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

Science is not a bunch of facts. Scientists are not people trying to be prescriptive or authoritative.

Science is simply the word we use to describe a method of organizing our curiosity. It’s easier, at a dinner party, to say ”science” than to say ”the incremental acquisition of understanding through observation, humbled by an acute awareness of our tendency towards bias”.

Douglas Adams said: “I’d take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.”

Science is not the opposite of art, nor the opposite of spirituality – whatever that is – and you don’t have to deny scientific knowledge in order to make beautiful things.

–

Tim Minchin

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

“I could make a better decision than that stupid one.”

—

said by anyone who thinks they are smarter than a leader

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

Whew. Twitter reminds me day in and day out how effective the incompetent are at marketing ‘competence’. For the less than discerning eye the incompetent can look quite competent, if not almost achieve an expert perception status. It is becoming really hard, as in REALLY hard, to explain your skill competence in superior or even ‘better than’ ways these days. I clearly and unequivocally believe we are now officially in the decommoditization era. No matter your resume, no matter your experience, no matter your education or anything you have done you have to assume you are a commodity in the eyes of … well … everyone.

Oddly this is even more a truth when you step out of your own circle of truly competitively skilled compatriots <where everyone is equal – a version of commodity – until proven otherwise>.

I walk in a formal business meeting everyone assumes I know my shit.

I walk in a bar and everyone assumes they know as much shit as I do.

Not too long ago I wrote about the slow demise of expertology as “corner of the bar wisdom.”

Ok. I admit. I made up that word ‘expertology.’ Today I take it a step farther under the title of “the commoditization of competency.” What I mean by that is competency and having qualifications is becoming meaningless to everyone except hiring agents and recruiters.

In fact. Let’s just admit it <insert a deep sigh here>, competency, skill & qualifications have attained a commodity status. Sure. We put high falutin’ titles on resumes and highlight success stories and results we have achieved, but inevitably once in a job everyone on the outside looking in views you as a peer – regardless of your skill and title.

This is disheartening … yeah … disheartening …I mean, c’mon, how could it not? … how could the undervaluing, if not complete disregard, of experience and proven skills not be disheartening?

Even worse … it is crazy. As in crazy dangerous.

Look. I don’t care what experience you have, what qualifications you have and what title you have … you are human. That means you will have some successes and some failures. In today’s critical world this means even some of the successes could be viewed as ‘not as good as it should have been’ and the failures could be viewed as “worse than they should have been.” Therefore, because people not actually asociated with whatever is being discussed they view each action, success or failure, as mutually exclusive and without some context, well, people inevitably lose confidence and trust in the leaders decisions, and competency, as decisions & actions get parsed.

This gets challenging because competency, in and of itself, is about the lowest bar one can meet. It most likely suggests someone can carry out the requirements of a specific task. Sure. It may be better than able or capable, which implies that it is possible someone may actually be able to carry out the task, but it is also not ‘qualified’ … which stresses the possession of desired skills nor does it ratchet up to anything higher unless it gets attached to fit, efficient or even good. I say all that because if you commoditize competency, and it is already perceived as ‘the lowest good bar for the responsibility’ then you have dumbed down the concept of what is actually needed to a place in which it appears that anyone could almost do it.

That is crazy.

While I am not suggesting that we view those with the best qualifications and competencies as ‘the few who are chosen and everyone else is a failure and deserves to be forgotten’, I will suggest that leaders mostly get chosen because fewer people can actually do what they do – and do it well on top of that.

I get that people are sick of experts. But that is misguided thinking because experts are experts for a reason. But, maybe worse, people are sick of thinking that people can actually do something they cannot do or make decisions they cannot make. The absurd overarching view becomes “a decision is a decision and anyone with common sense can make it.”

That is absurd. And, yet, that perception creates a reality in which those who truly have superior competence and excellent qualifications are treated to the unending joy of explaining why that doesn’t translate into a commodity. This all gets compounded by the fact that … well … this gets even more absurd … because the hiring process is rigorous and managed expertly … it becomes viewed as biased and rigged <therefore the true qualifications get ignored because outside people just think they did not matter in the hiring process>.

All this to say that we have a competency crisis at hand.

If qualifications do not matter … if experience does not matter … if everything you have done is second guessed to a point of … well … nothing meaningful, than anyone and everyone is competent enough to maybe not do any job but certainly able to make the same decisions anyone else can make.

Reread that last bolded grouping of words. If that doesn’t send a shiver down your spine I do not know what will.

Look. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. And even the guy at the corner of the bar can find the right decision on occasion.

All I know is that I have been thinking about this for quite some time and have been quite concerned about how society is commoditizing competency. But it all really hit home when I realized an obviously unqualified presidenial candidate was going to be placed in a position where, more than character, competency matters.

Trump embodies this crisis of competency.

As I mentioned to a friend of mine … yes, the Trump choice is partially a fuck you to politicians. But what YOU are missing is that most people will only say fuck you to this extent if they actually feel like there is a competency safety net. And that is where we as a society are fucking ourselves. We have reached this absurd point where we see ‘competency’ as a commodity. I wrote about it in a post I called ‘corner of the bar wisdom’ but if the majority of the rural population is sitting in some bar or barbershop truly believing that they could do the job as well as someone who has the necessary skills & competency … well … then you become willing to overlook real qualifications for a job and choose someone based on things other than qualifications.

This is an unsettling dangerous issue.

In this case it becomes doubly dangerous for society because in an ever increasing multicultural and gender equal environment … older white men are driving this attitude. This just feeds back into an archaic way of conducting business and guiding society. Therefore, on the dangerous side of his equation, a competent ‘win any way you can’ person is equal to a competent ‘how you win matters’ person.

Look. This isn’t necessarily about Trump he simply embodies the issue at hand. This is more about how we are dangerously commoditizing competency and skills which ignores the truth that, like it or not, qualified people are better skilled and better informed. To be clear … that does not necessarily follow that their judgement will always be correct. But that doesn’t translate into them not being skilled or informed or competent.

We far too often shortchange the influence and ability to shape events beyond the more obvious transactional moment. And, yes, that is where competency gets screwed. Competency can be nitpicked to death through linear evaluation, and value assessment, rather than a more complex evaluation of larger affect.

In addition, if my competency were solely judged by some event and decision I made 6 years ago, it ignores the fact that there is no doubt I am more confident in the assessments I make today. I can see beyond the horizon faster than I used to. I think it was Obama who said “the map isn’t always the territory, and you have to kind of walk through it to get a feel for it.” You get a better feel for unintended consequences and consequences in general. And that is where true competency resides … not in the actual moment but also in the aftermath and consequences.

Here is what I know about less-than-competent less-than-qualified decision makers — they have a nasty habit of selecting a path to a target and then to use whatever information they have to persuade others to not obstruct the path they have already decided to walk. This means:

<1> they really aren’t that interested in real ‘truth’ but rather fall back on ‘common sense’ <without the experience and skills and qualifications to insure the common sense is really something that makes sense> and,

<2> they use what I consider ‘pillar logic’, i.e., they stack up what they need under the decision to raise it up … versus the more solid ‘pyramid logic’ which actually creates a foundation from which the decision points up to.

But you know what? While the competency crisis is aggravating I believe the greatest danger of commoditizing competence and qualifications is the fact that it ignores the downside — recklessness, ignorance and incompetence.

Yes. Even a commodity has a downside. Let’s call it the ugly underbelly. Maybe even call it the ‘dangerous foundation of pillar thinking.’ Yeah. a three legged stool is solid … uhm .. until one leg is broken.

Less than competent leaders like three legged stools.

Competent  leaders like concrete foundations.

Uhm. That summarizes the risk & recklessness & ignorance argument almost better than anything else I have said.

Anyway. I get concerned we are commoditizing competency. It has some unseemly repercussions and even some dangerous repercussions.

I don’t mind being in the decommoditization business with regard to my own competency but , in general, it seems like it puts an undue onus on experts and the people who really do know their shit to be better at articulating competency than the asshats who have the ‘gift of gab’ and don’t know their shit.

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

“Those who tied the knots are responsible for untying [them].”

—–

Chinese Foreign Ministry

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

So. We talk a lot about “business problem solvers” or “disruptors” or any number of ‘problem/solution’ type things in the business world.

Well. Maybe we should talk more about the knots.

Knots?

I have eased my way into a number of new responsibility positions throughout my career and one of the first things you start doing when you settle in is scan for the knots that are inherently strewn throughout the business.

Sometimes these are nicely tied knots someone has developed and set in place to hold together a process or system or principle to insure it holds something important together.

Sometimes these are nasty tangled threads created by someone who didn’t know their ass from their toes, or by the system itself <think of a lawn hose by the end of the summer> or sometimes they are representative of well-intended actions by a variety of people over time <trying to improve or fix something>.

And, while those are all “sometimes”, all times, all businesses, have knots.

That said. I can also say that untying knots is not for the faint of heart. To do so well is to be part safe cracker, part surgeon and part Navy Seal.

Ah. But not everyone views knots the same – in how they occurred and what needs to be done to untie. I would suggest how you view a knot depends on whether you believe in cause & effect <a linear action model> or in a more ambiguous “a cause can create multiple effects’ model.

Let me explain a little.

When I started in the business world we spent a shitload of time discussing cause & effect, stimulus & response and … well … a lot of behavior based on a linear ‘if this, then that’ type model.

Not so much today.

In today’s world almost all situations <internal process as well as consumer/buyer behavior> are ‘knotty.’

I often show a picture of an atom in attitudes & behavior discussion but I like the knot metaphor also.

Uhm. Yes. This type of thinking, unfortunately, increases the likelihood of ambiguity. Ambiguity is not one of those things the business world tends to happily embrace.

To be clear. There is a lot to be said for teaching young business people cause & effect basics. I liked growing up & learning the business world encased in a cocoon of certainty type thinking. Linear type thinking gave me some clarity and it certainly permitted some fairly easy conclusions and recommendations. Unfortunately I also found, over time with experience, this increases the likelihood of … well … a shitload of bad things – wasted energy, misguided efforts and monies being funneled into activity generating less-than-desired outcomes.

But. It had been linear logic and, therefore, provided some certainty to base the recommended recommendations on.

Certainty. Certainty is something we all crave in business. But we may crave it for a slightly less obvious reason then you may think. Linear permits us to more easily get the one thing almost everyone wants – a way to get out.

Yeah. It’s not really about solutions or answers, simplistically, it is awareness that there could be a way out.

Just think about it a little.

Most of us when faced with some situation, issue or problem just want a way out of that situation, issue or problem.

And, yet, we spend gobs of time talking solutions and most likely invest far too much time & energy extrapolating out “what if scenarios” in seeking what happens when we untie the knot and move forward. It’s quite possible we should be investing more energy, instead, on looking at a knot and simply seeking the best way out of the knot. And that is where linear thinking kicks nonlinear thinking’s ass.

With ambiguity, the way out is not only less clear but, at times, it can seem like a crapshoot –what is behind door #1, versus door #2 … as well as door #3?

And who the hell wants that in any business decision making situation?

Which leads me back to knots. As you move up in management, and Life I imagine, you either get better at seeing the knot and seeing how to untie a knot — or you remain a linear cause & effect decision maker.

I would suggest the world can use both; however, the world <business or otherwise> cannot exist solely with cause & effect decision makers. In addition .. each group and drive the other one frickin’ crazy. But, suffice it to say, we need knot un-tiers.

Being an “un-tier” actually consists of two aspects — one attitude and one expertise.

Attitude: personal responsibility.

You own the knot. This is a metaphor … a metaphor for a problem and owning the problem.

We all inherit problems. And the most successful of us look at them as knots, not ‘some simple fix <do this/get that>. The most successful of us don’t sit around bitching about the knots, whether they were there already or created by someone else, but go about assuming responsibility for any and all knots and go about untying as many of them as we can. But here is the thing about this responsibility. We own the knot. We do so because we know that once we are in a position to get shit done … all that matters is getting shit done. And you know you have the responsibility to do what needs to be done to get shit done. It does no good to say “not my knot.” You have a job … they are all now your knots.

I would note that untying knots is kind of a “go big or go home” type venture. I say that because in business once you begin untying … well … you have to keep going. Knots, good and bad, exist for a reason … so eliminating, or rearranging, a knot will have consequences — stopping is not an option.

Expertise: ability to navigate the interweaving that binds a knot.

Untangling is part vision and part deft touch. Anyone who has ever untied an ‘impossible knot’ knows that you cannot simply tug & pull … you have to ease one aspect and pull another and maybe even push in other place. Deft. And as you do so you have the vision ability to see the unseen parts and get a sense of where one ‘weave’ has appeared and where it has come from, what it crosses and if it is actually entangled with another weave.

———

—–

I would suggest that this is partially an ability to navigate some ambiguity.

Ah. That phrase ‘navigate ambiguity’ leads me to one last thing. Cause & effect thinkers can be a cleverly dangerous group of business thinkers to work with. Using the business knot as the example … the most dangerous thing a linear thinker can do is offer everyone the false linear cause & effect conclusion.

Huh? Think of this knot as like shoelaces. The knot is there with the aglets <the small sheath, often made of plastic or metal, used on each end of a shoelace>. The linear thinker, incapable of untying the knot suggests the knots doesn’t matter because if I have the left aglet, and the right aglet, they suggest “I can clearly see the ultimate cause & effect” <see image to right as example>.

That is wrong. And dangerous for making a business decision.

Not to put this too harshly but that logic is like saying “I love all jelly filled donuts” not knowing some are filled with shit.

All that said. I will say that once you have tied a knot you do assume some responsibility for it – keeping it, explain it or even untying it. I mention this because a lot of us leave positions, jobs & companies and far too often leave a knot behind with no explanation. Maybe we are embarrassed to highlight a knot or maybe we just start thinking “not my worry anymore.”

Well. It doesn’t really matter what you think … you own the knot and you have a responsibility to talk about any and all knots with anyone who may someday want to untie it. Regardless. I would also remind everyone — knots are created to be untied.

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

Originally published September 2017

==

“When written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.”

–

John F. Kennedy

==

Ok.

I love this quote.  And a boatload of business management people do <dozens of books written using it>.

Uh oh. But it isn’t true.

Good ole JFK got it wrong <but he is in good company>.

The usual explanation is that the Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is made up of two characters signifying “opportunity” and “danger.” To us folk on this side of the planet this is a great example of the ancient East wisdom. And teachers, pontificators, self help specialists, motivational speakers and anyone who likes to tell people to find lemonade when given a basket of lemons have used this explanation.

The key lesson shared?

“A crisis provides an opportunity for change and growth as well as a danger of regression or stagnation.”

<but that is too long and complete to be a soundbite>

Yup. This is pretty frickin’ deep.

The truth?

1. In Chinese, the term for crisis is wei ji.

2. Native Chinese speakers tend to think the crisis = danger/opportunity connection is complete bullshit.

The Chinese word <not really an ideogram by the way> for crisis, when translated, literally means “dangerous, or precarious, moment.” That’s it.  No ‘opportunity.’  No benefiting.  Just danger. Or … maybe I should focus on the part I like … “a precarious moment.”

Not a bad lesson in itself. Crisis CAN be bad … but in reality is just all about having a precarious moment … that needs to be managed.

Just to be sure I cover all my bases as I tear down all that self-help mumbo jumbo people have absorbed and are putting in use day-to-day.

(through some research)

A mandarin expert breaks down the word and definition and wisdom mumbo-jumbo:

A whole industry of pundits and therapists has grown up around this one grossly inaccurate statement. A casual search of the Web turns up more than a million references to this spurious proverb. It appears, often complete with Chinese characters, on the covers of books, on advertisements for seminars, on expensive courses for “thinking outside of the box,” and practically everywhere one turns in the world of quick-buck business, pop psychology, and orientalist hocus-pocus. This catchy expression (Crisis = Danger + Opportunity) has rapidly become nearly as ubiquitous as The Tao of Pooh and Sun Zi’s Art of War for the Board / Bed / Bath / Whichever Room.

The explication of the Chinese word for crisis as made up of two components signifying danger and opportunity is due partly to wishful thinking, but mainly to a fundamental misunderstanding about how terms are formed in Mandarin and other Sinitic languages.

<that was awesome …>

Next.

While it is true that wēijī does indeed mean “crisis” and that the wēi syllable of wēijī does convey the notion of “danger,” the jī syllable of wēijī most definitely does not signify “opportunity.”

The jī of wēijī, in fact, means something like “incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes).” Thus, a wēijī is indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to go awry. A wēijī indicates a perilous situation when one should be especially wary. It is not a juncture when one goes looking for advantages and benefits.

As the Mandarin language expert says quite succinctly … “In a crisis, one wants above all to save one’s skin and neck!”

As well as …

“Any would-be guru who advocates opportunism in the face of crisis should be run out of town on a rail, for his / her advice will only compound the danger of the crisis.”

I loved this guy.

A little wordy in his explanation but he was passionate about telling everyone how far off base they were on the whole crisis/opportunity thing. Sorry.  No Eastern wisdom here. In this case the east and the west agreed that a crisis is bad, dangerous and to be wary of and that’s it.

Ok.

All that said <mostly said to enlighten everyone and piss off a boatload of publishers and book writers> let’s talk about crisis and the opportunities a crisis does actually create. Most of us quickly see the danger in a crisis… and we should … because it is exactly as translated … a precarious moment.  Like its true Chinese definition a crisis is a crucial moment where things begin to go awry.

It is easy to overlook any opportunity within the crisis because, frankly, we are often just trying to survive <in other words … save our skin, neck & ass>.

And what makes this even more difficult is that the opportunity may be well hidden. The danger is always obvious and the most critical in our eye because the crisis creates potential personal harm. So what makes a crisis truly a “precarious moment” is that assuming you are seeking to find that elusive opportunity within the crisis … well … that with danger lurking its not that we forget to look for the opportunity but rather we seek to avoid the danger and the personal harm.

Lets call this for what it is … self preservation.

And that isn’t bad by the way.  Because if you don’t survive the “opportunity” becomes irrelevant. It is natural to avoid danger during a crisis and make that THE priority.  So, no, I am not going to suggest someone become an “opportunity person” when dealing with a crisis.

I believe people who can discover opportunities in a crisis are people who have already successfully managed the ‘precarious moment’ several times in the past. Maybe call it trial by fire.  Maybe call it trial & error.  But suffice it to say you ain’t gonna be seeking opportunities when dealing with your first true crisis.

Yes. Many people say that it was actually a crisis that caused them to make a much-needed change.

Yes. Living through a hard time challenges people to grow in ways that makes them more mature and opens them to new possibilities.

Where I would argue with people on this is that through surviving the crisis they … well … just found a better way to survive. And that’s not being opportunistic.  That is simply survival instinct <compounded by understanding of what makes oneself happiest>.

Look.

Life constantly gives you opportunities … and gives you crisis also <unfortunately> … regardless … you get opportunities not just to take a chance but also just to improve your current state.

Here is the formula (although in this case I am not sure A + B = C).

(A) A crisis is a forced decision making moment (typically survival based).

(B) Decision making moments represent opportunities.

(C) Opportunities typically translate into some type of change.

And everyone, obviously, wants to capitalize on any change (who would choose to have a negative result from a decision?). If someone wants to claim a crisis represents an opportunity go ahead and do so … but please recognize that it is an indirect extended relationship.  And in doing so you could be doing a disservice to people because it ignores what a crisis is truly about – survival.

Ok.

I do believe dealing with a crisis has a lot to do with attitude <which is possibly where many people get confused with this whole opportunity thing>.

A Pollyanna attitude? Nope.

Someone wrote: “Welcoming personal setbacks as rich opportunities for growth can help you survive them. Does that seem like a twisted point of view? After all, problems make us miserable, right? Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled (Touchstone, 2003), considers them a gift — if you look at them in a deeper, less reactive manner. Indeed, they can give us clear perspective.”

Wow.

That is a bunch of bullhockey <bullshit>.

A crisis is just that.  A crisis.  A dangerous moment. A precarious moment.

Should we be seeking opportunities in the middle of a frickin’ crisis? Nope.

We should be seeking survival.

And that is where attitude comes in. Not “lets find the opportunity” or some baloney like that <or find the lemonade out of the lemons> but an attitude capturing a strength of character <I will be strong and overcome> and resiliency <survive>. Afterwards maybe you can look back and discover the opportunities that were an outcome from the crisis (although this has a slightly masochistic point of view in that from pain comes pleasure that kind of creeps me out) but when in a crisis … just deal with it.

Have a good attitude and explore all the possibilities/opportunities … once you have managed the experience itself.

Dealing with a true crisis takes character.  HOW you deal with a crisis says almost as much as what you do to deal with a crisis.  A crisis is a gauntlet. You have to have strength of character.  And strength in resiliency.  Please don’t measure yourself when dealing with a crisis by what opportunity you discovered from the crisis … measure yourself by how you survived.

A crisis.

It is a ‘precarious moment’ … a ‘crucial moment’ … a ‘dangerous moment.’

<East & West agree on this>

Seek to survive the moment. Don’t seek the opportunity for god’s sake. Just try and be aware should an opportunity arise <as you survive>. Leave the ‘opportunistic crisis management approach’ to people who write books and pontificate<but, please do not buy the books and live your life by all their bullshit>.

Oh.

And don’t misuse the Chinese definition of crisis. Because that is where this whole rant started. I am all for seeking opportunities and I have a shitload, too much, experience dealing with crises. But I will be honest … my first response in any crisis is “survival”. Once I can see, or sense, we will survive hen, yeah, I will most likely scan the horizon for some opportunities. But survival first.

Well.

Be prepared. I almost always open with a quote but today I open with a sentence … a 198 word sentence written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr <father of US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.>:

—————————

Many times, when I have got upon the cars, expecting to be magnetized into an hour or two of blissful reverie, my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand in Chladni’s famous experiment,—fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon,—all this without volition, the mechanical impulse alone keeping the thoughts in motion, as the mere act of carrying certain watches in the pocket keeps them wound up,—many times, I say, just as my brain was beginning to creep and hum with this delicious locomotive intoxication, some dear detestable friend, cordial, intelligent, social, radiant, has come up and sat down by me and opened a conversation which has broken my day-dream, unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along my fancies and hitched on the old weary omnibus-team of every-day associations, fatigued my hearing and attention, exhausted my voice, and milked the breasts of my thought dry during the hour when they should have been filling themselves full of fresh juices.

——————————–

So.

When I read this sentence <read it several times in fact> I thought of “filling up” and “emptying out.”

Huh?

Oliver Sr. was no dumb shit. His brain was filled with more “kernels of knowledge sand” than most of us will ever be filled with. And, yet, he outlines how the knowledge works best when emptied of structured thinking and any specific destination but rather when “without volition” new thoughts are unharnessed by old learning rearranged.

Couple lessons in that:

• New thinking is almost always simply a new way of looking at something everybody already knows.

• In an age of instant gratification, smartphone access to any answer you would ever want and a belief that the fastest answer is the best answer it is good to remember that thinking is like baking. You have ingredients and you need to properly bake them to arrive at something special.

This isn’t to suggest that there is no hurry but rather you use the allotted time in the best possible way.

I worry more about the latter than I do the former in today’s world.

I worry about it because thinking is more often like what someone referred to Emerson’s writing as “a chaos full of shooting-stars, a jumble of creative forces.”

That is thinking.

Thinking doesn’t pretend to follow rules, enact some methodology or even use the words it is ‘supposed to use.’

—–

unharnessed the flying horses that were whirling along

my thoughts shaken up by the vibrations into all sorts of new and pleasing patterns, arranging themselves in curves and nodal points, like the grains of sand

fresh ideas coming up to the surface, as the kernels do when a measure of corn is jolted in a farmer’s wagon

—-

And more often than not, in an attempt to be more efficient in a time constrained world, we try and micro-structure our thinking.

It seems like as the world became more enlightened by mass media, structured education systems and “college for all” we have become … well … more sensible in our thinking.

Which brings me back to my opening sentence.

It breaks all the rules of not only how to write but how to think.

And, yet, it captures the essence of thinking … it certainly captures the magic of thinking … and, unfortunately to the thinking methodology Nazis, it certainly captures the practicality of freedom in thinking.

Our world today is strewn with catchy incorrect memes, rewritten history, faulty logic and misleading statistics all offered to us out of context.

The internet, while offering us a boundless offering of truth & facts, has only encouraged sloppy, lazy thinking.

It should be enlightening us but, far too often; it actually encourages some fairly absurd unenlightened thinking.

Thinking, and I mean real thinking, can cure this unenlightened cancer. The cancer is not social media or this absurd love of brevity … it is us and our thinking.

In thoughtful moments I tend to believe people know this. They know social media and smartphones and the internet is not the problem … it is us. Yeah. All those things make us susceptible to these wacky conspiracy theories, false statistics and alternative facts but they do not live unless we breathe life into them.

Look.

I do worry about thinking on occasion. Shit. I have even written about how I cried about thinking in today’s world.

I have a number of friends who send me memes and out of context quotes to make a point and ask me my view.

I probably send more time fact correct and making people aware of truth than I do sharing my own opinion. That worries me. in fact this is a direct quote from me:

======

But here is what really worries me.

If you, not a dumb guy by any stretch of the imagination, can truly believe even 75% of what you shared with me then what does the everyday schmuck believe?

That is what worries me.

=========

Thinking does take time and some space and … well … even some work <even if that work is to find empty space and not working>.

And, even then, the problem is that you can search the internet far and wide without finding a clear repudiation of some falsely stated, good sounding piece of untrue crap.

In fact.

If you do spend some time researching something you will more likely find a massive gap between public belief and expert knowledge.

There is often such a delusional gap between reality and “belief” it often seems absurd … and absurdly difficult to bridge the gap.

We need more thinking today than ever before. And, sadly, we need more thinking on simpler things than ever before.

Oliver Sr. was thinking on big things and big thoughts. And we need people like that.

What worries me is that in today’s world we need more people doing more thinking on the kernels of corn, the grains of sand and the horses themselves.

I worry about that because if we don’t have more people doing that kind of thinking all we will end up doing is rearranging unfortunately misguided untrue kernels of corn, fake grains of sand and unicorns not horses.

I imagine my real point today is that effective thinking is dependent upon tow things:

• insuring we have lots of “true grains” of sand in our heads <not alternative facts or falsehoods>

• insuring we have some time to properly jostle the kernels of corn <or grains of sand if you don’t want me to mix my metaphors> to rearrange them in new configurations

I don’t believe the world, society or any business wants us rearranging lies, fake and unicorns in order to form a better union.

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

World Population : 7,810,521,683

just in case somebody start feelin too important

—-

a tumblr post

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

7 billion people experienced this day in a different way

–

restless–dream

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

Ok

In a busy world in which there seems to be a shitload of yelling & screaming & gnashing of teeth … it almost seems like while we claim being unimportant, or let’s say “my individual vote just doesn’t matter” or “why should I do something … it really won’t matter”, our individual opinion and thoughts have gained importance in our own mind.

This has reached an almost absurd position in which we say we are unimportant but our view is of ultimate importance.

Maybe another way of saying this is to say that while we feel increasing insignificant as an individual in the larger world we believe our individual beliefs are increasingly significant in the larger world.

That said … within this wretched place many of us find ourselves in … I almost called this ‘empty ideology.’

Because while we may struggle with a belief we are relatively insignificant in the grander scheme of things we are becoming increasing worse at articulating the significance of our feelings, thoughts & beliefs.

Basically … in a busy world we have chosen to be hollow thinkers on specific topics.

One of them is ideology … pick your poison on this … liberalism, conservativism, green, etc.

We take some ideological stance and argue it mostly with an “it just is” rationale.

That is hollow.

Let me further explain hollow.

“… for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets.”

I don’t care if you are a conservative or a liberal … our arguments seemingly reflect an overall belief that our argument just doesn’t matter.

Ponder that.

If you don’t believe arguing, or a healthy debate, is actually going to matter you will either not even invest in engaging and or if you do engage you will inevitably not invest the energy and hard work to go beyond a simplistic airheady argument.

You will fall back on trite idiotic stereotypes or the infamously shallow “it just is” logic.

—

“educated but ignorant, politically correct loony liberals.”

<although I always liked how Stalinists called them “rootless cosmopolitans”>.

===========

“lunatic wall street right wing nutjobs.”

—

I find the generalized, stereotyped driven simplistic platitudes not particularly helpful to a good discourse let alone argument.

Look.

I could easily argue we are all important.

But I could also easily argue that to actually BE important it takes some work.

Just ponder that a little.

We certainly have to work to survive and pretty much all of us are okay with that.

We just go ‘do it.’

It takes a lot of effort and … well … work is work and leisure is leisure … and we get that.

But the truth is that a ‘non airhead simplistic argument’, i.e. knowledge, also takes work .. it takes effort. Far too many of us just do not “go do it” with reagrd to knowledge.

And as many people have pointed out … if you don’t work at knowledge, the winner <because you have become a loser> is not really ignorance … it is skepticism & cynicism.

Neither of those two things is conducive to persuasion and neither of those two things is conducive to effective listening.

This is really important <and we should discuss more often>.

People, in general, are not stupid nor are people, in general, ignorant … they have mostly just given up. If they believe if they put in the work, become more knowledgeable and more enlightened, and … yet … believe our argument will just not matter … uhm … then what is the incentive to put in the work?

Enlightenment, which we should all desire, demands a principled belief that thinking requires some true knowledge.

Enlightenment requires you to often double and triple-check factual assertions.

Enlightenment can dispense justice and foster real betterment & opportunity only if we are not lazy, take the easy path to truth or we do not rely on “it just is” logic.

Truth is a funny thing.

Facts are a funny thing.

You don’t have to agree with the truth nor do you have to agree with facts … but you do have to obey them in order to BE important <not just feel important>.

Regardless.

It is easy to believe something and just say “it just is.”

And it is even easier to suggest the reason your belief is not mainstream because somebody, somewhere, is covertly operating behind the scenes <most typically wielding political correctness as a weapon> pulling the strings of society to manufacture the ‘wrong things.’
It is hard to think, gain knowledge & wisdom which is demanded to articulate what is maybe most important to actually making you important – your idea, thoughts and beliefs.

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

We ought to view ourselves with the same curiosity and openness with which we study a tree, the sky or a thought, because we too are linked to the entire universe.

–

Henri Matisse

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

In a world of 7 billion people it can be fairly easy to feel unimportant.

And, yet, by ignoring the other 6.99999999 billion people it can be fairly easy to feel pretty fucking important.

7 billion people.

They may not care about you but you sure as hell better care about them because you are … well … you are important and you should BE important.

If you believe in something, it matters … it is important.

If you stand for something, it matters … it is important.

And if it is important … it is important that it not be empty but rather full of thought, wisdom and listening.

Just don’t feel too important.

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

Here is the test of wisdom,

Wisdom is not finally tested in schools,

Wisdom cannot be pass’d from one having it to another not having it,

Wisdom is of the soul, is not susceptible of proof, is its own proof,

Applies to all stages and objects and qualities and is content,

Is the certainty of the reality and immortality of things, and the excellence of things;

Something there is in the float of the sight of things that provokes it out of the soul.

Song of the Open Road

By Walt Whitman

red shoes adventure by zvaella

====

“I never change, I simply become more myself.”

―

Joyce Carol Oates

=====

“We meet ourselves time and again in a thousand disguises on the path of life.”

―

C.G. Jung

====

“fire doesn’t change –

it doesn’t become less of a flame

just because it loves the air.”

—

marina v.

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

Well.

I probably get asked “don’t you think people can change?” more often than any other question.

I will suggest that the whole discussion of ‘can people change’ could take an entire lifetime.

So, for today, let’s answer it with “yes, no & maybe.”

I imagine it depends on who the person is and what they want to change and how badly they do, or don’t want to do, the change … as well as if they demand the change of themselves or if the change is being demanded of them.

Whew.

That last sentence pretty much is a reflection of why the answer to ‘can people change’ is yes, no & maybe.

But I have a different thought on whether people can really change.

In some ways I do not believe people change … instead they evolve. They evolve as a reflection of external stimulation from which they adapt internally.

I imagine this means you simply become more of who & what you already are.

The corollary to that thought is without this evolution you simply remain a lesser version of who you could be

<note: which I assume mot people would prefer not being>.

Conceptually I imagine I am suggesting you are what you are. In addition … you don’t really know what you are … you have to find it.

Ah.

That darn “find it” thing.

I think maybe I will call it ‘self adventure.’

Maybe our Life is just one big adventure called “finding the best version of myself.’

And, yeah, I do believe there is a ‘best version’ within everyone. Some of us simply fail on our adventure to actually arrive at that version. In addition … I do believe we all go on this adventure whether we choose to do so with purpose or not.

Now.

That said.
I also tend to believe two basic things about ourselves:

– We begin not completely molded <therefore part of your adventure is finding who and what you really are>.

– We accumulate good & bad aspects along the way <and it really isn’t changing but shedding the bad and accumulating the good … hopefully that mix …>.

This adventure can be harrowing.

It can be fun.

It can be freeing and it can put you in cages. But as long as you continue on the adventure you are organically changing … not purposefully changing.

So I imagine this also means that, yes, people can change … but it also suggests if you are seeking purposeful change, rather than encountering organic change, more often than not you will find yourself going against the grain of your adventure.

And maybe that is why change is so difficult or maybe that is why most people really don’t have an interest in making any significant change <or at least put the effort necessary to create that change>. Purposeful change is most likely not our natural change.

————

“What else should our lives be but a continual series of beginnings, of painful settings out into the unknown, pushing off from the edges of consciousness into the mystery of what we have not yet become.”

==

David Malouf

—————————–

And, yet, time and time <and time> again we seem to head out on some purposeful change quest. We do so with the best of intentions for this quest is simply a reflection of the most basic overriding theme of Life … how do people fulfill their potential and figure out who they are and what they’re capable of?

But somehow in our misguided quests we find our‘potential’ is more often focused on painfully or strenuously attacking externally doing things to improve … to be something we envision we want to be <better>.

I would like to note that this type of quest also goes against the grain of how I consult businesses, therefore, I could suggest it is a little ass backwards. In business I 99% of the time suggest an inside out business model. Don’t figure out who you want to be first but rather figure out who you are first <and maximize that>.

The good self adventures follow that inside out strategy … and then maybe it’s not that we get smarter intellectually that is most important but rather we get smarter about ourselves <know more about who & what we are>. It is a tougher adventure because it is less “if I do this will be this” but rather I am setting out on an adventure knowing this about me.

One adventure has a clear destination you are aiming for and one adventure has a clear home you are walking out the front door from.

———

“Desires, memories, fears, passions form labyrinths in which we lose and find and then lose ourselves again.”

―

Bernhard Schlink

====

One path is much less easy to get lost on and one is much easier to get lost.

But I could argue one adventure could permit you to reach a destination that may not be as valuable as you thought originally while the other adventure insures whatever destination, and path as well, you wander into will be a reflection of something you value.

I will admit … I am clearly in the ‘inside out’ self adventure camp.

It certainly has its challenges but it also permits me … well … adventure.

I have less milestone and objective based Life successes <improvements> … my self improvements are, frankly, more organic.

===

“So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservation, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future.

The very basic core of a man’s living spirit is his passion for adventure.

The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and different sun. If you want to get more out of life, you must lose your inclination for monotonous security and adopt a helter-skelter style of life that will at first appear to you to be crazy.

But once you become accustomed to such a life you will see its full meaning and its incredible beauty.”

———

Jon Krakauer

====

All that said … here is what I do now about can a person change. Once you are in a routine, once you are comfortable with what you are doing, it is incredibly easy to confuse that situational, environmental comfort as “understanding who & what I am.”
We should never confuse comfort in circumstances with being comfortable with who & what you are.

They are two separate things which can often be confused.

How can I feel confident saying this?

Change your comfortable circumstances … and then see how comfortable you are with who and what you are. Stagnancy blinds us to many many things. movement uncovers that which has been cloaked.

Anyway.

Even if you don’t buy what I am selling today.

Even if you think what I am saying is bullshit <or fraught with stupidity>.

Before you decide you need to ‘change yourself’ just think about what I believe may be one of the smartest things Montaigne ever wrote:

====

“The greatest thing in the world is to know how to belong to oneself.”

―

Michel de Montaigne

====

———

“This is my strength: I will go quietly because it is the best thing for you.

I will close the door gently behind me … I won’t come back. “

–

=

Azra.T

—

Ok.

I am fairly sure I am going to state a Life truth here.

You only let one person into your life blindly.

Maybe I could say … you only make this mistake once.

Why?

When you let someone in blindly more often than not you will be disappointed or, at worst, get screwed <get burned>.

===

“I opened my door for you and you came in and burned my house down.”

—

Insanosylum

====

Whew.

As I wrote that I felt … well … cynical.

Shouldn’t we be able to trust people more often?

Shouldn’t it be easier to be good to everyone?

Sadly … letting people into your Life isn’t an open door policy. You need to have a doorbell and a peephole and you need to welcome someone in before you open the door.

And I say sadly because it would be nice to simply have no door and just let anyone wander in.

But you can’t.

For a variety of reasons … and not all cynical.

The ‘not cynical at all’ reason is that not all people are soulmates and not all people are the one, or ones, you truly connect with.

And that is what this is all about – connection.

The ones you truly let in need to be interviewed.

I don’t buy the ‘instant connection’ or ‘I could read them instantly’ < recognizing people >.

Well.

At least I don’t buy it with any ‘in depth’ or ‘let them all the way in’ in mind.

You can look thru the peephole and say ‘okay … I will open the door to hear what they have to say’ but it is very very difficult to just say ‘c’mon in’ and be 100% certain it was a good decision.
Shit.

Even if you DO let them in there is a less than 100% certainty.

Letting people in is a contractual arrangement.

Yeah. I actually did type ‘contract’ in association with people.

What I mean is that we make “connection contracts” with people.

And some of these contracts are just understood.

You will be acquaintances.

You will be friends.

You will be in business together.

You will be in love.

You will be … well … whatever two people decide to be and act.

It may be clearly stated … it may not be … but having established your relationship and ‘been something’ a contract is understood.

And this is where ‘letting someone in blindly’ takes on an uncomfortable aspect.

Because once a contract has been established you feel like you are no longer blind and yet … well … you can be blind to some aspects that can truly impact what happens with that someone you have let in.

This can happen when one of the parties attempts to change the terms of the contract and the other isn’t prepared to change the contract <the most obvious example I can give is when one of two friends falls in love with the other friend … and tells them>.

Most often one isn’t prepared to change the entire contract because they like the contract the way it is … and changing it risks that the entire thing becomes null & void.

Whew.

And once THIS happens to you … well … you REALLY never let anyone in blindly.

It increases your discomfort with letting the next person in.

You realize that some people you let in are stealthy and that within something unsaid resides a misunderstanding in the understating of the contract you have created.

==

“[Do you understand me?]

I will walk without noise, and I will open the door in darkness, and I will.”

—

Jonathan Safran Foer

==

Anyway.

I do believe you only let one person in blindly.

That doesn’t mean your sight becomes 20/20 … just that you don’t do it blindly.

—

“You brave, brave thing.

One day, you’re going to

stop leaving the door open

for people who only know how

to keep leaving. “

=

Yasmin Z

——————–

The motive for not letting someone in blindly is always the same … fear of loss, fear of discovery, fear of treachery … well … suffice it to say … fear of something.

This may actually be the one time that fear is good.

In this case it creates some caution and it insures we don’t go blindly into something.

Of course fear shouldn’t dictate all behavior but offering some aspect of thoughtfulness is never a bad thing. Especially of this thoughtfulness has to do with who you decide to let into your Life.