==========

“Win the heart and the mind will follow.”

~

<not really sure any philosopher actually said this>

=========

“The philosophy behind much advertising is based on old observation that every man is really two men — the man he is and the man he wants to be.”

~

William Feather

=======

Well.

I admit. I am constantly surprised that business people, and communications people in general, lose sight of what is important in positioning their business and what they want to say. This thought pertains business to business as well as consumer and analytics driven tracking as well as, well, suffice it to say – everything.

It starts off well.

More often than not conversations begin with ‘what makes us different/distinct’ … good solid practical meaningful “Hey. I got something that can actually provide some value to someone.”

It ends up usually not so well.

More often than not it ends with some version of “here is what we need to say <about us and ‘it’>.”

Let me be clear. That is important. It has to be. Ultimately you need to say something to people to distinguish your space in people’s minds and inevitably make a sale or create some engagement/purchase. You have to offer some practical value to match the dollars forked over. But far far too often the conversation gets dragged down into the sinkhole of practicality. And this seems to happen far far too quickly <like right at the beginning>.

It is like everyone gets stuck on the rational mind aspects. And, frankly, it is a pretty easy place to get stuck. Rational is rational and when it comes to ‘wallet type’ discussions even some fairly experienced behavioral thinking business people get sucked into this back hole of practicality. And, yet, even as this black hole seems to start sucking the entire galaxy of collective thinking in the room, in the back of everyone’s mind they know that if somehow, someway they could connect their business proposition to a potential buyer’s heart, not just their mind, it is better for the business <they may not be able to articulate the exact whys of why it is better … but most business people know in their gut that a ‘heart connection’ is meaningful>.

But this is almost exactly where this whole slippery slope of mediocrity and practicality discussion seems to veer off into the absurdity which actually encourages business people to sat in the practicality zone.

The next often incredibly absurd conversation as everyone ponders how the business can reach into people’s hearts and not just their minds relates to ‘emotional connection.’ As in “we need to get people emotionally engaged if we want to differentiate in the long term.” This is business people’s version of James’ “win the heart and the mind will follow.”

Absurdly, from that point on the conversations inevitably get steered into some practical discussion of how to get people emotionally involved <as if we could pragmatically convince someone to be emotionally involved>.

That looks crazy even as I write it.

Yes. Practicality and rational has a role. In fact its role is essential to the greater need. The rational enables the “heart” possibilities.

But. It is the ‘heart’ aspects which shift success from “we sell something” to “people covet/want our something.”

Yet. Most business people are pretty rationale so they approach emotional connection, uhm, rationally. Words come out of some sage manager like “what can we do to create this emotional connection?” I always want to lean forward and say “well, remember that girl in high school you liked and decided you were going to get her to like you? … how did that work out for you?”

You cannot actively pursue getting someone to like you. you cannot actively, rationally, build an ‘emotional connection.’ You can truly only control you, your business, your product, your organizational culture and the character which embodies all of that. Once you believe in that and it is truth and not something another sage manager has crafted to be in some poster that appears in the cafeteria> you are on your way to … well … start dating potential users & buyers.

====

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own.  And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it. “

Audre Lorde

===

The other aspect of this emotional connection discussion that I seem to always be banging my head against the wall is the … well … let’s call it the aspirational aspect. You can emotionally connect with another person because they are a soul mate … or … you can connect because you see a better version of you with & within them <I am sure there are other ways but let me stick with these two>.

I love the latter in building businesses. By thinking about it, by pursuing it, a business will inevitably find themselves actually aspiring to consistently ‘be it’ day in and day out. In other words … if I find myself actually tapping into ‘the person who I want to be’ aspect of potential users & buyers I tend to kind of feel like I <the business> has some responsibility to actually BE a better version for thebetterment of self <and customers benefit in my self belief>. The business positioning actually feeds the business as well as feeds the business success.

Regardless.

While I babbled about some different dimensions of this discussion inevitably a successful business has to at least think about three aspects of their business:

the aspirational component: how am I making lives better or people better

the emotional component: day in and day out what emotional benefit do I offer <this is like the character or personality to which people will gravitate>

the rational component: day in and day out what functional benefit do I offer <what do I actually do>

You gotta discuss all three. Aspirational keeps the horizon in perspective, the emotional insures you stay true to thineself and the rational insures you keep everyone’s eye on the ‘how we make our money’ ball.

Anyway.

I speak with lots and lots of business people. And this discussion remains one of the most consistently discussed and one of the most consistently mishandled aspects of creating a successful business.

I learned a long long time ago in business it is all about aligning “head, heart & wallet.” That doesn’t mean it is easy … but it is what it is with regard to business success.

===

“It’s the people who no one imagines anything of, who do the things that no one imagines.”

–

The Imitation Game

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

“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

—-

Arie de Geus – Dutch business strategist

====

Well.

One of my business pet peeves is our unhealthy pursuit of unique. Far too often in our relentless charge toward unique we reach a dubious destination, if not a completely false ‘original’ stance. This heinous business tradition almost always begins when some consultant comes in and forces you to sit down and answer the infamous question “so what makes you unique?”

Oh … how I get tired of this unique or ‘how are you different?’ discussion. If you have been there, you have seen these conversations go round and round dancing on the head of a pin.

After this dizzying absurd discussion invariably you land on:

• one meaningless thing <meaningless to the majority of the world if not the majority of your own employees>, or
• a laundry list that the consultant writes on a board and says “okay, great day, you need to figure out which of these is most important to you.”

Note to self:

“gee. thanks. what makes you think we can resolve that 48 hours from now, if we cannot now?”

What a bunch of wasted energy. I say do not waste your time hunting some dubious unique but instead zero in on what I believe is the key –  distinctness.

Am I suggesting avoiding true product or service differentiation? Heck no. Go for it.

I am simply arguing that it is next to impossible in today’s environment to have a sustainable ‘unique.’ If people were honest they would agree that most ‘uniques’ in today’s world are short term <t best> and not sustainable <note: some people use lots of money to make short term look big>.

In service categories sustainable “uniqueness” is, well, pretty much impossible. Unique customer service experience? Pretty much impossible to sustain <and stay sane>. Thinking customer first or “we care” is certainly not unique nor different. That characteristic may represent something the company cares a lot about but most companies to one degree or another feature that characteristic.

In the end that means we are often talking about small degrees of separation which makes it difficult to discern the difference <or originality> to the majority. And the amount of energy we expend trying to justify and explain that this incredibly small difference translates into a significantly larger benefit … just isn’t worth the return on that investment <because that small degree of separation is lost to a competitor responder or thru consumer confusion on internet>.

Now.

What is sustainable? Character and personality. That is certainly distinct.

Could it end up looking close to someone else? Maybe <but I would argue 90% of the time the other guy will blink and do something that will make people question their character>. But brand personality/character differentiation topic is another writing of mine.

Today is just a rant on uniqueness.

My go-to books when I am thinking about things are good ole Ralph Waldo Emerson & Montaigne Essays. I had to pull Montaigne off the shelf as I thought about originality & business’s unhealthy relationship with “unique.”

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

“I have gathered a posy of other men’s flowers, and nothing but the thread that binds them is mine own.”

Montaigne

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

Of all social philosophers he seemed to delve into the difference between style & substance. His originality can actually be found in some fairly relentless honesty. A lesson in and of itself to any business seeking unique or ‘original’ claims.

——————–

We are all framed of flaps and patches, and of so shapeless and diverse a contexture, that every piece and every moment playeth his part.

——————-

“Que sais-je?” “What do I know?” was what Montaigne consistently said … kind of a “what the hell do I really know?” Which brings me back to uniqueness … or … let’s call it the illusion of uniqueness.

It seems like every person, and every business, is born with some innate insane focus on what I would consider a fairly nebulous concept of ‘original.’ I speak with a lot of business owners. And I can often discern the best of the best of them just by listening and waiting to see if they use this one word <or the words surrounding this one word>:

Unique.

And when they do … well … I get a shiver down my back. Ok. I assume there actually has to be some unique products out there in this wide world of ours because over 500,000 patents are filed every year in the good ole USofA. Of course having this conversation with a patent owner is excruciatingly painful … they keep saying “I have a patent therefore it is unique” and you keep saying “yes, sure, and the unique benefit to the buyer is ???” you often find that this conversation is a deadly doom loop with no conclusion but frustration.

I imagine the real point is that everyone wants to be the best at whatever it is they elect to do the best. Everyone would like to be the only ones who do what you do <assuming what you do is actually of some value to people>. Everyone wants their business to be ‘unique’ in some form or fashion.

And, if you try hard enough, I imagine every business can be ‘unique’ at something. But I also imagine if you try hard enough you can learn to dance on the head of a pin.

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

“There lurks, perhaps, in every human heart a desire of distinction, which inclines every man first to hope, and then to believe, that Nature has given him something peculiar to himself.”

Samuel Johnson

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

Regardless, the point of me writing this <other than ‘unique’ aggravates me> is that I believe somewhere along the way something got lost. What do I mean? Since the beginning of time <in marketingese> the concept of unique has been important but I believe it was Ted Bates who simplified <dumbed it down> for the rest of the world to grasp in a usable form by developing what he, and his advertising agency, called the USP <the unique selling proposition>.

Excellent idea. Dumbed it down for anyone and everyone to use. Unfortunately it has all gone wrong since then.

The concept was “unique proposition” not “unique” <all by itself>.  Their point was just that simple – proposing to people some kind of proposition that was meaningful and seemingly unique <at minimum creating a perception of uniqueness>.  Ah. Please note the nuance.

You need not actually be unique in actuality but rather you simply needed to be able to tell people you were unique in some form or fashion.  The concept implied how you told your proposition was as important as the product-service proposition itself. The brilliance in the concept is that it recognizes most products and services are not truly unique but that didn’t mean you could explain your product-service in a way that wasn’t unique <from a selling perspective>.

And here is where it all went awry … in our world of:

• a lack of desire to use someone else’s idea, even if it is a great idea, and
• the belief, the theory, we should be simplifying even the simplified <or even the most dumbed down> whereby we lose the nuance

Ultimately … the ‘experts’ started focusing solely on the ‘unique.’ I envision the conversation went something along these lines … “okay, let me simplify this because it is pretty simply … what makes you unique? Answer that and we can get started.”

Well.  Here is the deal. A unique selling proposition is rarely a simple process or outcome. And discerning what is truly meaningfully unique is rarely simple.

The point?

There is a big difference between “what is your unique selling proposition?” and “what makes you unique?” Both can be valuable discussions but they are not the same discussions. 

I believe the problem is that somewhere along the way marketing, advertising, brand people forgot the nuanced selling proposition concept and simply focused on some <mostly> unattainable facet – unique. And therein lies the bigger problem. Identifying the false unique.

Because it is our inherent nature <at least in the business world> to find what you seek. If I am told I must find something unique than, dammit, I am sure gonna find something unique … even if I have to quasi make it up. However, fooling yourself does not mean fooling others <although it is a common trap> in fact consumers/buyers are rarely fooled … and if they are … just once.

Look.

I fully understand everyone wants to be the best at something <which is their uniqueness>.

I fully understand that there are truly some widgets with some meaningful describable benefits that are unique.

I fully understand that what most people are construing as ‘unique’ these days is meaningless drivel. At its worst it is simply mental masturbation.

And I fully understand that there are also a lot of missed opportunities for good meaningful “unique selling propositions’ floating out there in the business universe simply because many people just don’t have it on their radar as a meaningful objective.

And, yes, positioning <using words to create a perception of uniqueness> is valuable and an opportunity.

It is not ‘lying’ to the public to create sales. In fact … I would argue it is smart and a reflection of your only true competitive advantage — the ability to learn faster than your competition.

Why? Uniqueness is NEVER alone. Standing beside it … hugging it closely is someone called “Benefit.”

They are inextricably attached as companions for life. And as you learn more about what the buyer of your product really wants <that Benefit the person> your ‘uniqueness’ may actually change … radically or nominally … it doesn’t matter. It may change to meet the needs & wants of the buyer.

Let me close with this thought:

• being the best, or the only one to do something, is irrelevant if it has no value or benefit to others
• unique is rare and often fleeting

However.

• adaptable ‘best’ and adaptable ‘uniqueness’ is neither fleeting nor useless >the key to those is to be to be the only fastest learner in your category>.

Heck. If you do that you may actually not only have a unique selling proposition but a unique product/service to offer. It will certainly maintain some distinctness <if not relevance in the marketplace>.

Regardless. Whenever unique or original comes up I try and convince every business to stop talking about that and, if they were smart, they would be mart about focusing on themselves … who they were and who they wanted to be.

Tough to do because it doesn’t exactly match up with the standard “this is how you are supposed to do it” management guides.

Anyway.

Maybe this is the most important point.

There are a lot, a shitload, of crazy smart business people out there. But there are not a lot of crazy smart business people willing to do something crazy like ignore the business books “plan to success” blueprints.

Here is where I put my money.

The few and crazy.

Those crazy enough to not invest energy in ‘unique seeking’ or ‘false originality’ but rather let distinction and originality simply evolve from who they are, what they think and their vision of what they think they should be.

Those crazy enough to not obsessively pursue ‘out of the box’ recognizing that the true enemy of innovation is getting ‘stuck’ in the structure but not the structure <the box)> itself.

Those crazy enough to know that structure is what enables the kind of insightful innovation that is (a) disruptive of status quo & (b) insures some traction to leverage from & (c) IS your distinction if you arrange the shit in your box properly & color your box properly.

That may all sound crazy but in a world where the majority of businesses, and new ideas, fail maybe this isn’t a crazy a thought as it sounds. Be distinct. I promise you if you focus on being distinct simply by default you will be unique from 99% of everyone out there.

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

Telling teens they are stupid is, well, stupid. To be clear. We may not actually verbally tell teens they are stupid but we older folk have no qualms treating them like they are stupid … which … uhm … is actually telling them we think they are stupid.

Yeah.

One of the biggest problems adults have with regard to the generation gap is … well … themselves.

Adults.

Teens are not the problem in the generation gap. Shit. Young people are not the problem with any generation gap.

I do not care if we are speaking about teens, or young people in the workplace, the problem remains the same … we older folk tend to treat young people like they are stupid <but go home each night easing our minds by saying to ourselves “but I never told them they were stupid”> .

Now.

We can be clever in how we do so and sometimes we can even be fairly good at masking it … but you know what?

Young people are pretty frickin’ smart and young people are pretty frickin’ insightful and young people are pretty frickin’ aware of what is going on around them … and they can tell we think they are stupid even if the words coming out of our mouths sound something like “good idea … something we should be thinking about” <thought bubble above older person saying it says “how naïve, that’s stupid, ok, act like you actually care so they don’t think you think they are stupid …“>.

I am a little unsure of why we older people treat teenagers like they are stupid.

Do we feel it is a rite of passage that they must go thru? <like joining a fraternity or sorority?>.

Is it for self-esteem? <the more stupid we make them feel the smarter that we feel?>.

Is it out of fear? <that we will look stupid to them … or they will be smarter than us?>

Is it simply the inability to let go of the past? <”if they could only learn how and what we learned … – insert a nostalgic ‘sigh’ here …”>

All I know is that teens are not stupid.

Far from it.

As I wrote in my Beautiful Brains article the teen brain is capable of the same smart decision making as an adult … yes, as smart, it is just that their brain lining has not completely formed and therefore there is some sensory overload they have to navigate that older brains do not.

But.

This is not stupidity.

Look.

Here is what I know.

Tearing the young down serves no real purpose. In fact … I would like to point out that building up the young can serve a real purpose.

====

In 1968, psychologist Robert Rosenthal walked in to a primary school class and told the teacher that he would be conducting a Harvard aptitude test on all of the students to find out which ones were bloomers or spurters (anticipating that these students were brighter and showed more potential than the rest). By the end of the year, sure enough these students went on to have not only higher grades but also did better on their IQ tests, so what was the catch?

Rosenthal later revealed that the ‘Harvard’ tests conducted were completely bogus and the children dubbed bloomers and spurters were in fact chosen at random! Because the teachers had been given the notion that these children were brighter than the rest, they ended up engaging and challenging them more often seeing their mistakes as a learning experience and setting higher goals.

This confirmed the teachers suspicion that they were in fact much brighter than the rest.

====

When adults expect the young to do well and show intellectual growth, inevitably young people deliver the goods. On the other hand … when adults lower expectations it inevitably provides suitable excuses for ‘less than performance and growth’ and may in fact actually discourage growth in a variety of ways. If we continue treating young people like they are stupid <which is NOT the same as telling them they are stupid> and feeding them propaganda about their stupidity and failings naturally they’re going to start believing all the crap and almost start expecting stupidity like traits.

Older people are not granted some magical power that makes them non-stupid simply because they have become older. They are not some special breed of human that has no failings and no desire to maintain some power & control.

I tell you where teens are truly not stupid.

They do not buy the whole ‘positive thinking’ being shoved down their throats. They see firsthand that positive thinking alone doesn’t get you shit and they give you shit if you try and tell them it does <and is the key to their future success>. Most teens see very quickly that positive thinking is fine in theory, but really only helpful to those with more wealth and access to a decent education. For everyone else it is empty platitudes. They don’t want platitudes they want wisdom that hlps them get where they want to go.

Teens are not stupid.

Not stupid intellectually & smarts-wise nor with regard to Life.

While we think they can only see what is in front of them in the moment they are watching the larger world swirling around them with eyes wide open. They may not be in a rush to get into this crazy looking adult world <would we adults if we looked around?> but they clearly, and smartly, are assessing the world in front of them and around them.

Let me end by saying treating teenagers like they are stupid is … well … stupid.

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

“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a’comin’.”

–

Captain Bill McDonald Texas Ranger in the 1800’s

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

So.

This is about business and, well, “when someone that’s in the right” decides to do the right thing. Now. This is not as easy as it sounds. That said … some initial thoughts for business people:

–          More people should keep coming when they are in the right … and not give in.

–          More people should keep coming when they are in the right.

–          Being in the right, and being sure you are right, is difficult, in fact, it may be easier to know what is wrong.

–          Right is often just a belief, not facts or statistics, and sometimes that is all you have.

Regardless of what I write from here on out … it will all be balanced by this fact. Being in the right is about making choices. It is not about being smarter … or knowing more than some else … or more sure … or a litany of other semi-arrogant aspects.

Sure. Of course you have to believe yourself, and in yourself … particularly when other people tell you your right is … well … wrong … but the foundation of ‘being in the right’ is, and will always be,  you knowing in your heart <stomach, soul> what makes you … well … you . Your gestalt … what makes you the way you are in business <which I hope is an extension of your everyday life but this is about business>. But … it is about making a choice.

When you believe you are in the right, it is in those moments you have a choice to make — you can choose to believe what ‘they’ say or you can choose to disagree and stick to your guns.

But, remember, you always have a choice. Ok. Some thoughts:

–          Being right and keep on coming.

I happen to agree with Captain McDonald. No business person in the wrong can stand up against someone in the right … who doesn’t quit. I know that sounds naïve in today’s’ world of consensus and compromise and conservative decision making … but I truly believe this. But it is hard. Really really difficult. ‘Wrong’ wins a lot in business these days. Wrong is relentless, and sneaky and smart. And that is why, similar to the size of the Texas Rangers, this is a relatively small band of people who are willing to go out into the business desert, all by themselves, just with their guns to fight the enemy. It takes a special person. It takes a resilient person. And it takes more than a couple holsters of character. I imagine I believe there are more of them out there than those who actually signed up … it is just that they are not encouraged to sign up <because today’s business environment doesn’t often seem to encourage those in the right to keep on a’comin’>.

Regardless.

All I really care about is that business today needs people who won’t even think of giving up. The benefits of those who are in the right and keep coming are evident so I won’t list them. However … I do recognize that this type of character and personality <to keep ‘a comin’> can pose some problems. In a work environment/organization the potential problems are rampant.

Ok. Here is where being the right people separate themselves into ‘non problem versus ‘problem’ employees. First, of course, this person gets intrinsic points in business for their high degree of certainty about what they believe <the more strongly you know you’re right … the more certain it is you are right in others eyes>.

However …  being sure you’re right and actually being right are two different things. And confusing these two is bad.

What I mean by this is that intensity of belief isn’t the same thing as Truth. In fact, intensity of belief doesn’t end up implying anything but exactly that … a belief. Yup. If you believe something strongly, all it means is that you believe that something strongly … not that it is true. Nor can you assume that intensity of belief intrinsically translates into that others will believe it strongly too. The error of thinking that intensity of belief means anything at all outside of itself isn’t something we should be encouraging. This error causes major cracks in teamwork and organizational efficiency.

All that matters is the intensity of the truth, i.e., what is the right thing to do <the action> NOT simply believing you’re right.

Anyway … being in the right takes a strong person … think about this example of one of those in the right keep who kept ‘a comin’ and assumed the risk.

Southwest Airlines co-founder Herb Kelleher was willing to risk his career for four years (and his own money) while he fought in the courtrooms to get Southwest Airlines on the ground. Though airlines and Dallas based airlines fought Southwest in the courtrooms Kelleher was willing to risk everything to “fight the good fight.” Why? Because he believed so strongly in the vision, what he felt was right, that nothing else mattered.

‘Nothing else mattered.’ Strong thought. Hey. This topic ain’t easy.

And with all that I just said … let’s go to …

–          Sometimes compromising is the worst thing you can do.

Notice I began with ‘sometimes’ but let me begin with ‘the worst thing you can do.’ Yeah. I just finished writing about the dangers of sticking to your guns … but now I will shift to compromising.

Compromise is always a dangerous game. Especially if you are compromising ‘in the right’ and ‘in the wrong’ things. there is no balamce in that equation. In the world of weights & measures something odd actually happens to ‘right’ … wrong things actually weigh more, have significantly more mass … so if you try and compromise and balance the ‘right’ side of the scale is always lower <that is bad>. And, yet, despite the weight & the mass … when you actually do the right thing is has a larger impact.

Yup. I guarantee it.

Being the right is weightless but a heavy burden to carry. Being in the right has no significant size yet makes a large imprint. Being in the right is a funny thing that way. It is easily destroyed by compromise because of its smallness in its ego and image. Well. I will go back to the Texas Rangers to help me out on this one … with minimal support and no communication from higher authority, they lived and often died by the motto, ‘Order first, then law will follow.” They had no compromise in their actions. Keep order based on what is right. The law will follow the right actions.

Which leads me to ‘defining the law’ of what is right.

–          Being sure what is right.

Oddly, I will begin the topic of being sure you are in the right with … well … adaptability … and not uncompromising consistency. I find the people most often really, and truly, in the right are the people who are constantly revising their knowledge and understanding of situations … and reconsidering a problem they ,and everyone else> thought had already been solved. They seem to always be open to new points of view and new information and new ideas and accepting seeming contradictions … they are always challenging their own way of thinking.

This doesn’t mean these people do not have a well formed point of view. But I do tend to find that they sometimes consider their point of view as temporary.

The corollary? The people who are most often ‘in the wrong’ are obsessed with data/knowledge that only supports one point of view. This adaptability typically translates into an ability to determine what just doesn’t matter. Because they realize that is where “right’ can be waylaid most often.

The reality in most businesses is most time is spent wasting time on things that just don’t matter. If you can cut out the work and thinking that just doesn’t matter … being in the right means being focused on what really matters …. And in business that typically translates into a level of peak productivity. In the end … being in the right depends on each situation and needs some adaptability to stay the course. Sure. There is overriding ‘law’ … but order is defined by the situation <and sometimes solely defined by ‘the wrong’>. Yup. In fact sometimes the “Law” is most easily identified by knowing what is wrong … and putting wrong to order <and Law will follow>. Those in the right seem most often to attack wrong rather than make it right.

And that leads me to the last topic on this … the one that makes the Texas Rangers in business so special.

–          Being ‘in the right’ sometimes intangible.

Now. Let’s be clear. Feeling right about something doesn’t make it … well … right. But sometimes that is as close as “right” becomes. And that is tough in today’s business environment where people want ‘proof’ as a way to absolve themselves of responsibility <that is the cynical aspect> or need some comfort in statistics/data in order to quantify their decision <this recognizes a pragmatic aspect>. Order can be kept in a variety of ways and stay within the law. The adaptability of actions, in a world where everyone wants best practices or ‘solid every day process’, is a talent beset with challenges within the office. It is an intangible belief, and understanding, in what to do … which makes it sometimes very difficult to explain.

And I ended on this thought because it circles back to the original quote … ‘keep a’ comin’. Being in the right means you have no quit, not an ounce of it, in you. if you are in the right you just gotta keep on keepin’ on.

More businesses need people like this. Those who are good at being right about the right things to do … and the character to stick it out and keep coming.

Okay.

My last thought for business people:

“The rangers are what they are because their enemies have been what they were. The rangers had t be superior to survive. Their enemies were pretty good … so they had to be better.”

Walter Webb

======

I refuse to quote ‘good to great’ but I will say two things:

–          Good enough is the enemy of great good

–          Those who are ‘in the right’ are typically really really good because their enemies, those in the wrong, are pretty good at doing what they do best <be in the wrong>.

Suffice it to say we need more smart ‘in the right’ people standing up for what is good & right in business.

——-

“’You’re dangerous’, he says.

‘Why?’

‘Because you make me believe in the impossible.’ “

=

Simone Elkeles

——-

“Disruption is bad.

You seem to be using it to mean something good,” she said.

——

So.

This is about disruption and business. This is one of my favorite words & topics. It is one of my favorites for two reasons.

First is that it is an overlooked way to be successful in the marketplace. Far too often businesses simply seek to “compete.” They are satisfied with standing in the ring and bludgeon each other all the while suggesting that this is “smart fighting giving me an edge.” It is not. Shit. “Edges” <in this case> is simply staying in the fight and not a plan to win a fight. Disruption is all about wins and winning.

Second. It is one of the few words in business that if you actually deign to use in a meeting or business discussion will draw a visceral response from your audience. From a ‘fun’ perspective it is maybe even more fun than farting in the middle of a presentation.

Anyway.

Disruption, or disrupt, is an emotive word often creating a very unsettling image. And it is a topic which typically scares the shit out of most businesses <and business people>. The excuses to ‘not being so disruptive’ are too long to list … and some are quite creative. But suffice it to say … almost every excuse is grounded in fear.

Yeah.

All those “whoa … slow down on that whole disruption talk” people may suggest ‘it is expensive to do something like that’ but they are simply shaping excuses in their heads & mouths because the whole thought of disrupting anything … well … scares the shit out of them.

Now.

To be clear on definitions <and purpose> … the aim of disruption is to frame <or reframe> a business <or a brand> so that the market sees it differently. Well. I could suggest it is actually simply turning around and facing reality.

——-

“At some point you just have to turn around and face your life head on.”

Chris Cleave

—–

What I mean by that is disrupting is most typically simply attacking some conventional thinking and tapping into what people really think <when they actually think about it>. And many times it is really common sense stuff. It is common sense because it is many times rooted in the fact we just get stuck either in ‘that’s the way its done’ … or maybe we have become so numb to the fact we have bolted on crap to the brand <or company> in day to day attempts to keep it relevant that it is almost unfamiliar to what people originally thought of it <we just made it too complex or complicated>.

Please note … this whole disruption thing, while I love it, is not my idea.

Jean Marie Dru, the Chairman of TBWA has been talking about the power of “disruption” since the early 1990s. His book, Disruption: Overturning Conventions and Shaking Up the Marketplace, is a must read for anyone who likes this shit <and it is actually a delightful read for a business book>. Interestingly … even Tom Peters <the ‘in search of excellence’ guy> thought the concept of disruption was topical … even decades ago.

——

“Disrupt or be disrupted.  Disrupt or die.

Disruption is the most powerful idea in business today.”

Tom Peters

——

I tend to believe disruption gets a bad rap because it implies wholesale change. Like as in throw out everything and start from scratch. Au contraire. Disrupting is always about leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that to remind everyone that something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … uhm … nothing. Smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail. If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

Same for a brand.  All brands are in transition.  You can’t build brands by thinking only in a linear way. You have to think of larger futures for them. And to do that, you have to use your imagination. A larger share of the future very seldom comes from an extrapolation of the present.

And that is what Disruption is all about. Disruption is about discovering new futures.”

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Let’s be honest here. New futures sound frickin’ awesome.

Uhm. Here’s the problem. Futures are not guaranteed, are they?

Doh.

Success is getting people to think and act differently. <doh again>

That translates into … yikes … change.

Here is the good news about this whole disruptive change topic. Effective disruptive thinking is not some blind irresponsible thinking. It takes into consideration all the levels of change it effects and addresses them. 

—–

“Disruption demands that a company challenges conventional behaviors and finds a new way to act.

If you analyze the behavior of the category in question you will see conventional patterns of activity are apparent on four levels: corporate, marketing, communications and the customer’s point of view.  Some of these conventions are invariably good and necessary, while others are not.

The opportunity lies in seeing how a brand can use its strengths to do something less conventional to change its path and accelerate growth.”

=

Matt Shepherd-Smith, CEO, TBWA\London

—–

To be clear. There is truly a difference in disruption and intelligent disruption. Disruption in and of itself … without thought … is meaningless destruction creating chaos. Intelligent disruption leads change from what exists rather than reacting to what exists and … well … creates something new <not chaos>.

Anyway.

Here are few more thoughts by Jean-Marie Dru about brand building and the importance of disruption:

—

–        Disruption is creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

–        I have always believed that a brand has to evolve. It cannot remain motionless. The same, of course, applies to companies.

—

While all those words sound inspiring and thoughtful and … well … what business person WOULDN’T want to do that? Well. Disruption actually is linked to another word which business people tend to really really dislike … destruction. Destruction of the conventional … the comfortable. Conventions train us to do the conventional. And because it is conventional … we tend to not really think about this shit.

Uhm. Yes. Accepted beliefs, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking. This all translates into destroying some of the accepted beliefs … uhm … which means destroying … well … familiarity.

Yet … within destruction there should be a surge of energy <from people and a business perspective because disruption is actually both strategy and action>.

What do I believe <see: “know”>?

Too much business thinking today is satisfied with maintaining the status quo.

This is doomed thinking. Thinking is at its best when used as a sharp weapon and used to transform business and the way people think <and do things>. Far too much thinking <and the tactics which arise from that thinking> look the same, say the same, and … well … do the same.

All of which simply makes it easier to be ignored.

Worse?

It doesn’t respect people’s intelligence or their sense of <thinking> adventure. Therefore disruption incorporates destructing some of ‘what is.’

Not just for the sake of destruction but rather with the intent to be singular, extraordinary, and even world-changing is inspiring and interesting and adventuresome. Disrupting is done with the intent to stand out from the crowd and get noticed in a way that fundamentally changes perceptions. I imagine I could quite simplistically suggest that great disruptive thinking challenges the prevailing ideas of the present, therefore, disruption sounds difficult, unsettling, painful and fundamentally frightening.

Why would anybody disrupt, and destroy, on purpose?

Well.

Here is the contradiction … you are actually destroying to create.

=

It’s about creation – creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static. 

Disruption is about systematically breaking through the barriers that shape and limit standard business approaches. It’s about challenging conventional wisdom and imagining new possibilities. It’s about destroying the assumptions and biases that get in the way of fresh and visionary ideas.

<Jean Marie-Dru>

=

 This actually means that the other thing where disruption gets a bad rap is that it is used as a verb … when it is actually a noun when done correctly.

Yup. Because disruption is actually a destination … a vision of what could, and should, be … against which all strategic and marketing decisions are measure. This means that disruptive ideas are simply ways to get to the vision as fast as possible.

This also means that you are taking a stand. A stand for not what is … but what will be. You are changing the rules <and frankly doing so in your favor>.

To be clear.

Disruption is not anarchy <nor chaos>. It is a strategically directed shake-up. It’s a way of thinking. It means taking nothing for granted.

It means being bold and taking some risk.

It means you are actually inventing a future in which you not only want to live … but one in which you can prosper.

Anyone in business worth even half a shit knows that the path to truly winning <and winning big> in business is to create new categories or subcategories rather than engaging in brand preference competition in established categories.

The idea of creating a new category, defining its dimensions and becoming its ‘definer’ <of which everyone else has to measure against> is where true success <financially> resides.

Sure. Many businesses need to engage in brand preference competition to retain their relevance and market position. But that is a defensive strategy. And, trust me, someone is going to go on the offensive at some point.

Anyway.

Disruption simply means ‘to challenge.’ And we all need to remember that disruption creates and is not simply to destroy. That doesn’t mean everything is all rosy if you get it right.

Technological disruption re-defines industries.

Cultural disruption always seems to piss people off.

Why?

Challenging people … and the status quo … can make people angry.

What do I say? Fuck ‘em.

Disruption by challenging the status quo improves culture. Is there conflict? You bet.

Does that conflict lead to a spark of energy? You bet. And from the spark comes improvement.

Look.

We are all disruptors. Just that some of us know it and some of us don’t.

—-

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses.”

=

HV Adolt

——-

Ok. Frankly. All that really matters despite all I babbled about <typed> … is you either choose to disrupt … or be disrupted.

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

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

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

So.

This is a business, and Life, lesson from Futurama of all places.

Doing what you are supposed to do, and doing it well, is actually one of the most underappreciated abilities in the world. Mostly because it isn’t noticed. Why the hell wouldn’t someone notice “things going right? <you may ask>.

Well. Most of us just expect things to go well and only notice when it doesn’t. We expect, well,  competence.

Anyway. In case you have forgotten … Futurama was one of those random Fox sci-fi based animated shows in the early 2000’s. Typical of that genre <Simpsons & Family Guy> when the writers wrote a good show it was a frickin’ great show, conversely, and when they missed, they really missed <by galaxies in this case>.

Regardless.

I loved the premise behind this series … it follows the adventures of a late 20th-century New York City pizza delivery boy, Philip J. Fry, who, after being unwittingly cryogenically frozen for one thousand years, finds employment at Planet Express, an interplanetary delivery company in the retro-futuristic 31st century.

Anyway.

The quote. Here’s the entire conversation:

the Galaxy God: Bender, being God isn’t easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you, and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch. Like a safecracker, or a pickpocket.

Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!

the Galaxy God: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing.

When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.

Well. Regardless of whether this thought is delivered from some animated galaxy God or not … this thought is a big thought <which, I imagine, is the reason why they had the god character deliver it>. It is a Life truth. It is truth that many of the really great things in life are easy to miss, really easy to mistake as nothing, and yet they are … well … “right.” Everything is just in its place as if it belonged there all the time <and no one put it there or that way>.

My point? Goodness … heck … greatness … whether we like it or not … is stealthy. Even the big stuff can be quite stealthy. And ponder this. The people most likley to make things right <without anyone noticing> are also the same people who are most likely to offer small acts of kindness <which can be more effective than doing great, drastic actions> that ground the ‘no one really notice good stuff’ with with a true  ‘doing things right’ selflessness.

Easy to miss … easy to mistake … when everything is great.

Oh.

The corollary thought to what I just typed is ‘things that are noticed.’

Sometimes if you try and accomplish huge, world changing things … they become engulfed in the spotlight. Yup. In the business of what you do, or are attempting, you gather well intended good supporters, sometimes even large groups of supporters. Unfortunately, even thought this is good stuff with good intentions  more often than not you inevitably also gain people along the way who disagree <in some way> and even though a minority — they are loud.

And from that grows conflict.

And doing things right actually becomes debated.

And the debate is often in the nuance.

<note: that is kinda nuts when you think about it>

And the spotlight & the conflict not only bring notice but bring along the inevitable destruction  of what is good & right. That, right there, is the argument for & the reason why great shit happens an no one notices. People who want to do great shit knows that being noticed tends to destroy ‘good shit’ and spotlights, in general, draw people who like spotlights and not necessarily doing what is right.

Cynically I could suggest now that what is better to do is perform the small acts … the ones that are unnoticeable by the mainstream public therefore you avoid the conflict.

But. I am not that cynical.

Doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … its just about doing the right things the right way. The kinds of things if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert ‘huh?!?’ also> Because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck. Here is the truth good people know. The value of doing the right  thing is never in the credit. And we need to remind ourselves of that more often.

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

Little things can matter. A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. And you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

In fact.

How do you know when you not only did the right thing … but did it right?

No one notices.

Well.

How is that for Life & business advice?

Don’t be noticed <but always do the right thing well>.

<Note: I will not be making millions writing that book>

Being good <or God> isn’t easy.

You always have to be ‘doing’ and yet you always have to not be noticed.

Your reward?

Things are done right.

And people believe they did it themselves.

By the way. I will note that is also called “character.”

That said … I could have easily used the infamous character quote … “character is what you do when no one is looking.” But I didn’t. On purpose. Because the Futurama quote is a stronger point about character. It takes it one step further. Character is doing the right thing and not being noticed. You are facilitator for good and what is right. And have the strength, an inner strength, to just do what you do with no recognition … no outside stimulus.

You just do.

Yup.

Don’t be noticed <but always do the right thing well>. People won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.

But who cares? Being good <or doing the right thing> isn’t really about anyone noticing.

I know. I know. But if no one notices then, well, in today’s world I may get screwed. You know what I say? Being good isn’t easy but you sleep well at night.

===

“If parallel lines do not meet it is not because meet they cannot, but because they have other things to do.”

—

Vladimir Nabokov

=======

“Looking back, I didn’t lose my way.

I never knew where I was going in the first place.”

—

William Chapman

========

Ok.

While in personal life there is an inordinately high external value <people looking in on you & the business> on focus and consistency, in the business world this value fluctuates. And, unfortunately, in the business world there is no real ‘code’ on when to be consistent and when to be inconsistent <therefore it can sometimes be a crap shoot … and you pay dearly if you bet wrong …>.

Regardless. Suffice it to say, adaptability, which is this generation’s path to success, is inevitably tied to some inconsistent behavior.

Uhm.

Inconsistency. That is what change is all about. Focus is a 5 lane highway, not a one lane highway, and includes some spot over a horizon which you cannot see nor can you clearly define as in ‘see this beautiful picture? This is your destination.” The horizon focus is a less tangible destination … it is sometimes just a thought in mind.

Whew. Yup. I just typed that.

And that may seem contrarian to all the business folk waving their hands in the air in panic over some disconnected fragmented world in which ‘we need to make it simple to forge our way thru this chaotic world.’

Look. To forge your way thru a chaotic world you will get bludgeoned to death if you treat it like a straight line gauntlet. Yes, doing it that way is truly running a gauntlet <note: and a lot of people get bloodied running a gauntlet and some do die>.

In a chaotic world in order to effectively adapt you actually have to be … well … ‘serpentine.’ <In-Laws movie reference to the old folk>.

What’s worse?

This doesn’t just pertain to tactics but even strategy has to be adaptable <a tinge of inconsistency>.

A lack of adaptability is foolish. Or maybe let’s just say the being consistent for the sake of being consistent is foolish:

===

https://brucemctague.com/foolish-consistency

===

Now.

Just because I like to bitch about the ‘branding world’ I would like to take a moment and rant a little about how this “inconsistency is bad” discussion has infiltrated the business world to such an extent that a bunch of ‘experts’ have flocked to companies under the nomenclature of ‘brand consistency experts.’ Their whole premise and reason for being is that those of us in business don’t understand how to run a business and sell and do it in a way that doesn’t really create ongoing success <or highest brand value>. Or they adamantly state that we need an unchanging “how to” guide so that we know what we are supposed to do with ‘brand.’

Look.

I am all for insuring that a business develops a core value <and brand> value proposition and I am all for aligning an organization around that position but … please … please don’t tell me if I do something ‘inconsistent’ I am going to detract from my ‘brand.’

Please … please … don’t tell me about stringent consistency rules necessary to ‘build a brand’ … a ‘brand’ which theoretically only exists in a mind  and crafted in the minds of someone else.

Please … please … don’t confuse focus with consistency.

Consistency in today’s business world is much more complex … and much more sensible … than how it was thought of in the past. In the ‘old days’ you placed a stake in the ground, danced around it and then held it up like ‘capture the flag’ daring anyone to come up the hill and capture it … and wave it so people could see it.

It was unmoving and you gave ground grudgingly.

In today’s world we act more sensibly — we actually do, watch, observe and react/adapt. This means the ‘brand consistency’ is often more a measure of how one adapts and responds than it does in the initial stimulus.

I say that because experts will come in discussing <pontificating> the most basic level of brand consistency – single logo is always used in a similar way, a single typeface used with particular guidelines on typography, and consistent colors tied to similar design styles. If they stopped there, while I would wonder why I paid them anything, at least I could argue with … well … nothing.

But then the experts keep blabbing.

They start encouraging guidelines that doesn’t make every piece of marketing material look like a member of the same family but instead, under the guise of consistency, starts all looking the same. While the argument is that the brand has its own unique “look” which enables a consumer to recognize it as belonging to that brand proposition and distinguish it from competing brands … it also has a nasty habit of becoming … well … bland.

Uninteresting.

I imagine the discussion gets tough with ‘those who demand consistency’ <be safe> because what really matters to maintain true consistency is the intangible not tangible — not how it looks but rather the main brand proposition … the focus on who you are and what you offer.

I admit. Brand consistency can be a tricky topic. Anyone can argue, and should, that consistency done well creates a great advantage … one called “recognition”. That recognition can have attitudes & attributes attached to it that are negative or positive <for some reason all the brand consistency experts never talk about that> but suffice it to say … at least you are getting in the heuristic game. Recognition is a nice feature <has value> to your brand because, frankly, people don’t really like ‘new.’ We like the sound of new and we like it conceptually, but we dislike actually spending money on it. We associate risk to new.

Regardless.

Consistency is used as a bludgeon with businesses under the guise that if you don’t do it a consumer could be ‘confused’ or they could mistake your brand with a competing brand … and that means potentially losing customers. Once again. The experts oddly never bring up the counter discussion … that some inconsistency creates a richer brand and a more interesting ‘consumer relationship proposition.’

Effective consistency in today’s business world is one in which not all is seen but yet everything is connected in some way.

===

“The moment of truth, the sudden emergence of a new insight, is an act of intuition.  Such intuitions give the appearance of miraculous flashes, or short-circuits of reasoning.

In fact they may be likened to an immersed chain, of which only the beginning and the end are visible above the surface of consciousness. The diver vanishes at one end of the chain and comes up at the other end, guided by invisible links.”

Arthur Koestler

===

Guardians of effective consistency need to see the unseen and connect the inconsistency in some form or fashion to a horizon point.

Deliverers of effective consistency <let’s call us ‘the everyday working schmucks’> are kind of screwed in today’s business world. You can clearly have focus and your consistency may be less clear to those around you.

If I have two major gripes in today’s business world it is that we, leaders & managers, need to:

–      Better recognize the unseen portions of consistency <the focus within the inconsistency>

==

–      Better accept the unseen portions of consistency <the focus within the inconsistency>

Inconsistency and consistency <embracing both> is a skill & an art. I would note embracing some inconsistency and yet maintaining some consistency is kind of the key to being successful in business.

Yeah.

That sounds difficult … it sounds too complex … but it is truth. Unfortunately business is complex … and business needs consistency … and inconsistency. They are two parallel paths and I would argue you only run into problems when they blend into one.

That said. If they are truly two parallel paths, what is the glue?

Focus.

That’s what holds the two parallel lines together.

But that’s probably an entirely different post.

———-

“Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.

You killed my father.

Prepare to die!”

–

“Stop saying that!”

<the Princess Bride>

———–

“Why are we so full of restraint?

Why do we not give in all directions?

Is it fear of losing ourselves?

Until we do lose ourselves there is no hope of finding ourselves.”

=

Henry Miller

——————————

Ok.

Life, or at least success in life, is inevitably tied to some version of focus and consistency. Now. In discussing this we need to acknowledge there are two sides to the focus & consistency coin – one side is you and the other side is how people view you.

Maddeningly, sometimes, this coin may have a high value on one side and an incredibly low value on the other side <despite the fact one would believe a coin would have the same value on both sides>.

Your side. You may have a sense of consistency and focus with regard to how you think and where you are going in Life … I say ‘may’ because it may be a 10 lane highway and you wander along that highway. That said … you feel like you have some focus and consistency.

Oops.

The how people view you side. Other people view your changing lanes and changing speeds as inconsistent unfocused behavior <most people prefer you ‘staying in your lane>.

This means you are actually doing well, you are doing the right things to be a successful interesting well rounded person … and yet you may actually be penalized by the people around you. Penalized? Suffice it to say that consistency may have the highest value it has ever had in the history of the world so if you don’t exhibit it you lose value in people’s eyes.

Why? Well. Two reasons.

First.

Today’s world is structurally hostile to inconsistency. And, yet, <maddeningly> inconsistency is what makes us grow and be enriched and adapt in positive ways.

————–

“Life itself consists of phases in which the organism falls out of step with the march of surrounding things and then recovers unison with it—either through effort or by some happy chance.

And, in a growing life, the recovery is never mere return to a prior state, for it is enriched by the state of disparity and resistance through which it has successfully passed.”

=

John Dewey

—————-

Inconsistency means you are falling in and out of step with the march of things surrounding you. Yup. Whether you like it or not we are not always in sync with what is going on around us … and … well … those moments out of sync may make you, and everyone else, uncomfortable … but they are Life & character shaping moments.

Regardless. Personal change confuses people. It confuses them because they don’t want to have to work that hard … they want you to remain unchanged so that they can build some expectations which inevitably streamlines their own behavior. If you are inconsistent it forces them to … well … work.

I am not suggesting people don’t want to work … it’s just that they want to CHOOSE what they will work on and, well,  your changing is not their choice. Therein lies the strange but true paradox of consistency in Life. As you become personally enriched thru some inconsistency … at the same time … you are devalued in in the eyes of others as they view your inconsistency.

More becomes less.

What an unfortunate Life formula. My main point? Today’s world is structurally hostile to inconsistency.

Second.

Today’s world is structurally hostile to nuance. Nuance & subtlety not only doesn’t sell it invokes ‘space’  <or a perceived lack of clarity> in which others are more than willing to place something <and very often something you did not envision or want>.

Now <part 1>.

You may argue that nuance has nothing to do with consistency but I would ask you to take a step back and view this thought from the perspective of “what people see & hear” versus “what you say and do.” In most people’s minds ‘true’ consistency contains no nuance.

It cannot.

Nuance begets some sense of inconsistency in what you may mean … and in today’s world those minuscule spaces created by nuance are immediately filled and actually widened beyond their initial nuance small space into chasms of vitriol, doubt, second guessing, judgement and anything & everything except possibly the true facts behind the original nuance.

Now <part 2>.

People are not stupid. Once someone realizes nuance is a precursor to pain, anguish and character assassination … that someone is smart enough to decide to be consistent <no nuance or subtlety> and offer an unending stream of meaningless drivel <or say nothing> so that there are no gaps or spaces for others to take advantage of.

Consistency is safe. It many not be particularly illuminating … and it certainly seems to encourage a calculated blandness … but it is … well … safe. Today’s world encourages safe. Today’s world is structurally hostile to nuance.

Ok.

All that said.

Let me be clear about consistency … and inconsistency … and you being your best. Today’s world wants you to be your best … but maybe not quite all the time.

————-

“On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

George Orwell

————–

Inconsistency takes work.  More work than consistency. And the work is found in the coin I described at the beginning — inside-out <decisions and attitude and behavior> as well as outside-in <as noted earlier … it makes other people work and they take it out on you … and you have to deal with it>. It also takes some work because although we all claim to know where we are going and what we want we kind of make that up as we go. What I mean is that most of us kind of want to be the best <or our best> … but maybe not all the time … and most of us kind of know what we want <but it can lack some specifics> … which all means we have to be adapting here & there.

==

“Looking back, I didn’t lose my way.

I never knew where I was going in the first place.”

William Chapman

==

To be clear.

Successful people are generally deemed successful in hindsight <less easy to judge within the experience>. Their ‘path to success’ looks clear and consistent and focused in that hindsight. And, yet, it is most likely their inconsistency which gave them the little bursts of energy to pass others on their way to success. Those little blips are overlooked or mis-defined as focus or consistency when viewed as historical activity.

They never knew where they were truly going just that they wanted to get somewhere and most times that looks like a fairly consistent, focused progress path.

Sure.

Maybe I am over valuing the blips of inconsistency … however … I would suggest that a little inconsistency can create that little tweak which can make, or unmake, your world … shit … THE world. Those little inconsistencies may have been representative of the little windows of opportunity one gets on occasion.

==

“It only takes a tweak to make the whole world new.”

Terry Pratchett

==

Anyway.

Tweaking your world, adapting to Life, inevitably means some inconsistency. And … as noted earlier … the world is hostile to inconsistency.

That makes it very very difficult to embrace some aspects of inconsistency.

I imagine my real point is that all you really need is a blip or two of inconsistency on occasion <or on a consistent basis> to tweak your world.

And some inconsistency can actually make you personally happier but make the people around you a little less happier.

==

Some other thoughts I have shared about consistency and inconsistency:

===

https://brucemctague.com/libre-et-independante

===

Plus.

Just being consistent for the sake of being consistent is foolish.

===

https://brucemctague.com/foolish-consistency

====

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

“As with events, so it is with thoughts. When I watch that flowing river pours for a season its streams into me, I see that I am a pensioner; not a cause, but a surprised spectator of this ethereal water.”

—–

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

“The sphinx must solve her own riddle.  If the whole of history is in one man, it is all explained from individual experience.”

——

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

“Comparisons are a shit way of evaluating things.”

—-

Bruce McTague

===========

So.

We LOVE using the past to try and explain shit. Past people, past events, past words and past … well … everything.

When we are faced with something new, or someone new, we immediately start sifting through the scrap heap of the past to start creating some semblance of a jig saw puzzle to explain what we are facing.

There are a number of problems with doing this.

The biggest is that scraps are scraps. Oh. And the scraps used to reside in a completely different context <which is impossible to recreate>. And, yet, we continue to try.

The problem is that in doing so we elect to not judge the present on the merits of the present. We decline to judge a person as they are, the circumstances as they are and the decisions on the merits of what it is. We do this with everyone and everything … how money is spent, decisions we need to make, new people we have met and even leaders. We do it all partially well intended <we want to make sure we make a fair assessment of hat we are seeing & hearing> and partially because simply examining something and stating “this is good” or “this is bad” <or acceptable or unacceptable> seems … well … flimsy.

Comparisons tend to make things look more solid.  And, yet, we tend to absolutely suck at creating the proper comparisons. And, that happens for a variety of reasons – also some well-intended and some not so well intended.

I will start with the well intended.

As Emerson once wrote: “our being is descending into us from know not whence.” And we struggle with that truth. It makes us uncomfortable … uhm … no … REALLY uncomfortable. If we don’t know where things descend from then we begin to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find comparisons to do so. this all comes at the expense of judging what is, the beings and such, on the merits of what exists. And this is where the shit hits the fan. We either dip into our own memories or a slew of people start telling us what memories to take a look at <the latter is part of the not so well intended>.

Well.

Here is an unfortunate fact … our memories, which is how we tend to judge and create mental comparisons, are constructive and reconstructive.

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

“Many people believe that memory works like a recording device.

…….. our memory chip ……..

You just record the information, then you call it up and play it back when you want to answer questions or identify images. But decades of work in psychology has shown that this just isn’t true.

Our memories are constructive.

They’re reconstructive.

Memory works a little bit more like a Wikipedia page: You can go in there and change it, but so can other people. “

—

Elizabeth Loftus

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

“You can ask the universe for all the signs you want, but ultimately, we see what we want to see when we’re ready to see it.”

——

(via 1112pm)

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

We desperately want to define things through comparison and continuously ask the universe for signs to show us what we want.

We desperately do so because in the absence of some comparison we would then have to judge what is on the merits of what exists — the good, the bad and the indifferent .

That doesn’t mean a shitload of people around you aren’t gonna try and affect how you will build your comparisons and encourage you to compare in some fairly creative <sometimes absurd> ways.

What do I mean?

I go back to the psychologist Ebbinghaus who studied memory construction <his published essay Über das Gedächtness in 1885> where he realized that memory and recall of continuous passages of prose or verse would be affected differentially by people’s experiences and prior knowledge.

Memory is a snare, pure and simple; it alters, it subtly rearranges the past to fit the present. 

Mario Vargas Llosa

 

What that actually means is that the memory you tap into to create the comparisons you seek are slightly mangled by yourself <in how you remember it> and can be manipulated by devious not so well intended people around you. The Constructive and reconstructive nature of memory:

• Memories are distributed; not unitary
• “remembering” involves retrieving and reassembling
• memories can be revised over time
• Reconstruction is filling in “missing details” on the basis of logic, assumptions, what “must have been the case”
• More common reasons for forgetting: Lack appropriate retrieval cue = something you attach to a memory, can use to recover it>
• Reliable retrieval cues are key to access <and multiple retrieval cues are best>
• Existence of older memories blocks access to newer ones

Ah. If only we could pull out our brain and use only our own eyes. But, not surprisingly, this is the exact same issue new ideas, “white space” theories, fresh thinking, true <not made up> disruptive people & things face.

All that said. I will point out that something doesn’t have to be truly new to face false comparison challenges … it can simply be a new person in an existing role or a common problem or question just in a different time. Suffice it to say anything new, or any change, is being asked to be defined by the past. And there will never be a lack of people stepping up and suggesting they can define something through a variety of comparisons <many of which you spend more time trying to fend off than is worth the time>.

This is a mistake. This is a fundamental error we make. It assumes what is can somehow be extrapolated by something by what was <the past>. In reality, as I have noted numerous times, I cannot exactly extrapolate the past because I cannot exactly replicate the past … which means <in harsh terms> there is nothing there and nothing from nothing is … uhm … nothing.

Yeah.

Most comparisons end up meaning nothing <although they look like something>.

Yeah.

This means most comparisons we create are just plain and simple false comparisons. Without trying to be flippant with regard to what I believe is a fairly standard operating procedure for people … we need to stop. Stop false comparisons.

It is a trap. And a dangerous trap.

Comparisons normalize that which should not be normalized … just as comparisons can de-normalize that which should be normalized. False comparisons wielded by the devious can construct almost any “normal” you could desire <even if it is hollow & not really normal>.

Anyway.

In today’s world there does seem like there is a lot of crazy shit happening. And in our desire to veer away from the “crazy shit” feeling we seek some comparisons to normalize the situation <thereby calming the ‘crazy shit feeling>.

Just a couple of notes of warning on that.

<a> Finding comparisons, if done well, you can actually be convinced there really isn’t crazy shit happening even though there is truly some crazy shit happening.

As a corollary to <a>,

<b> if there is truly some crazy shit happening there will be no shortage of people ponying up false comparisons trying to convince you that there is no crazy shit happening <and some of them will be quite effective>. The only reason I point out the warning is that there really is some crazy shit happening and we need to stop finding comparisons to make today, and some people, look a little less crazy than it really is.

There you go.

I will end where I began … “Comparisons are a shit way of evaluating things <and people>.” We should invest the energy judging what is, people, ideas and things, based on their present merits not some false comparisons from the past.

===

“Even as we learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this.

Such violence, such evil is senseless. It’s beyond reason.  But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.

The people we lost in Aurora loved, and they were loved.

They were mothers and fathers. They were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future, and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled. And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited, and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives.

Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

–

President Obama after Aurora shooting

===

<originally written & posted October 2, 2015 and again on November 5, 2017 and, yet, appears relevant today>

The shooting at the community college in Oregon.

As the president said last night … we seem to be having this conversation far too often in the United States.

Any shooting of innocent people is bad.

Unexplainable shootings seem worse. And because they seem unexplainable we seem to want to go back and reverse engineer information and try and explain the action of someone who does something which seems unexplainable to the everyday schmuck like me <to be clear … reverse engineering is 99% accurate … its predictive engineering that is less accurate>.

The reengineering always seems to offer possible solutions … and yet … offer no solutions at all.

And, yet, moments like this make us want to do something … to say something … to solve whatever this something is. All the while serious looking overly somber news people all over the country, as well as an obviously aggravated President Obama, comment on and lament what can only be called a tragic situation. That is all good … but what none of these people seem to nail down is a cohesive strategy to address fundamental reasons for the amount of gun violence that has somehow seeped into the everyday American Life.

Please note I said ‘cohesive’ because the voices shouting seem anything but aligned:

One shouts ‘its guns!!!’ <gun control issues>.

One shouts ‘its mental health !!!’ <psychological profiling and privacy issues>

One shouts ‘its domestic terrorism !!! <implying it is some thoughtful effort to change something>

<and a few oddly, and slightly absurdly, shout ‘its Obama’s fault !!!’>

How about we put all the ‘ones’ together and think about a common strategy.

McTague hand drawn relationship on Gun Issue

What do all of these events have in common?

There is a gun.

There is an individual.

There is society <the environment in which the gun and the individual reside>.

Gun control.

I get steamed at both sides on the gun control discussion. Freedom to own a gun does not absolve the freedom from ‘responsible gun ownership.’ On the other side … eliminating guns is just not feasible.

While I certainly don’t have all the political answers I do admit that some aspects of calls for more gun control resonate with me <all the while fully understand that Americans are hardly agreed on the issue with less than 50% wanting stricter gun laws but a majority want better background check>.

And I do know that “a feeding frenzy of new gun legislation is not the answer.” What I do know is that I would rip up all gun control legislation <I believe it is something like over 200 things> and start from scratch.

–      I want responsible people who accept the significant responsibility that comes along with owning a gun to be able to own a gun.

It doesn’t seem absurd to demand some level of ‘prove responsibility’ to own a gun. Force registration at police offices or military facilities. Prove you know how to handle a gun <all guns you may have>.

–       Any weapon the military uses for military action shouldn’t be in the hands of the everyday citizen. Period. Full stop.

If someone has military experience, then maybe they have earned the right to own an assault like weapon. But I would also make the Military responsible for military trained people who own these guns.

–       Ammunition used for hunting or ammunition for non military use.

That’s the only kind of ammunition you can have.

–      No more concealed weapons. If you have one, show it.

If I am a non gun owner I want the opportunity to decide to not be near a gun if I want to. If I am a gun owner I want to be fully aware of who else has a gun around me. If I am a police officer I want to be able to see who has what and who doesn’t.

I am sure I am missing something but this whole situation and discussion aggravates my sense so much I leaned in with what I would call the basic common sense thoughts.

The individual <and mental state of mind>.

The flippant “it’s not the gun, it’s the person’ argument is downright silly. Please, PLEASE, everyone just accept it is a symbiotic relationship.

One cannot live without the other.

Next.

The flippant “it’s a mental health issue” … well … suffice it to say “yes” … and then point out if you truly believe we can profile everyone in the entire united states, evaluate them on some set of ‘possibility criteria’ and then track them … well … you are on drugs <which is a completely different issue>.

We cannot institutionalize everyone, or anyone, who has thoughts of suicide, moments of anger at society <or some aspect or group they focus their anger on> or even people with depression and some inclination of some public display of their overall dissatisfaction with Life.

Professional health needs to suck up their pride, and differences, and come up with some basic assessment tool. By the way … has anyone ever heard of ‘social media tracking?’ I can almost guarantee that 90% of all Americans leave an internet footprint … and 99% of the assholes who pick up a gun and shoot some innocent victims certainly do.

I would subjugate one of my privacy freedoms, as a citizen, if the professional health industry said ‘we have a specific assessment tool which will be scanning all online activity which reflects indicators of mental health issues tied with possibility to pick up a gun and kill innocent people.’

C’mon. I have probably met a half dozen social media tracking companies with some technology that tracks words and clicks and even your breathing <it seems> to such a point I am pretty sure they can accurately tell me when I will need to go to the bathroom.

For fuck’s sake. Amazon knows what I want before I want it … certainly we can come up with a tool like this.

Beyond the professionals … there is … well … people … uhm … you & I <and their relationship with potential ‘tragedy creators>. I don’t want to go back to Soviet communism where neighbors reported on neighbors to the KGB … but … for cryin’ out loud … if we simply raised our hands for the people we were 80% sure needed some help … at minimum … they get help … and even better … we cut down on these tragic events by 80%.

To be clear on that last point … perfection may be sought … but will never be attained. Evil does win on occasion <whether we like it or not>.

Society.

Let me begin with …

The picture emerging of Mercer is of a killer who had an interest in mass shootings, having reportedly recently posted on a blog about a gunman who killed two US journalists live on air in August.

He described Vester Flanagan as a man who “wanted the world to see his actions” before adding: “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Oh. Let me add …

In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.

Sigh.

I sometimes think we are our own worst enemy. Regardless. Let me tell ya one thing I know for sure … if someone wants to commit suicide and leave a legacy <be in the limelight> that people will remember forever … just do it, or something, in front of today’s media <and then the entertainment industry will run with it from there with TV specials, movies, docudramas, whatever>.

The core of much of the entertainment industry in America – movies, TV shows and, yes, I consider today’s cable news as entertainment <albeit disturbing entertainment> – is based on killing and violence. We glorify the violence & the violent at the same time as we are saddened by it.

In addition … while we depict the violent as ‘evil’ we just as much showcase them as misguided or ‘faults of society’ <not forcing any accountability or personal responsibility for actions on the asshole who actually pulled the trigger>.

The consequences of this is that our society breeds a sense of ‘victim’ even for the purveyor of the tragedy.

Society?

Shit. Well … we just need to be better dammit.

<sigh>

If not us then who?

Look. The champions for gun ownership point out that the Constitution of the country gives people the right to own guns. I would suggest those people think contextually with regard to that thought … at the time America had no standing army … just citizen militia. Everyone was expected to pick up their gun in defense of this new nation we had just created.

Basically, at that time, everyone served in the military.

I would suggest to the people who suggest ‘more guns’ that maybe if we had a mandatory one year military service <or community service if you do not want military> for everyone then everyone would be properly trained as well as properly assessed.

–

note:

The Swiss require part-time military service from each male citizen between the ages of 18 to 34. Women may serve voluntarily. In a nation of eight million people, about 20,000 soldiers a year attend basic training for 18 to 21 weeks

–

Do I truly want that? No.

Do I truly believe it would resolve a shitload of the issues we have now with regard to guns and violence? Yes.

I am all for maintaining our constitutional rights, but, please, PLEASE, could gun rights people think about the context in which the constitution was crafted.

In the end.

I am all for responsible people owning hand guns. That is their choice and, as a country, we deemed that as one of our inviolate rights.

I am all for responsible mental health profiling.

I am all for a responsible society.

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. It is a complex issue that demands we do something because that is what adults do to protect their children.

I am sure I am missing something and I am relatively sure I will come back and rewrite portions of this but this topic makes me so angry and so sad at the exact same time I just gotta stop for now.