggest we need simplicity. And the reality is only complexity will maintain progress. Solutions will reside in cuts AND spending, cutting government AND adding government**, public investment AND private investment.

• ** note: I believe it was Noah Smith who noted that in order to facilitate infrastructure building and public/private investments so that things get done efficiently with an effective use of funds, specific government expertise is needed.

Which leads me to say the current debt is unsustainable.

We have to do something. This has become exponentially more difficult with the fact there’s been an incredible decline in what I would consider integrative awareness and thinking, which has led to a focus on specific tactics rather than overarching strategies, Combined with a general attitude that enabling business to do whatever they want to make money. That last attitude leans into a slightly absurd or at least misguided belief that business growth and its increased wealth always translates into a fair distribution of that growth and wealth so that it is shared in some form or fashion. Exacerbating all of that is that we don’t have a central vision for what could unify Any tactics which would possibly lower debt and structurally increase the likelihood of shared growth and wealth.

So let me offer up an idea. My idea objective is not to balance the budget, but to actually decrease dependency upon debt and make deficits manageable enough to optimize available resources toward what is best for the United States. With that said:

1. I would adopt some budget reductionary aspects. I hesitate to call this austerity I would prefer to just call it budgetary responsibility. Without knowing all the details one of the first things that the government could do is to access all unspent funds and funding, i.e., claw back money from existing programs. Not truly committed funds, but the ones that have been allocated and are just lying dormant waiting to be spent. Currently several sources suggest there is about $1 trillion of uncommitted funds (please note this # is estimated and there is no solid one source for a number). For example, the recent border wall appropriated funds could have been, as the Biden administration requested, diverted to other priorities or even just cut because they hadn’t been used yet. Or. There is approximately $56billion of COVID funds unused. Or, well, the list is fairly extensive as you would imagine. So existing programs would maintain their current funding budgets and balance sheet surpluses would be defaulted back to the government. In addition to that I would cut some budgets. The easiest way to do that would be to actually run an audit of all programs and just cut waste. My guess would be is that budgets would decrease, but the programs would not. I would begin there and then adjust with the objective to maintain as many of the social support programs as possible.
2. I would I would get rid of the tax cuts that were implemented during the Trump Administration. Just go back to the old tax structure. That would increase some revenue, but would not involve a complete overhaul of the tax system. That said if there was a way to be able to incrementally change the tax system in order to increase revenue without disproportionately affecting lower income and middle-class income; I would do that. Maybe we do need to increase taxes (although I am willing to suggest this is simply by eliminating loopholes so this is really just saying “tax revenue will increase because we will now have those who should be paying taxes pay taxes”), But I believe there are steps to take before deciding to do that.
3. I would do a one time, one year only, tax on the entire population to correct the budget’s original sin. The original sin was not having tax dollars pay for the Iraq War. The upfront cost was $75billion-ish and the total cost was $1.9trillion-ish. Let’s call the one-time tax objective as $950 billion and call it a day. I’m not an economist so I have not run the numbers, but I would imagine something slightly less than 1%, remember, only one year, additional tax on all income tax returns would most likely be sufficient to pay for the costs of the Iraq War therefore lowering debt and deficit I believe.
4. I would do a two year “tax the wealthy” (some economist identify the %) and those funds would not go into the general revenue pot for the government, but rather a specific fund for infrastructure programs (industrial policy items). This two-year tax would be to fund something specific from which the entire nation would benefit – like essential manufacturing for technology and defense – thereby actually benefiting this wealthy class in the long run. But I would have a sunset date, a specific tax, and I would aggressively tax that percentage against all possible participants in this subgroup AND I would permit anyone taxed to be able to monitor/review how funds were being invested.
5. I would also add a line item on tax returns with a small menu of additional tax options which taxpayers could if they elect to opt in to pay additional taxes. I would do this attached to very small percentages possibly even fractions of percentages tied to very specific things and funding. I’ve always believed the majority of philanthropic organizations are at worst scams in a dust inefficient use of money. So, I am suggesting that we make government compete against some of those choices and donations. Do I know if many people would actually choose to increase their taxes? Nope. Do I believe it increases the likelihood some people do if I tie it to a specific funding for a particular thing? Yes do I care that this could decrease funding and donations to some philanthropic like organizations? No. On this last idea I see no downside. We try it and see if it works.

These are ideas to lower debt, but I imagine my intent is to reset the budget rather than try to have a long-term correction. Generally speaking, I do believe America needs to come to grips with a variety of issues which ultimately affect our economic standing, budget spending and allocation. A downsizing, or right sizing, of the government, eliminate some bureaucracy, streamline some of the regulations, and consolidate some different departments. We need to agree that not all debt is created equal and that debt incurred to build is actually debt with an ROI. We need to agree on what the social contract between business, society, and workers is. Certainly, we need to figure out regulation and oversight of the technological world. we need to enable restructuring of corporations (and their balance sheets) so they can become more dynamic, more globally resilient, and set up to collaborate emerge and dissolve and reconfigure continuously according to the flows of value creation that not only benefit the business, but benefit the security of the United States. I imagine in the end I have a slightly utopian hope that a new society, a new government, and a new nation view emerges which develops from new relationships between production, power, humanity, the social contract, and the overall experience of being the United States citizen.

I do believe we need to get a grip on manufacturing. By that I do not mean ‘re-shoring,’ or even cutting all ties with China and certainly do not mean bringing back’ all manufacturing, being isolationist, or disconnect from the transnational, interconnected, global business world. But we do need to insure we have enough manufacturing capability to (a) ensure defense needs in times of supply chain turmoil and (b) enough domestic manufacturing of key items to insure resilience in the midst of global supply chain turmoil. That is suggesting some version of governmental industrial policy, not just invisible hand, free market, wishful thinking for industrial growth due to ‘American exceptionalism’ and entrepreneurship. To make this all work AND to lower debt, we need to actively shape the future we want.

In the end we need all these things.

We do need to spend.

We do need to cut spending.

We need to reduce overall debt.

We need to incur some debt.

We need to cut back on government involvement.

We need to increase government involvement.

We need all of those things.

To be clear, our situation is a confluence of factors and as such the solution will take a combination of factors. And that combination will include some things a lot of people will be really unhappy with. But. Everyone will find something to be unhappy about. That’s the gig, live with it. Ponder.

“just because you didn’t speak the facts out loud didn’t erase their existence. silence was just a quieter way to lie.”

I am fairly sure I found these words on Tumblr.  I don’t remember the frame of reference, but I wrote down the words because, well, to be honest, I don’t really give a shit about the frame of reference because it defines the ‘silent lie’ better than anything else I have ever seen.

“silence was just a quieter way to lie.”

Boy oh boy.

Gut punch thought.

I guess the funny thing is truth is truth whether it is spoken or silent.

So why wouldn’t a lie be exactly the same?

A lie’s existence is not defined by words or lack of words; it is defined by whether it exists or not.

Maybe I say this because anything that exists can take on a life of its own.

It breathes and lives and, well, it actually eats.  It eats away at your thoughts and, if you are unfortunate, it eats away at your soul. And if a lie exists, then it does all that.

Frankly, I am not sure you can ever kill a lie. Even by eventually speaking the truth. I believe even in that case it doesn’t cease to exist, but maybe by speaking it, well, it attains a more tangible form.  And maybe that makes it easier to accept. Ok. Maybe, more accurately, not accept.  Ok. Maybe it’s just live with it.

So if I believe that, when does a lie stop existing? When does it take its last breath?

Well.

I actually believe they take their last breath the same time you do. Yup. I believe lies are things you carry with you until the end of your days. You cannot erase their existence by ‘speaking the facts out loud.’ Uneraseable they remain and are one of Life’s burdens.

Look. I imagine we all lie at some point or another.

A white lie.  A lie of omission. A lie of silence. A lie of words. I personally don’t believe Life weighs lies. What I mean by that is there are no ‘big lies’ and ‘little lies’ I just believe Life counts them all simply as lies.

So.

Maybe the measure of our life is how many lies take their last breath when we do at the end. That seems important to ponder a bit.

I have “seek truth” in my office.

I believe in speaking the truth.

I believe the truth is the only path to a clear conscience.

I believe truth has consequences just as non-truth can have consequences.

And then a reader on enlightened conflict reminded me that even the truth can be twisted.

Rodrigo commented:

While reading this part: “And to some extent he is saying all the correct things. But he is not correct.” I remembered one of the best ads I have ever seen.

It is from a major brazillian news paper (Folha de São Paulo). I found one with english subtitles… it gives me goosebumps everytime I see. I am sure you will like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqA6HcxgcY

First.

It is a fabulous ad. But maybe more important is the lesson that lies within.

He is saying all the correct things, but he is not correct.

Second.

Truth is sometimes not the whole truth.

Context and perspective is needed to share “real & absolute truth.”

Truth is the sum of accurate information … not just some of the accurate information:

“I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.”

Margaret Mead

It is a tricky world we live in.

The ad reminds us it has ALWAYS been a tricky world.

Discerning the real truth among the seeming truth takes work.

A lot of work.

And I sometimes believe we people are lazy when it comes to truth.

Because we are just too lazy to attach facts to the soundbite truth we latch on to.

And, once again, I do not believe it is simply a present issue (albeit that is the one we should be most concerned with) it is a lifelong human issue, but seemingly a bit more ominous an issue in the present.

Truth and facts.

“The national argument right now is, one, who’s got the truth and, two, who’s got the fact. Until we can manage to get the two of them back together again, we’re not going to make much progress.”

This was Michael Adams, lexicology professor at North Carolina State University, discussing the neologism “truthiness”, defined as “the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts” in “Linguists Vote ‘Truthiness’ Word of 2005”, AP via Yahoo! News, (6 January 2006)]

Here is a fact. A truth I may add.

We all need truth goggles.

Because we all want to hear what we all want to hear.

And it is easy to take the ‘easy truth.’

But truth takes a discerning ear.

And it takes some work … by using a filter.

From Buffy the Vampire Slayer (who thought I would ever use a quote from there, huh?):

What do you want me to say?

• Buffy: Lie to me.

The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.

• Buffy: Liar.

Simplistic but a good lesson for all of us.

The good guys are difficult to discern from the bad guys.

Therefore truth is difficult to discern.

And if we cannot discern the difference between the good guys truth and the bad guys truth, how the hell can we discern the difference between 2 good guys truth.

What do I mean?

Well.  Think about the current American politics. Shit. Or Brazilian politics.  Or European politics.

Are these all “bad guys”? Certainly not. They mean well. They want good things (mostly). So how the hell do we discern the truth as they give us soundbite after soundbite.

There is even a website called Snopes (excellent) which is all about “sorting out the truth.”

Ok. In some warped way this bothers me. We need someone to “sort out the truth” for us?  Is it supposed to be this complicated? Isn’t ‘truth’ supposed to be simple?

Sorry Bruce, but it isn’t.

And maybe that just bothered me, but here is what scares me.

I have an increasing sense that the majority doesn’t care to learn the real truth.

Remember. At one point in the 2012 US election cycle 47% of US population could not name a Republican candidate. Uhm. 47%.

If we don’t care, if we are this apathetic, how the hell can we ever discern the truth?

So let me tell you what scares me the most when I think about this factoid (among others).

That Brazilian newspaper ad.

And where truth and ignorance collide.

If we cannot discern good guys from bad guys.

If we don’t even put the effort forth to learn who the good guys are from the bad guys.

If we cannot discern real truth.

If we don’t even put forth the effort to discern the real truth.

If we allow ignorance to overcome truth.

And if we allow someone who says all the correct things but is not correct to become a leader?

Well. Shame on us. All of us. We have permitted ignorance & indolence to win over truth.

I say all this because truth is important.

Not just in terms of self.  But in terms of the world all of our ‘selves’ reside in. it impacts how we live and where we live and what kind of world we live in. Let’s call that consequences.

Take the time to attach real facts to spoken ‘truth.’

Become invested in truth.

For ‘not being invested in truth’ has consequences.

Yeah.

I will say it again.

Truth takes work, but seek truth. It leads to goodness & better things. Those are good consequences. The alternative consequences are, well, bad (or not as good).

Truth. As Taoism will remind you … you have a choice. Which will you choose? Ponder.

“Choosing to be one who just wants to live to be old or instead being true.”

———–

===

“More and more I’ve become convinced that the great treasure to possess is the unknown.”

P. L. Travers

———–

Ok. We spend a lot of time in today’s world discussing a couple of things:

– Wealth:

accumulation and what is too much, who deserves what and what is valuable

It is natural to want to have a ‘treasure chest.’ And it is natural to look at other people’s treasures.

– Measurable outcomes:

objectives, milestones, tangible proof points

It is natural that in a world where pretty much everything seems in flux that we want to have some things that are tangible to measure progress and ‘what is.’

I begin there to suggest maybe because we are so obsessed with those things we over look that maybe the greatest treasure we possess is the unknown.

Uhm.

The unknown?

What could be … and what will be.

In other words – possibilities (not certainties).

I know. I know.

That is crazy talk.

Ok. Maybe it is a crazy thought.

How can something that isn’t real <yet> or something that you can’t articulate or hold or show be the greatest treasure?

This kind of suggests that curiosity is a valuable characteristic <not necessarily actual knowledge>.

This kind of suggests is what you don’t know is more valuable than what you do know.

This kind of suggests the highest value, and valued, things in Life aren’t what you currently have but something that could be presented to you n the future.

Regardless.

I imagine there has to be some balance (or at least proportional) between pragmatism and possibilities and between curiosity & knowledge <unknown and known>

That said. Within that balance, the liminal space or maybe the space between here and there I also would suggest resides a some sense of courage. Courage to accept the unknown, i.e., that there is nothing but this uncomfortable space called ‘the unknown’ <and some hope that something will be known at some point> and yet you can accept at some point that all is lost … and yet you forge on.

————-

“Nothing is lost if one has the courage to proclaim that all is lost and we must begin anew.”

Cortázar

————–

Yes.

I know.

It is quite possible I am making unknown sound daunting and with some taint of being lost or, worse, being nowhere, but in that possibility resides something. Something like … the bliss found in the unknown and the search and discovery of things yet to be known, uhm, possibilities.

Yes.

Yes.

I understand that the point of the quote isn’t really about residing in a world where one is completed blanketed in unknown but rather that there is a treasure to be found in things yet to be learned and explored and experienced. But I purposefully put an edge on the thought to make a point.

The point is that we put a really high value on ‘known’ in today’s world.

How much you know.

How much people can see what you know.

This means that we put a really high negative price toward what is unknown in today’s world. We make it clearly a personal deficiency or a ‘less than’ feature and often suggest unknown makes a person flawed in some way.

And both of those things are true from a societal judgement perspective.

Society does not make it easy to embrace unknown as a treasure.

Therefore to choose to think of unknown as a great treasure to possess you need to be prepared to often walk the path alone with many people pointing fingers at you <wagging usually> and many others deciding that you have failed in some way.

It is not failure. It is a choice.

A choice to believe that the Unknown is a treasure.

Ponder.

=====

“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.”

Henry Clay

====

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

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

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

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

This is an eternal issue.

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

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

I get all that.

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

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

Yeah. On that last one.

==========

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

Gregg Easterbrook

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory

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

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

<ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>

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

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

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

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

Say what?

=====

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

Robert Heinlein

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

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

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

Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuts.

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

Uh oh (again).

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

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

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

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

And make a decision.

And not let statistics make the decision for you.

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

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

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

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

Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.

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

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

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

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

Sound harsh?

As harsh as this?

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

David Ogilvy

Harsh.

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

===

“Do you admire men of principle? That would depend, I suppose, upon what set of principles you’re speaking of.” Well. Don’t you find that principles inject an almost moribund inflexibility in the people who subscribe to them?”

The Hollow Men

===

“People do not seem to realise that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

===

I know optimists, pessimists, utopians, dystopians, skeptical, cynical and everything in-between. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that the bleak in the world seems more appealing to far more people than the hopeful. Regardless. Ralph has a point. Your opinion of the world is a glimpse into your character, or at least, how you go about your own business of the business of living life. And maybe that is something to reflect upon a bit. If you buy into the thought of an indifferent but bleakish, more unkind than kind, world, more than even thinking about doing or not doing, we should be thinking about the world in which WE reside, exist, survive or get the life sucked out of us. In other words, how we control our environment, i.e., the context in which we will have to make all those 30,000 daily choices. Uhm. In this case context is mindset.

So, the thought here is if the world is indifferent than it is also malleable to context – not the overall arc. In other words, you can shape, in some form or fashion, your situation. Not everything, but some things. In fact. I would argue that this is also a sliding scale in that in some situations you can control a shitload and in others you are hanging on for dear life to the few things you can control. But. Control is control and, especially if the world in indifferent, controlling some shit is better than controlling no shit.

Which leads me to controlling your attitude.

Here is a weird thought. Many people find the thought of the world being indifferent, well, an uncomfortable thought. So, they actively seek out narratives to explain the world in some weird ways. While the truth is that the world is increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to ‘see’ causes while there are hurricanes of effects buffeting us, we seek simplicity and simple answers. Its natural. But if your ‘simplicity’ is always zero-sum world, dystopia, greed, all the bad stuff, your simplicity is like exponential gravity and the arc of your world resides in a pretty dark place. I am not suggesting you immediately swing into some Pollyannish head space, but if you don’t believe things can be better, well, it is unlikely to get better.

“because of you the days to come will be better than the days before this one.”

Which leads me to failing.

In my mind, having an opinion of the world and your opinion of failing, or failure, has a direct connection. In Choose the Right Word by Hayakawa (almost my bible of word descriptions) “failing” fell under Flaw <wow … I could write an entire book over that little insight>. Flaw has a variety of aspects: blemish, defect, failing, fault, foible, imperfection, mar, shortcoming.

Regardless. Failure is a reflection of a flaw.

An imperfection (which seems okay).

A defect (which seems not okay).

Is failure a reflection of a defective product <product being, well, us – human, person>?

That seems harsh. Ok.  Maybe extreme. But. Maybe a bit true with regard to the context of opinion of the world. Yeah. In terms of “truth to oneself and how you shape your opinion of the world” think about this:

‘imperfection’ points more often to a lack that may be a matter of opinion

(Hayakawa)

Failure, on the other and, suggests a more severe shortcoming that has more severe consequences.

How ‘bout that? That kind of suggests if you have a failure in seeing the world in a positive way it will, well, have some severe consequences. That said. I do believe we should be better at understanding we have failings and they have consequences.

Now. Notice. Hayakawa never, anywhere, attached “negative” or “bad” adjectives to consequences. He simply points out that failures suggest shortcomings leading to consequences.

And that, my friends, is a Life truth.

We fail. The world fails.

It does not mean you are a failure nor does it mean the world is a failure.

And that is where I will end because I tend to believe if your opinion of the world is grounded in that last sentence, I tend to believe not only your own character will be just a bit less bleak but the world will inevitably be a little less bleak place to live. Ponder.

————————————

“every one of us stands alone on the heart of the earth,

Transfixed by a beam of sun;

And suddenly it is evening.”

Salvatore Quasimodo

===

“When adults say, “Teenagers think they are invincible” with that sly, stupid smile on their faces, they don’t know how right they are. We need never be hopeless, because we can never be irreparably broken. We think that we are invincible because we are. We cannot be born, and we cannot die. Like all energy, we can only change shapes and sizes and manifestations. They forget that when they get old. They get scared of losing and failing. But that part of us greater than the sum of our parts cannot begin and cannot end, and so it cannot fail.”
John Green, Looking for Alaska

===

People careen through their lives between the desire to fitting in and standing out. In fact I would argue that in our youth this drives more stupid decisions than anything else. That doesn’t mean we don’t make stupid decisions later in life based on this dilemma, just that in our youth the codes seem a bit more dire and your choice between fitting in or standing out seems to carry more of a ‘fork in life’ moment. Heck. I could be wrong. But what I do know is that every young person actively thinks about this. And young people make a shitload of stupid decisions (which we should give them a break for).

But back to that “actively thinks about’ point. Maybe that is where adults differ.

Most adults don’t think about it, they just follow ‘the codes.’ What I mean by that is while the young world may seem like Hunger Games with these choices, the adult world is more like a color-coded world where the colors tell you how to fit in and the parameters to that fitting in. The rules are much much clearer on acceptance and rejection. But. That said, as an adult you do have a choice. But most people as they get older simply default to fitting in on the bigger more consequential shit and make themselves feel better about themselves by ‘standing out’ on some little things. You know. Just to show you have a little color of your own in an otherwise color-coded world. That may sound a bit harsh, but it’s kinda true. While the repercussions of bad choices seem to have a larger social effect when young, it seems to have a larger financial or community effect when old. So? We play the game and play by the color coding.

It may appear like I am saying this is the wrong thing to do. I am not. I am simply pointing out that day in, day out, we make choices about fitting in or standing out. And, for the most part, society, communities, and our individual lives, seem to do okay.

The point I am trying to make, though, is that this means most of a life is fairly constrained if you are not careful. In fact, it could quite possibly lead to a fairly comfortable, but unremarkable, life. To be clear. I know it can be incredibly difficult, and tiring, to make the attempt to position yourself in ways, or a way, to assert some control over your image and business life. But unremarkable is unremarkable in the end. Nothing more.

Which leads me to John Green.

=

“What is the point of being alive if you don’t at least try to do something remarkable?”
John Green

=

Really. What IS the point of life if you don’t even attempt doing something remarkable? I mean, c’mon, survival in and of itself is not that remarkable (for most people). I know the world is maniacally focused on success, winning, numbers, and, attempting something remarkable certainly doesn’t guarantee you any of those things. In fact, attempting something remarkable will most likely have a low probability of attaining any of those things. But. The attempt. The attempt to do something remarkable. At least you tried. Anyway. Just ponder about how much we ‘fit in’ day after day, month after month, year after year, and maybe, just maybe, that attempt to do something remarkable will stand out if not to everyone else, at least you. Ponder.