“Whatever choice you make, The Devil gets his due eventually.”

–

 Hugh McLeod

=====

Associating anything with the negativity of hope is very unusual for me because I am an unequivocal ‘hope is good’ guy. But here I am talking about choices and happiness with choices  and how hope affects our happiness and, well, unhappiness <this is really about attitudes & behavior>.

Well. It seems ironic.

In fact <part 1> this entire thought may be the ultimate example of what psychologists call an ‘ironic effect.’ The Ironic Effect is about the fact that we not just may fail despite doing our best, our best efforts, but that we fail because of our best efforts. Wow. That sucks.

In fact <part 2> the depressingly oft discussed positive thinking is basically one long litany of ironic effects because trying too hard to be happy makes people miserable <bet the positive psychologists don’t tell you that>.

This extends further into trying too hard to make the right choices.

Regardless. If you want to get marketing folk in a tizzy get them started talking about how consumers make choices <and how to try and influence those choices>.

–          Research says “people research the shit out of shit before making a choice.” <that’s my translation of research>

–          Therefore companies <and marketing folk> say “let’s give them choices <and explain the choices>”

–          But consumers say “all this work and all these choices make my head hurt <make me unhappy>.”

Barry Schwartz calls it the paradox of choice.

It seems the more choices we have, the less likely we are to make a decision, which ultimately makes us unhappy.  In Schwartz’s estimation, all these choices have not made us freer, but more paralyzed. Not happier, but more dissatisfied <unhappy>.

“The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.”

Barry Schwartz

** note: Richard Shotton’s book, The Choice Factory, is an excellent resource for choicemaking and behavioral thinking.

Barry Schwartz studied the link between economics and psychology. And while I may be taking liberties and stretching his idea too far he does suggest that having more options doesn’t increase our overall welfare.

Anyway. Suffice it to say that people struggle with choices for many reasons. In fact it is difficult to know where to start <irony intended>. The big issue on this topic is the fact most of us feel regret not choosing one thing, but here is the zinger, before even choosing the other.

Holy shit.

We regret  and haven’t even done anything.

We do this because we internalize opportunity costs, in other words, … ‘dwelling on the benefits of the next best options that I forgo when I choose something else’.

Yeah. It is an unfortunate truth that every decision has opportunity costs. This sucks ebecause we live in a world of seemingly infinite possibilities so it can seem next to impossible to figure out what to do, when, and where. Inevitably <and unfortunately> this translates into you start living in a world of hypotheticals.

World of hypotheticals? Well. A causal relationship with the world of choices.

“If I do this thing, then this will happen.”

But that causal realtionship begets a cornocoppia of isses. But what if I did THAT thing?  Will that make me happier?

Or. What about that OTHER thing … that looks good.

In the end it seems like you simply suffer from what is called the spoiled child syndrome where everything is at your disposal, but you don’t take advantage of any opportunities because you’re not sure of what’s best.

To make matters worse more choices tend to raise our expectations in that we think in simple, mythical, terms — more choices equals better quality.

Unfortunately that’s not true. Its a choice myth as it were.

But my thoughts today are not on quality of choices, but rather choices and happiness and that seems to lead to the paradox of choices as outlined in Alice in Wonderland. Alice in Wonderland actually discusses the paradox of choices with “jam yesterday, jam tomorrow but never jam today.”

The thought can be defined in a variety of ways, but think of it this way — when you look back over past experience you tend to remember good times and when you look forward into the future <it ’s right over that hill … or behind those trees> you tend to see nothing but happiness and hope.

That is jam yesterday, and jam tomorrow.

Ah. But what about is jam today? In the vernacular of our times: today’s jam sucks. There is no jam today for anyone nor <metaphorically> any other day in which you find yourself. Unfortunately many experiences in life appear like this to us — very good when we remember or anticipate them, but incredibly ordinary or downright bad or miserable in the moment. So, here we are, in the least happy moment <today> trying to make choices <that make our head hurt> for a time which looks awesome to us <tomorrow> and regret the choice before we even make it.

<boy … that was a buzzkill just writing it>

And then there is the actual choice itself.

Classical economic theory suggests that people act rationally, using cost benefit analysis to make choices and come to conclusions.

And according to theory people will always choose the option that is objectively best for them <lets call this the optimal option>.

Uh oh.

After decades of scientific research, conducted by behavioral psychologists, behavioral economists and marketers, it is now well-established that this type of thinking doesn’t reflect reality.

Consider a customer in a supermarket. An average supermarket offers approximately 50,000 items.

Evaluating in full the costs and benefits of even a fraction of the options would take far too long to be practical. This choice scenario may seem extreme, but in reality it is not too far from the amount of information we must analyze in everyday life. We live in an extraordinarily complicated environment. It would be impossible to recognize and evaluate all the aspects of each person, event, situation and product we encounter in one day. We do not have the capacity for it, let alone the time and motivation. As a result, we have developed mechanisms to deal with this complexity <and scenarios like the supermarket>.

One way people deal with the immense amount of information around them is to use mental shortcuts, or heuristics. These are rules of thumb people use to make quick judgments and come to conclusions. For instance, we use an unlit shop as a sign that it is closed, we associate suits with professionalism, and we equate expensive products with higher quality.

This means we classify things according to a few key features and then respond automatically and without thinking even when another feature <or cue> may be present.

This means automatic and unconscious decision making, or default thinking, is present in much human action. Here is the problem with heuristics. It doesn’t always lead to happiness. Our short cut thinking to accommodate all the choices available to us simply make us unhappy with ‘jam today.’

I have more scientific type thinking from those folks at Wharton school of Business:

Who is more content with their choice? 

Wharton marketing professor Cassie Mogilner and colleagues Baba Shiv, a Stanford marketing professor, and Sheena Iyengar, a management professor at Columbia decided to look at the consumer choice context.

For example, would the more satisfied consumers be people who went from store to store, trying out a number of different products over an extended period of time, or the ‘one-stop shoppers’ who made a decision with all of the options in front of them?

In a series of experiments, the researchers studied how the way options were presented to consumers affected the feelings they ultimately had about a particular choice. Their findings are outlined in the paper, “Eternal Quest for the Best: Sequential (vs. Simultaneous) Option Presentation Undermines Choice Commitment,” which appeared in the Journal of Consumer Research.

After looking at individual selections in experiments that asked some participants to choose from a range of options presented all at once and others to pick from selections offered one at a time, the researchers concluded that “Whether choosing a piece of gourmet chocolate, a nail polish color or a bottle of Italian red wine, individuals presented with their options one at a time end up less satisfied with, and ultimately less committed to, their chosen option than individuals presented with their options all at once.”  But why do people feel more satisfied with, and committed to, a decision when they see all of the potential routes at one time? According to the study the key driver is hope — in particular, the negative implications of hoping too much.

“To my knowledge, this is one of the first” studies to look at the negative side of hope. We usually think of hope as a good thing.”

In the first experiment, 87 individuals were presented with five different gourmet chocolate options, either sequentially or simultaneously, and asked to pick their favorite. Those who tasted the chocolate sequentially were allowed to try each variety before being asked to choose one. The researchers measured the role of hope in the decision by giving half of each group a 10-digit number to remember during the tasting, with the theory that saddling them with a “high cognitive load” would limit their capacity to conjure up the idea of a sixth, even better chocolate that might make them regret their initial choice. The other participants were asked to memorize a two-digit number — or a “low cognitive load” — with the idea that they would have plenty of brain power left to consider the possibility that a tastier candy was out there somewhere. 

Afterward, participants were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their choice of chocolate, and to answer questions designed to measure the levels of hope, fear and regret that resulted from the experience. Finally, in order to gauge participants’ level of commitment to their choice, the entire group was given the option to change their original selection, either to a type of candy they had sampled during the tasting or to an option they hadn’t tried yet.

According to the paper, participants who sampled the chocolates one by one and were given the two-digit number to remember exhibited greater hope that there was a better choice out there than people who were given all of their options simultaneously, no matter what type of number the latter group was given to memorize. Participants who tasted the candy sequentially but were asked to remember the 10-digit number also reported lower levels of hope, lending credence to the researchers’ theory that having to memorize the number would hinder their ability to dream up a different option.  On the other hand, participants’ level of commitment to their choice was divided along the lines of cognitive load. Of those who had to remember the two-digit number, half of the sequential choosers and 40% of the simultaneous choosers opted to switch to the untested option. Among participants given the 10-digit number, just 13% of sequential choosers and 17% of simultaneous choosers decided to switch.

“These results suggest that when sequential choosers have the cognitive resources available to imagine a better option, they will. They will, in turn, be more likely to switch to that unknown option, hoping it will be better.”

The second experiment built on the first by directly manipulating whether participants felt hope for a better option while making their choice. Unlike the first study, people who were presented with the chocolates one by one could only pick a particular type when it was in front of them — there was no going back to select something they had already tasted. In addition to the lab study, the researchers also conducted a pilot field experiment studying nail salon patrons choosing colors for a manicure.

When the nail salon customers were offered the chance to take home either a free bottle of the color they had selected for their manicure or the chance to pick a different polish, 83% of simultaneous choosers stuck with their chosen option, while only 43% of the strict sequential choosers did so. In the modified chocolate study, half of the 198 participants were told to reflect on a time when they felt hope before they tasted the chocolates, while the other group was asked to ponder a neutral topic. Those two groups were divided in half, with some tasting all the chocolates simultaneously and others doing so one by one.

According to the researchers, provoking feelings of hope in participants dominated the way they felt about choosing a type of chocolate. Notably, the simultaneous and sequential choosers who were made to feel hope reported equally low levels of satisfaction with their original choice, and nearly half switched to the unknown chocolate option, with even more doing so in the simultaneous option group. In the neutral group, however, one-third of sequential choosers switched to the untested chocolate, compared to only 4% of simultaneous choosers.  

“These results suggest that the low commitment exhibited among sequential choosers is driven by increased feeling of hope.” 

The final experiment was a field study conducted as a wine tasting. The researchers measured the extent to which the 129 participants felt hope when making a choice, and further “honed in on the role of hope” by also measuring regret and including both types of sequential conditions — i.e., people who were presented with the options one at a time and allowed to taste each wine before picking their favorite or those who could only choose a particular wine when it was in front of them — along with a simultaneous group, in which all of the glasses were presented at the same time. The experiment followed the same pattern as the first two: sampling, selecting a favorite, filling out a survey, and then deciding whether to stick with the chosen option, switch to one of the previously sampled wines or switch to an unknown option. 

All sequential choosers were much less committed to their chosen option than those who were presented with all of the wines simultaneously, the researchers note. But only those sequential choosers restricted to picking a type of wine when it was in front of them were more likely to feel regret about their choice.

“What was interesting was that when we held everything constant — when the sequential and simultaneous choosers had all of the same information available to them — when they made their choice, something as simple as how it was presented to them influenced levels of satisfaction.”

Next.

The Price of Satisfaction

Looking at the results of all the experiments, the researchers found that there was no pattern to the product selections of any one group, leading them to conclude that it wasn’t that some participants ended up objectively worse off than the others — sequential choosers experienced those outcomes as being less desirable because their mind stayed focused on “the road not taken,” or the option that remained undiscovered.

The study suggested it was intriguing to test people’s reaction to such frivolous items as wine and chocolate, where participants likely didn’t come in with any strong preconceived perceptions of a particular option. But they add that the results do have broader applications. Notably, the research supports presenting options simultaneously, as retailers would prefer that consumers don’t regret a choice and ultimately decide to return an item, or communicate to other consumers their lack of satisfaction with a purchase.

“While all the instances in the paper are fairly trivial, the implications of simultaneous versus sequential choice can run across all types of decisions.”

But can firms change their policies and practices to turn decisions involving sequentially presented options into choices where all of the possibilities are shown simultaneously? Such an adjustment is easiest for online retailers that have full control over how their product assortments are presented. “Our findings suggest that options should be presented together on the same web page, rather than on separate pages.”

The study also sheds light on just how harmful hoping can be. When one is in a sequential choosing situation, he or she should have confidence in making a decision and stop wondering “what if” — whether it’s a new home, job or even a spouse.

“This shows the detrimental effect of continuing to wonder what else is out there, and how it undermines satisfactions with the choices you make. Instead of comparing your chosen option with an imagined perfect option, compare you chosen option with the other options you’ve seen.”

Ok. That was a lot of stuff. So let me pull out a key point.

“… provoking feelings of hope in participants dominated the way they felt about choosing a <whatever> …”

Choice is inextricably linked to hope.

Well. That sucks. That sucks because most choices are made pragmatically <in the today> and assessed afterwards in the past or future. No wonder we are unhappy with choices.

** note: when I say ‘pragmatically’ I am not suggesting everyone is always rational in their choice-making, just that for the majority of purchases, which are driven by “what do I need now” there is an inherent pragmatism that underlies the choice.

Not only do we have too many choices, but hope actually encourages us to make choices incorrectly.

Who would have ever thought that hoping would be harmful?

In addition. “What if” is intangible. It holds something yet to be defined <in reality> and holds reality <in what you imagine>.

Oops.

Rarely do these two meet.

Regardless.

The point?

Hope is harmful when there are too many choices because inevitably we end up making a choice based on hope.

Offering too many choices isn’t good. People do not like so many choices. They want it winnowed down and set up to isolate what is most important.

If you do not do that? Well. People will be unhappy.

Whew. I never thought I would ever write anything suggesting that hope had a negative aspect. But there you go. Too many choices uncovers the ugly underbelly of hope.

———————–

“Releasing complexity is a much different process than reducing complexity.”

Bonnitta Roy

———————

I propose insights don’t reduce complexity, but rather release complexity. For people to agree with that they will need to agree to several things:

• Everything is connected with everything, in other words, insights are about connectivity and connectivity is made up of minute linear fractals within a non linear complexity.

Note: this means fractals relate linearly at a minute level

Complexity is non-linear. It could be said that postindustrial societies are more complex than premodern societies—there are many more things happening, in many more domains (largely because of how networked/entangled we have become). Likewise, it could be said that a tropical rainforest is more complex than a cornfield, or a parking lot. But is ‘more’ complexity ‘better’?

There is no objectively correct answer here, of course. It’s a ridiculous question.

But, for what its worth, I suspect that the more we lean into ‘complexity thinking’ (lived and embraced)—the savvier we get at coordinating at higher orders of complexity—the better we will be at navigating the myriad hypercomplex transnational challenges of our times.

• Simplicity is found within complexity NOT instead of complexity (coherent linear fractals represent the complex whole)
• Complicated is reflective of ineffective, inefficient, linear fractals (limiting features)
• Complexity is reflective of effective, efficient connectivity (expansive features)

I propose insights are not causally linear (they simply release a non linear aspect of probabilities) nor are they simple rather they are reflective of unleashing complexity’s non-linear potential. To be clear. Insights may appear simple, because at their best they focus on some linear fractal, but they are complex in nature.

Clarity on insights

The main issue with insights is the lack of clarity. The lack of clarity is actually explainable because there are product insights, human insights, organizational insights, behavioral insights, mental insights, shit, insights on insights. They can be big, medium, small and, yet, big insights can create small effects and small insights can create big effect. Maybe another way of saying this is that insights look very much like finite things, yet, are actually infinite.

Note: clarity and language

We all play a role in guiding shared language. I should note language is always shared within context (words can take on different meaning in different environments) including organizational, community and culture. Accepted, or rejected, by whether it flows or not. In other words, perspective shapes the language and the language shapes the perspective (non linear or causal, but looped).

(recommended reading: How to Speak Human/Jackson & Jackson)

I will offer two thoughts on insights in order to try and get a grip on the infinite aspect:

• Distribution and benefit of distribution
• Insight hunters have distinct abilities

Distribution & benefit

1. We should think of insights in terms of distribution.

By viewing an insight from a distribution stance we can assess it at its most functional aspect – a connection in which there is a transferal of something between a & b. Within a complex world the closer you can get to identifying the distribution connection as possible the more likely you are to find something that can move the behavioral, attitudinal or emotional dial. Some people may haggle and say this is about connectivity and they would be partially correct. Correct in that by viewing this in distribution terms you are delving into the connection, but in treating it like distribution you view it as a distinct transferal of value, goods, feelings, etc*. This translates into a pragmatic view of an insight.

** note: for example, in the Insight world Valentine’s Day is not a transferal of cards, chocolate or diamonds, but rather a transferal of feeling (me-to-you) wherein it is defined in a specific way to context.

2. We should think of insights in terms of the benefit of that distribution

What is the consequence/impact of that distribution:

• Does it improve it (solve a complication)?
• More efficient?
• More effective
• What is the value in the transferal connectivity or the value in what is given or in what is gained?

Rather than simply seeing this as “something gained” the insight would reflect “something offered” within this fractal connection (a linear moment within complex nonlinear connective relationships).

Insight hunters

“Insight hunters” should do some reflective thinking. They should because they have some distinct abilities:

• Can identify patterns among linear relationships, thus for­m­­ing syst­ems of relations among abstract variables and how these inter­act.
• Can compare and synthesize several systems with differing logics, put together “metasystems” or conclusions that hold true across different system, reflect upon and name general properties of systems.
• Can see how one system can be changed in corresponding or differing ways to another system.
• Can deal with several very abstract metasystems to create new ways of thinking of the world, new paradigms.
• Has a fractal way of thinking, so that the universal principles found are applicable to many different levels of analysis and phenomena.

(source: The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht)

I would suggest if you do not have these distinct abilities you may not be an effective insight hunter.

1. The confusion between simplicity and the illusion of simplicity

Nothing is really simple. There is only the illusion of simplicity. Simplicity is a magician’s trick, a sleight of hand, when done well. It gives one a sense of simplicity, a sense of elegant brevity, a “known” for us to ignore – or accept – the unknown.

The issue in doing this is that we then confuse simplicity with complexity by bifurcating them – when they are actually one & the same (or simplicity is the shadow of complexity). In a complex confusing world this can be quite handy. But in a complex, confusing world this creates a sense that there really is simplicity and simple things – and there are not. While maybe in a smaller sense, like some insights, this may be (slightly) acceptable I would argue tin the longer game and the bigger sense you are simply creating a problem you will have to deal with at some point in the future. And, as we all know, problems snowball. So what you have claimed as simplicity today will have all its complexity begin snowballing at that exact time and inevitably you will have a shitstorm of an avalanche to deal with.

I am not arguing against elegant simplicity in narratives/descriptions. They are handy heuristics getting people from here to there thought wise. What I am arguing against is not accepting you are simply sharing the illusion of simplicity.

In the insight world, in the complexity management world and in the business world, in general, using the illusion of simplicity is, well, business malpractice. You are simply a peddler in fortune cookie wisdom.

So how should we view insight discovery? Think of it as peering into the shadow of complexity. Assume complexity is good and it represents the incredible weave of productivity, positive progress, possibilities and people potential. This means complexity is your friend and simplicity is the most effective way of introducing your friend to everyone else. This is most often articulated as ‘an insight.’ This is important because complexity, in and of itself, is mind numbing and an amorphous blob of confusing interrelationships. This leads me to something Jackson & Jackson said “complexity isn’t the issue, its confusion.’ Simplicity, therefore, is non-confusing complexity offering the highest order of value generation (understanding, beliefs, attitudes, behavior impulse). Yes. Make things easy to understand and while it may be complex, it feels simple and useful. The insights, therefore, has released the power of complexity through its understandability.

Subset: the binary illusion

If linearity is seductive, binaries are seductively dangerous. They are a simplistic attempt to formalize relationships between different abstract variables. Its silly. Its simplicity is dangerous. And its mostly wrong. The allure of them is understandable for 2 reasons:

• The best answers are often found in contraries. Great good presupposes great evil. In fact, one cannot be present, relatively speaking, without the other. It is uncommon to find both polarities within one person, but it is not unknown. Predicating thought on a binary framework makes sense, making conclusions from a binary does not make sense.
• The complexity of the world around us, and within us, defies easy definitions and binaries permit false contrasts to provide definitions. It is natural to respond to a complex world in simplified manners: black & white, either/or, us versus them, this/that.

I suggest the road to binary thinking is the search for stability/certainty (optimal certainty**. This is actually where insights reside. Below the surface of complexity outcomes lies a complex arrangement of fractal connections. By rummaging around the connections between what a person grounds themselves on behaviorwise/attitudewise (lily pads of certainty) or some recurring patterns that ground everyday life AND the more nebulous inconsistent interactions/connections with the daily moments of uncertainty. These are actual ‘fractal simplicities’ or what Alvin Toffler warned us of in 1980 with the advent of mass consumed technology – halfisms versus wholisms.

 ** optimal certainty: optimizing adaptive change within an existing construct. Offer enough probability so people can accept the uncertain realities.

Insights actually straddle halfsims and wholisms (albeit we could suggest insights are halfisms which lead to a wholism). Regardless. Insights reflect a connection TO the truthism while not offering the whole truth in and of itself.

Earlier I suggested complexity is expansive. This translates into a belief an insight, articulated through understandable simplicity, should release complexity potential.

We cannot eliminate complexity, its air. Breathe it or suffocate. That said. I believe the fractal connections are the oxygen and within that oxygen are the insights.  I say that to make a point about the bigness, and smallness, of this entire issue and how we may struggle with the concept of ‘insight’ if it is neither simple nor big or small, yet, IS, in its fractal simplicity, big and small. Let me explain.

Life, the world, the individual’s behavior is like a spinning three dimensional double helix. You can look at an individual that way – personalized string of DNA constantly in motion – in which its configuration subtly adapts contextually based on need/want, functional, emotional & social. Somewhere therein an insight seeker must identify and pluck out an insight. The insight lies somewhere within a fractal, halfism, connection which resides within a larger context (wholism).

That said. I propose that insights, generally speaking, release complexity in one of three ways:

(**note: this thought kills customer journey. Full disclosure. I have used customer journeys to make a point but in its simplicity, it more often offers false connections & false conclusions than it does any insightful, non-superficial, results)

1. Seamless

This is about fitting in to an existing double helix DNA behavioral map. Success, with this type of insight, more often than not, is not creating something new forcing people to do something different, but rather fitting in <in a new way> what they are currently doing. This insight is all about “persuasion versus accepting”. Persuading someone that they should do, or try, something versus having someone accept something as part of the natural flow of Life & what they do.

I will note this insight is tricky because while it CAN be about improvement, “broken connections” (fractals) fixed simply puts a system back to the normal complexity. You may be solving a specific complication but, in reality, it reverts back to a “comfortable complexity.” This may sound like semantics, but in an insight world in which we attempt to want to espouse “improvements bettering people’s lives” seamless insights are actually more about “doing something that no one really notices.”

Ponder that.

2. Nudge

There are a number of excellent books defining and discussing a “nudge” insight. Nudge (Thaler), Tipping Point (Gladwell), Herd (Earls), The Choice Factory (Shotton) … all discuss aspects of nudging type thinking. That said. This type of insight is carefully incongruent to the natural flow of things. Its comfortably uncomfortable (or uncomfortably comfortable). It nudges your entire rotating double helix of behavior so its axis shifts without discombobulating the entire flow of someone’s life.

You fail if it shifts the ground people stand on and succeed if people feel like they remain on solid ground, but actually have eased into a parallel dimension.

3. Rearrange

—

“So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.

You’d better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can’t rearrange the universe.”

Isaac Asimov

—

You can’t rearrange someone’s universe. Well. Sometimes you can, not often, but the right product with the right insight can get a person to rearrange their universe. I imagine some people would call these disruptive ideas, I will not. They are simply moments in time in which the is a product insight that aligns with a human insight which rearranges people’s behavioral universe (and even how they make think about themselves in doing so).

This insight is tricky. While this one purposefully taps into the expansiveness of complexity and is a full on “possibilities”/future-looking insight, it can often look quite random. Rearranging often looks random in the moment and, of course, obvious** in hindsight (which makes it difficult to convince people it is meaningful).

** obvious (def.): We neatly arrange things so things seem linear/causal. Taleb (Fooled by Randomness) “regime shift corresponds to situations when all the attributes of a system change to the point of it becoming unrecognizable to the observer – time aggregation eliminates effect of randomness.” Rearranging IS evolution and evolution is asymmetrical. Insights, too often, are presented in symmetrical ways (attempting to make them look obvious or simple), yet, their power is in energizing asymmetry. Ponder that. 

With a ‘re-arranging’ insight you really have two basic choices:

• Full newness
• optimal newness

Full newness is always tempting. We like to call these disruptive insights and they just may well be. Just be aware the majority of people do not like to be on the bleeding edge.

Optimal newness is art & science. Too new increases the risk assessment, too grounded it becomes a ‘so what’ insight. To achieve this insight you see a fragmented thought (combination of existing & nonexisting fractals) of which the formula is not formulaic but rather contextual to the opportunity.

Unfortunately, insight seekers must deal with much more complex issues than selecting single variables as “wholisms”. Simplicity and complexity are partners in crime. The world is complex and, yet, to navigate its understanding we need some simplistic lily pads of certainty. Therein lies heuristics and insights.

2. The confusion between complicated and complexity.

Let’s begin here:

“Complicated problems originate from causes that can be individually distinguished; they can be address­ed piece by­ piece; for each input to the system there is a proportionate output; the relevant systems can be controlled and the problems they present admit permanent solutions.

On the other hand, complex problems and systems result from networks of multiple interacting causes that cannot be individually distinguished; must be addressed as entire systems, that is they cannot be addressed in a piecemeal way; they are such that small inputs may result in disproportionate effects; the problems they present cannot be solved once and for ever, but require to be systematically managed and typically any intervention merges into new prob­lems as a result of the interventions dealing with them; and the relevant systems cannot be controlled — the best one can do is to influence them, or learn to ‘dance with them’…”

Professor Roberto Poli

Now let’s move to this.

“A complicated system can be reduced down to linear causality between simple components. An experienced expert can usually run a diagnostic to identify and ‘zero-in’ on broken parts, which can then be fixed to make the complicated system function again. Think of this as akin to someone repairing a mechanical watch. Or, if your car breaks down, it is less than helpful for your roadside assistance mechanic to wax philosophical about how the problem is nested within a more complex system. Rather: you want them to use their expertise to diagnose the problem, reduce things down, find the root cause, and fix it. Because in this context, a clear fix is possible.

A complex system, however, cannot be reduced reliably—causality is networked and non-linear, multiple interconnected components interact with each other, with no clearly distinguishable pathways of cause-and-effect. But complex systems can sometimes demonstrate ‘fractal simplicities’—recurring patterns that make a (self-similar) kind of ‘sense’ across different levels of complexity and abstraction. Still, there are no singular root causes for the phenomena that emerges from within a complex system. And thus the challenges complex systems are often wickedly entangled.”

Dr. Jason Fox

Now to this. Complexity is actually good and complicated is bad. Complexity is actually how the world works, it’s a representation of the co-evolution of things. Things beget things. The evolution of the human psyche is always dependent upon the development of its environment – in terms of technology, institutions, ecology, culture, language, the psychological development of others and the relations between them. Complexity is, and will always be, a mixed bag of co-development (an interaction amongst things with rippled consequences begetting new things).

This does not mean a person, a product or an idea/insight CANNOT purposefully reshape the environment (individual and social context) itself but no insight, or idea, lives in isolation – it is co-dependent upon multiple domains. At any given point that you are attempting to ‘rearrange things’ someone and something is also attempting to rearrange things. There are layers upon layers of behavior, attitudes and imperfect people. I could suggest here that in a complexity world everything you do is the Monte Carlo Simulation. Well. It is and it isn’t. As JP Hanson has pointed out a number of times, principles and principled thinking can limit the risk and possible consequences. Taleb calls this “skewed bets.” That said. I’d encourage most insight seekers to think its closer to a Monte Carlo Simulation than a ‘done deal’ locked in outcome*.

*note: Outcome: the good news — the Sinus Milieu and the lock-in principle. It was the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who developed a psychographic method analyzing groups of people called the Sinus Milieu. Basically it is a model that challenges us to think about behavior, preferences and culture. Within the model resides the key point – ‘the lock-in principle.’ The principle simply states that if we get used to something we do not want to change our habits <or attitudes and beliefs> even if we are presented with something new or different that might be better. Simplistically, it consistently shows <to a point that it is almost an unequivocal behavioral truth> that habit, or the current way of doing things, is stronger than the desire for improvement.

3. Confusion between chaos and complexity

“To thrive amidst chaos means to cope or come to grips with it. But that is too reactive an approach and misses the point. The true objective is to take the chaos as given and learn to thrive on it. The winners of tomorrow will deal proactively with chaos, will look at chaos per se as the source of market advantage, not as a problem to get around. Uncertainty and chaos are (will be) market opportunities for the wise.”

Tom Peters, June 1987 “Thriving on Chaos”

Yes. Tom Peters actually explored managing complexity in his 1987 book “Thriving on Chaos.”* And, yes, I actually believe you could call the book “in search of insights.” Everything within the book reflect ways of thinking, principles and navigating the natural flow of a complex business with the intent to find leverage insight opportunities.

I will say that, in general, I believe people who talk about the value of chaos in business and creative process are simply embracing complexity. (note: I have used chaos in narratives because it sounds more impactful than complexity)

** note: Alvin Toffler in Future Shock & The Third Wave, 1970 & 1980 respectively, Peters in 1987 and even The Cluetrain Manifesto 2000 all warned us of the increased complexity of life and business with the advent of mass-technology.

As noted, insights are anything but simple. They are complex, multidimensional with non-linear (unpredictable, only probabilistic) things.

Insight and insights seeking is architectural in nature

Why are insights so important within complexity? Well. Complexity, as part of natural order, does not seek chaos, but actually seeks optimal stability (lily pads of certainty/stability so the ‘gyre not fly off the wheel’). I call this the ‘construct-to-agility* ratio.

*agility is the ability to shift resources to meet needs (reading: The Cactus and the Weasel).

** construct-to-agility ration: optimal certainty in which you find the perfect ratio of stability to freedom/chaos.

*** Note that this is just not a business definition but also an individual behavior definition (time, energy, knowledge, emotion, need, etc).

Suffice it to say that lots of things exist within complexity and people like to swirl around some steady things.

*note: insights can reflect the steady parts or the swirling parts (see ‘seamless, nudge, Rearranging’ explanations).

The way “in” to complexity is to recognize the system and connections. Basically, we need to connect the inner workings of people to structural forces in their world (head, heart, wallet) and the social world (the construct they live within) and see these as an always-ever adapting, to context, interconnectivity.

A final thought on navigating complexity and insights

While understanding what an insight is certainly enhances the likelihood of actually seeing an insight ultimately an insight is, well, nothing unless it is shared with clarity & clarification. Remember. An insight is simply a heuristic for a complex connection point – a description of connectivity. Therefore, it will need some clarification (so that people gain some understand). Which leads me to “definition not details”. Far too often we see details as the path to creating understanding – offer some tangible detail as rationale. In some worlds one could call these “reason to believes.” This is a trap. The best insights DO provide clarity of complexity and detail begins to unravel that clarity creating scenarios in which people will then inevitably hold on to details like buoys in a stormy sea of complexity. Definitions. It is definitions that matter.

Definitions create the platform to what Michelle Holliday describes as “thrivability”:

“thrivability is about identifying and committing to the best means of enhancing life’s ability to thrive. Aligning with life’s core operating patterns across every aspect of the organization.”

** I will appropriate this organizational thinking to insights and suggest an insight aligns with behavioral operating patterns to product/service offering **

This may sound nebulous, but insights are not a means to an end, they are actually about releasing (complexity) and opening up behavior, in other words, thrivability.

Just ponder.

Let me end with intentions.

Strategy, strategic insights and “insight hunting” for the most part is a road paved with good intentions.

Intention 1: reduce cognitive load. I don’t care if you work with concrete, software , nano-anything, insights are made (uncovered) by and for humans. Therefore, inherent to any good insight is the reduction of cognitive load (once it is understood and accommodated within attitudes/behavior). People make 1000’s of decisions daily (35,000 I believe) and an insight should not add to decisions but rather subtract from decision making. That is an intent not always realized but the pursuit is of value.

Intention 2: a relentless pursuit of clarity to provide certainty to others – in other words – a solid place from which others can launch some thinking, behavior, ‘doing’, whatever.

Therein also lies its greatest challenge. In a complex world true ‘solid’ is often fleeting and one can quite easily offer some misguided hope, or belief, that this answer is a panacea for uncertainty in a complex world. I have found this piece from Sonja Blignaught, “7 lessons I’ve learned consulting as a complexity practitioner” as a helpful guide with regard to intent and articulation.

In the end (part a).

In general, the reality is we should seek to work WITH complexity not kill it (because it actually maximizes future and present potential). Specifically, with regard to insights, an insight should release something within complexity – a vivid improvement or vivid feeling. Yes. It could be simplicity (or the trappings of ‘simpler’) but that is simply a means to an end. Maybe we should be judging insights not on simplicity but rather outcome/effect/affectation. In other words, how does it expand possibilities within a complex world for someone? This may feel counterintuitive but I would argue this is simply a different articulation of benefit or “makings someone’s life better.”

In the end (part b).

Be intent. Be intent on embracing complexity and be intent on articulating complexity. I will note that because Complexity is expansive embracing Complexity is not for the faint of heart. Some people shrink from its immensity and other find riches within its immensity – especially the insight seekers.

Some final insight seeker advice.

I do not agree nor believe we need to use some business jargon or bullshit soundbites in order to create salience especially with regard to insight articulation. In fact, I find it counterproductive and even dangerous to what is most important – the idea itself.

Thinking, thought making, and especially insights, demands lack of bullshit. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be utilizing any and all of the thinking behind all the bullshit words & fortune cookie wisdom memes. We should be the ones embracing the complexity and rejecting the simplicity. If not us, who?

To conclude.

If I were to treat this long stream of consciousness post as an outline for a book, there remain many unanswered questions and several open ended thoughts to explore in its chapters:

the physics of insights: if insights inherently expand space, is space infinite? (exploration aligned with ‘as galaxies expand and increase space between the universal space expands infinitely’)

the psychology of insights: if the best insights, in essence, encapsulate a finite decision yet its power is releasing the infinite possibilities, how does the human mind grasp this? (exploration of Carse’s Infinite Game)

do fractals have codes: the neuroscience of insights (exploration of Barden’s Decoded)

the relationship between insights and progress: is progress, or even a Quest, simply coherent fractals? (exploration of Fox’s How to Lead a Quest)

fractal semiotics: the language of insights (exploration of Petkova’s Brave New Text

the philosophy of insights: does everything have an insight? does something have to have an insight to exist?

Maybe there are more questions than answers. As it should be I imagine.

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

About the piece:

While I have written a number of pieces about the ‘complexity of simplicity’ and insights it was Dr. Jason Fox and this thought that made me sit down and write:

Maybe there’s a part of me that bemoans the fact that so many folks seem to yearn for simple ‘solutions’ whilst in denial of complexity. The result instead is that we end up treating complex systems as complicated—and thus our ‘solutions’ are reactive, short-sighted, simplistic (not simple) and liable to perpetuate the deeper issues at play.

If you have people in your organisation: it’s complex.

Because we—you and I, each and every one of us—are infinitely complex. We are not merely individual cogs in a machine (though classic and conventional approaches to management might have you believe otherwise, thus dehumanising). And while we must of course work to remove unnecessary complications in our systems of work, we must do so knowing that this complicated system sits within much more complex contexts.

This.

And almost exactly the same time a tweet from Tom Goodwin crossed my thread saying “not everything has an insight” (with regard to advertising). I knew I disagreed, but had never articulated why I disagreed.

Bruce McTague

==

“Not only are you responsible for serving your community, but you are partly responsible for there being any community to serve.”

Mary Parker Follett

==

“In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the industrialization of England accelerated at such a pace that historians have found no term adequate to describe it save one usually reserved for violent political change – revolution.”

Leuchtenburg, Perils of Prosperity

==

Ah. Technocrats. This is a companion piece to “circulation of elites” just that this time I am focusing on technology and monopolistic technology autocrats who think of themselves as the elites to guide us all to a better future. Now. The bible of how technocrats have hijacked capitalism is Technopoly by Neil Postman, but the concept of technocracy can be traced to William Henry Smyth, a California engineer, who introduced the term “technocracy” in his 1919 article titled “Technocracy – Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy,” which was published in the Journal of Industrial Management (Corporate Finance Industry). Anyway.  Technocrats not only have an odd view of capitalism, but of society in general. Generally speaking, they have an inordinate dislike of constraints which only encourages technological advancement without any constraints, or any real moral boundaries, as they believe the market will naturally sort itself out.  That is a dangerously naive thought. As Leo Marx said:

“The simple republican formula for generating progress by directing improved technical means to societal ends was imperceptibly transformed into a quite different technocratic commitment to improving ‘technology’ as the basis and the measure of — as all but constituting — the progress of society.”

The technocrats play an interesting game. They say just enough reasonable things to suggest maybe they are doing something good for all of us, and they even use some key enlightenment ideals without really understanding enlightenment. What I mean by that Is they tend to think of reason without any real boundaries. It is almost like they embrace Foucault’s nihilism. Rather than the philosophical ideas that are central to progressive society like a commitment to universalism over tribalism, firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress (Susan Neiman), this generation of technocrats tend to look at these ideas as disconnected rather than connected. In other words, progress above all even at the expense of universalism and justice. Their reason is justified by outcomes, not process and they tend to believe that all technological progress is good. This leads to a belief because they are forces of ‘good’ that their power should be unconstrained. Yeah. Its unconstrained technology development combined with unconstrained power. Ultimately this version of technocrat doesn’t really see monopolies, just ‘scale.’ That trickster nuance leads this merry band of technocrats down a path where business is more important than, well, anything (because they believe the business ‘serves for good of society’) and they see their redesigning of society as simply reengineering humanity (without tending to humanity’s needs).

• ** note: there is a significant difference between reengineering and redesigning. The former is simply reshaping the system and structure that exists, i.e., simply propagating an already existing flawed construct; the latter actually demands a vision to build toward, i.e., design something new and have technology enable it.

This can get a bit worse. Similar to the originators of the world wide web (most of which have reflectively accepted their naivete) they still view the limitless flow of information as a net positive for society and humanity. This includes limitless information flow to and from what their ultimate objective – computer intelligence which surpasses people’s. Their vision is all encompassing in that it envisions an entire system, an infrastructure in other words, to undergird everyone – regardless of (a) whether humanity has the capacity to absorb the limitless flow of information in any meaningful way, and (b) all will be equally empowered to take advantage of this new system. They seem to ignore, well, lots of things. But they mostly tend to ignore how power and control and information/knowledge pools. Maybe that is so because they see the existing pooling benefiting them and they see some undemocratic view of the world where a weird meritocracy is generated – weird in that it truly isn’t the best of the best, but rather simply the best at taking advantage of the system.

They are reengineering society, but just to be clear, they do so in the pursuit of scale and profit over safety concerns and public accountability. But maybe what should concern us most is HOW they seek to reengineer. Its not just that their objectives are a bit naïvely dangerous, but they also are crafting a structure of numbers and measurements (its kind of an extension of a belief that machines are the future so the way the future should be shaped is in machine terms).  They are shaking the entire etch-a-sketch of society and they don’t care if any of the sand is lost while shaking. They have a structured ideology of mathematical measurement to justify anything and everything. It’s a warped vision of even the warped Taylorism that got us to where we are today. It is almost like we are being led by an illiterate group of people in that their only literacy is in numbers, scale and machine technology wrapped in a loose, but extreme, libertarian etch-a-sketch. They weave webs of ‘progress’ under the guise of numbers – usage, engagement, and views – while ignoring whether those individual usages, engagements & views, are actually good for human beings. “It will all sort out” and “scale flattens negative affects” represents the technocrat mantra. They ignore the relationships between morality (what is good) and the power of the tools they are crafting. Once again, if you squint hard enough what they say seems reasonable, but stop squinting and it all becomes a blur of dangerously unconstrained technological innovations and systems. They will claim they are not doing this, but they are sacrificing progress for humanity and society for a hollowed out, but profitable, progress in business (because they see their ‘business’ as not really a business but a societal infrastructure development – for which they get paid for). I say all that so we can stop being surprised by the horrible existing leadership. They have no vision for what they are creating. They are just creating things assuming a vision will emerge from their technological wizardry. The past is all unworthy of consideration (even the important things of the past), they believe the future will be shaped not through some grand strategy but rather by chasing things – at exponential scale/pace – that seem beneficial, and numbers become proof of performance (note: numbers are not people). All of this is done rather than creating and sustaining a substantive healthy society.

Yeah. I know their arguments. Their entire argument revolves around “it is because of technology lives have dramatically improved.” The problem is that immediately veers into a warped unconstrained development with “if you restrain any development, imagine what you are costing humanity.” Yeah. Its technological development no matter what. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention something I pointed out in my “will of the institution’ piece. Business over the past 100 years has encouraged everyone, all workers, to view business in a religious sense – “business is the savior for not only you – your family – btu society in total. Technocrats simply warp that idea (an idea I would note has had incredibly negative repercussions to human psyche, meaning, life purpose and even the nuclear family) to an exponentially existential level – technology is THE hope for a better future. It absolves them of any moral clarity and suggests we, the people, would benefit by hedging our moral bets. To be clear, this isn’t anything they actually say out loud, but, similar to the robber barons of the past who argued they are beneficial to society, they will not say this shit. This means we cannot rely on some grand sense of business responsibility or moral clarity from these technocrats as they pursue unconstrained ambitions.

Which leads me to how their ambitions get conflated with freedom.

Throughout the technology world we hear endless talk of individual freedom, yet, there has never been such pressure for conformity from the market itself. I don’t mean capitalism, but rather when wealth is the objective, the peoples reduce their ambitions to speculation over reason – albeit we label it as being reasonable. In fact, technocrats depend on the masses to have blind faith in the value of reason while, if we are honest, it is simply speculative thinking at the moment (it sounds possibly reasonable with benefits, with no probabilities attached to the possibilities nor penalties). Reason sifts into every dimension of social life and technology is the tool of ‘reason.’ Reason becomes how we administrate a confusing life (and the sense of impending crisis), which means moral forces get kicked to the side. We become directionless other than that which technology wrought. Bereft of true sensemaking and morality, we plod along at the speed of technology. And technocrats endorse that vision through their ambitions.

If technocrats get their way, we will become a society of immense technological power where people will increasingly dwell in a world of illusion, or delusions, comforted by tribes of likeminded dwellers. Well. That’s what I believe. This isn’t to suggest that increased information flow to more people isn’t a good thing because it does inevitably increase the general knowledge of the population, but it comes with some problems if that information isn’t constrained in some ways and continues being delivered in its firehose way. Anyway. The only universality is not humanity and justice, but simply the ubiquitous reach of technology. Technocratic planning is simply an extension of the existing corrupted industrialization thinking – just on exponential steroids. The truth is the technocrat ultimately, sees economics as the sole measurement and technology is the material with which to build these economies. They see their private advantages as things which will inevitably ‘trickle down’ to public good. Its just a different, but equally horrible, version of trickle-down economics. Industrialization is, and has always been, a system to maximize material welfare. Technocrats may twist this truth as they discuss enhancing the brain, optimizing the body’s potential and any number of human enhancing features, but they do so with the objective to increase productivity and wealth. Technology is certainly only increasing its role in the weave of lives, personal and professional, and the general infrastructure of how life is lived. There is no lack of technology ‘plenty.’ But one should reflect upon the harsh truth that nothing cuts deeper to a society, or any business in fact, then the unhealthy relationship between ‘want’ amid ‘plenty.’ Technocrats cannot envision anyone ‘wanting’ in the future when the reality is, unless constrained in some key ways, while technology will be plenty, plenty of people will end up ‘wanting’ for something other than technology. I will say that the one thing the technocrats are clearly right on is ‘technological driven future is inevitable.’ Technology will only become more and more ubiquitous in our lives; often in some fairly invasive ways. Some of the issues this creates cannot be ignored and, I would argue, should be resolved before we go off to the technological races (this is an excellent conversation between Yuval Hari and Mustafa Suleyman, a cautionary pessimist and a reality-based optimist, on some of the issues at hand). We shouldn’t cast aside the machines, but we should view them as reasonable tools for progress, not unreasonable replacements of humanity. Technology has certainly revolutionized how we do things, but inevitably humans decide what to do. I fear technocrats want technology to decide what humans want to do. And maybe that is where I will end. With technocrats’ stronger belief in technology than in humans. This is important because, well, let us remember Mary Parker Follett’s words: Not only are you responsible for serving your community, but you are partly responsible for there being any community to serve. Ponder.

Thinking of everything in business, planning and ideas and, well, anything is a fallacy. Okay. It is impossible. Yet. Day in, day out, we run into people who manage business, projects & people with ‘think of everything’ as their behavioral compass. Note. I said “behavioral”, not thinking. Far too often this topic gets slotted into overthinking, perfection and intellectual masturbation. It is not. Thinking of everything is all about behavior or behavior avoidance.

thinking of everything is a procrastination method. “we cannot start until we are sure we have thought of everything.”

thinking of everything is a fear of responsibility method. “i am going to get blamed if we didn’t think of ‘x’, so let’s make sure we thinking thru everything.”

Once again. this is simply behavior stuff cloaked in thinking.

This issue gets compounded because many people in the business world have a very focused linear horizontal ‘think of everything’ on a topic. Unfortunately <part 1>, inherent in that type of thinking is invariably you haven’t thought of everything <because most business things are not linear and one dimensional but rather multi dimensional and complex>. Unfortunately <part 2>, far too many people force fit linear into a multidimensional world because the business world prefers tidiness, ‘this leads to that’ and certainty.

And then there is the ‘multi tangential double helix all over the place thinking’ methodology <I made that up> which is like trying to be prepared for “what happens if they ask us about how an atom is split” and, yet, all the meeting really is about … well … how to drive foot traffic into a store thinking.  Inherent in that thought methodology is that you haven’t thought of everything because there is not enough time in the world to fulfill this methodology <… plus most people cannot do a multi tangential double helix>.

And then. Despite your methodology and all the preparation and things you have thought of you will always have some senior person, who has only been peripherally involved, turning to the team at the last minute and adamantly stating: “have we thought of everything?”

That is why I would have this illustration I opened with. When asked that question <by said wise senior person> this is the picture to whip out of my case to prove “yes, we have.”

It’s perfect. It showcases the often randomness of all the factoids and trivial and important stuff you … well … stuff into your head for a meeting to explain how you have thought of everything and how ‘the plan’ just is never going to be a nice, neat, tidy, linear plan.

<note: plan on getting fired if you pull this illustration out in response to a senior person question>

That said. Sure. I have certainly been accused of over thinking things on occasion, okay, maybe just over preparing for meeting questions. I would like to think that I spared everyone <slightly> except when we really had a good idea <cause good ideas are different>.

No, I don’t believe anything can be perfect, but with good ideas the closest you can come to perfectly protecting it and thinking of ‘everything’ from day one is a good idea. It at least gives you some hope for implementing the idea you want to implement.

Bottom line? When you think you have thought of everything something will not be thought of.

<that is a postulate I believe>

Oh.

Thinking is messy.

Shit.

Plans are often messy.

Suffice it say that no matter how linear you want to make thinking, inevitably the best thinking has some aspect of randomness to it. Which leads me back to where I opened this piece.

Randomness decreases uncertainty of outcomes when actually doing something. This inherently encourages one to use their procrastination muscles as well as encourages anxiety over accountability & responsibility once one actually does do something.

That said. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. So you may as well do.

Go think.

Go be messy.

And, as Dr. Jason Fox says, “take strong tentative steps” because no matter how much you think about everything, you will never think about everything. Ah. Therein lies the fallacy.

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

updated April 2010 post

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

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

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

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us and a lot of it is completely out of our control. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required.  Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’  Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is most likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

This I am today, that I will be tomorrow. Words to live by.

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

edited from original post from August 2010

====

“We’re making our decisions … or so we think. Yet in truth, ignorance, greed, and the scourge of immediate gratification are often the things that are making them. So if we’re going to truly live well, maybe the first thing we need to decide is who’s deciding.”
Craig D. Lounsbrough

====

All of this goes to show that without the initiative that comes from immediate responsibility, ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct. It persists even in the face of the meritorious efforts that are being made to go beyond presenting information and to teach the use of it by means of lectures, classes, discussion groups.

Results are not zero. But they are small. People cannot be carried up the ladder. Thus the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance.”

Schumpeter

====

Technology suffers from nearsightedness. Yeah. I said that even as the technology futurists discuss 5G, metaverse, blockchain and more.  The trouble is while we get dazzled by some imaginative fantastical futuristic headlines, the reality is most technology business models are driven by lack of imagination and building toward immediate returns and feeding immediate consequences. What I mean by that is every innovative widget they develop is paid for with algorithms that drive immediate returns and immediate consequences. This is the underbelly of an instant gratification economy in that it is fed by (a) drive immediate engagement and (b) exploit human tendencies to engage. In other words, monetize immediacy. This misguided objective setting is exacerbated by purposefully conflating people’s needs and wants by exploiting the wants <not necessarily the needs> and isolating individuals over the collective <i.e., give me what I want even if it may not be best for all’s needs>.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this technology nearsightedness is shared by many industry and policy decision-making leadership. As an example, energy independence today means reaching for whatever energy source exists today. In general, decisions are made to meet existing infrastructure not any future possibilities ignoring longer term consequences with labor patterns, environmental structural issues and even the fact today’s dollars are being invested in structure being outdated on a daily basis. In other words, each dollar is diminishing in investment as soon as it is used rather than investing in future structure which actually increases in value.

But I focus on technology today because they are playing mindbender with time frames to cloak unhealthy short-term consequences. It’s almost like the long-term considerations are too remote in the future <or they are naïve enough to believe “problems solve themselves”> to be concerned at the expense of present-day income/revenue.

The problem with this type of time horizon myopia is that technology is an exponential accelerant versus many other additive accelerants. What that means is yesterday’s 10-year time horizon can often become a 10 month or even 1-month time horizon. This means that time horizons have become so radically altered that having an immediate return/immediate consequence business model simply adds gasoline to an existing fire.

It’s a fault, a shortcoming as it were, in their capitalistic DNA. This fault is an impediment to technology being wholly effective or even truly desirable in a total-value-provided view. This shortcoming infects almost everything they do. Every innovation for the future of technology is cursed with this immediate return myopia. So while they speak of farsightedness and future, they are doomed by economic shortsightedness.

To be clear. This isn’t flawed thinking on their part, it’s a fault, a characteristic of how they think. Flaws suggest detracting from completeness <or the best>, fault points to things that actively impair progress from completeness or the best it can be. It is something that exists and inherent to the nature of who they are, what they do and how they think. This fault means technology, and technology businesses, will continuously only offer us empty innovations – empty of real meaningful long-term returns – which will continue to empty, and mar, society as a whole.

Look. They could refuse to think this way. Yeah. Refusal is always an option. It’s just that refusal comes with consequences. If you make a choice, then you’re responsible for the consequences – short & long term – of that choice and they are not willing to accept the consequences. Technology time horizons must be extended but, to be clear, to plan and behave with a more distant future in mind does not mean dictated, prescriptive, strategies and initiatives. I even say that with infrastructure in mind which demands a constructed (efficient & effective) future. Some agility does not demand shortsightedness, it actually demands situational awareness along a continuum of progress points. I would also note that being ‘future-conscious’ is not about having some Purpose. It is actually more likely to contain more transactional elements like integrity to a societal objective and sacrificing some simplistic black & white “cause & effect immediacy” and incorporating some rich & royal hues of expanding thinking and sensemaking.

Anyway.

I believe it was Toffler who stated “every society faces not merely a succession of probable futures, but an array of possible futures, and a conflict over preferable futures.” I would add we should parse this discussion out to ‘want-fit futures’, ‘need-fit futures’ and preferable futures <the latter most likely being some combination of the two former>. In my mind this is not futurism, but rather ‘future-fitting.’ This may sound like I am dancing on the head of a pin, but the truth is we need to fit into a positive possible future and we are more likely to do so if we engage in the belief that getting humans, and humanity, from here to there is dependent upon showing a future they can fit in <a place in which it can feed both wants and needs>.

Regardless. Assessing the possibility, and probabilities, of future states demands assessing all dimensions of the future. What I mean by that is Pace Layering. Leisure patterns are different than geopolitical patterns and energy patterns and, yet, they are all connected <even in some fairly obtuse ways>. I bring this up because if technology focuses solely on immediate returns and immediate consequences, they, well, screw up pacing. This means an asymmetrical world becomes even more asymmetrical. Asymmetrical is actually the norm but the concern on this is that a complete lack of alignment leads to complete dysfunction. So, while it may feel dysfunctional now <society, etc.> the truth is it is most likely simply discordant pacing, not out of whack asymmetrical pacing – but that can change if technology continues to pursue it immediate’ business model.

Circling back, we need to increasingly focus on the interconnectedness of disparate events and consequences and devote increasing attention to the social consequences, to the individual and society, of technology. The mostly negative social and cultural effects of technology are becoming increasingly obvious and while there are likely a myriad of reasons, let me circle back to ‘immediate returns, immediate consequences’ as a mindset.

Look. Business has always been trapped in a short-term mentality and I tend to believe people have increasingly become more ‘immediate return’ focused <by the way, this may be a Halo Effect thing where it a is a looped consequence relationship>. That said. Technology is exploiting this AND amplifying it. We need to change the narrative. Change the mindsets and rearrange attitudes and beliefs. In doing so we can change reality.

In the end, I would suggest the technology elite shortsightedness view of immediate returns/immediate consequences, is a constraint, not just a fault.

As a parallel thought, while removing the constraint within an organization releases value potential/opportunity, the similar is also true in the marketplace itself. Knowledge should always be applied against removing existing constraints in the marketplace and in doing so value is achieved. And, in fact, the higher the order of constraint the higher the possible market value. I would argue, at least for today, an immediate return/immediate consequence attitude is a higher order constraint. This is a big issue and I don’t believe we talk about it in big enough terms. We point fingers, wave hands around and, in general, think of this as some issue too big to get a grip on. It is not. If we grip immediate return and immediate consequence and, consequently, throw it in the trash, we can permit the market, and technology, to pursue a healthier objective and vision. Ponder.

====

“To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” – Isaac Asimov

<written in 1960’s>

==

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

Albert Einstein.

• Note: Einstein’s comment was aimed at those who relied solely on common sense as an argument <I would imagine  because many of his theories are decidedly not common sense>.

Let’s talk about Ignorance.

I will be the first to admit that not many things truly scare me.

Ignorance, itself, doesn’t really scare me. Frustrate me? Absolutely. Scare me? Nope.

I won’t let it because I have to believe the rational will always inevitably beat the irrational. If I didn’t believe this, well, I guess I would go mad.

Now. What does scare me is Ignorance <or the ignorant> can often take on the characteristics of a cult. As bands of ignorant opinions gather together and create small tight knit tribes of aggressive insulated close minded citizens of a larger population. And, yeah, that is when I become scared.

Cults are tight knit groups difficult to dissemble and can become quite powerful ideologically if they either have enough mass <even if a minority> or if they have a large enough pulpit <or megaphone>.

When Ignorance reaches this point it becomes very very scary. But it can even get a bit worse if it is ‘purposeful ignorance’ or what I would suggest we call ‘combative ignorance’ in which someone simply digs in on some belief despite all the information stating to the contrary.

I sometimes scratch my head on this issue because it seems slightly odd because one would tend to think the combination of technology <the web> and a general underlying human thirst for understanding ‘more’ would converge providing people with an unprecedented access to gobs of information <and real data points – facts> of what we know now as well as what we knew. And in this convergence we may not actually find answers, but would certainly become intellectually stronger in discerning fiction from fact. Conceptually, or even realistically, most of the work has been done — all you really need to do is analyze information objectively and knowledge is available at your fingertips.

Unfortunately, I do not see this wave happening.

It’s odd because I see another wave overcoming us – a wave where it seems that a world of facts is being replaced by feelings and a disturbing seemingly free floating certainty.

And this is why I believe the ignorance is almost cultlike.

If the world is driven solely by feelings <and I do not mean emotions but rather ‘opinions’>, than people will gravitate toward other people with the same feelings and cocoon themselves in some false certainty of ‘that which we believe is as certain as any fact.’

“I think” becomes “I know.”

That , my friends, is a cult.

How the hell does this happen? I imagine the real issue behind ignorance is a natural irrationality. Here is what I mean. We humans like to think of ourselves as a smart thoughtful intuitive group.

In general we are not.

One psychologist did a study in which it describes how people are fairly good at predicting the outcome of elections based solely on photographs of the candidates. This suggests  even if we research and understand a person’s beliefs and policies, part of our end behavior falls back on some subconscious  instinctual ‘gut feeling’ based on appearance. ‘If they look the part they must be able to do their part’ type thinking.

I would suggest that in many cases this is not an entirely rational decision making process.

How about this?

Another study. Think you can change a friend’s mind about an important issue? Think again.

They call this the backfire effect. Simply mentioning facts that another person won’t like will cause that person to harden their position. It is called ‘doubling down’ on an opinion despite facts.

Want an example? Global climate change.

Yikes. <insert a double yikes here>

I am not an environmental nut but clearly in the ‘why wouldn’t I do what’s right for the betterment of the place I live’ category. Frankly … I probably didn’t need any climate change rhetoric to agree to that but nonetheless – the global climate is changing <that is unequivocal fact>, I assume humans have some role <that is also a fact>, the degree to which humans have a role has been defined <99% of experts agree> and, yet, there is a minority of people simply trying to mislead people into believing climate change is the figment of someone’s imagination.

And the minority ignorant is sly. They make statements within the guise of expertology <I made that word up>.  They take slivers of existing research out of context and make the sliver seem as if it represents a whole tree if not the whole frickin’ forest. And then they shout it at the top of their lungs and say it over and over and, well, over. Say it so many times it almost feels like truth to some people.

Oh. And they often couch this expertology within expert sounding groups:

The Heartland Institute is a fossil fuel-funded think tank that gained notoriety in May 2012 for launching an ad campaign comparing those who agree that humans are causing global warming (that’s 97+% of climate scientists and the majority of the rest of us) to the Unabomber and Osama bin Laden.

Look.

I am not going to debate climate change with anyone. The point behind this example is that there is an almost cultish attitude with regard to actually fostering ignorance. And they do so using slivers of information to seed doubt.

They double down on a relatively absurd position.

Denial versus simply … well … who cares what climate change is called?

Blame nature <primarily>, blame people <minorly> or blame whatever.

Cherry pick a data point, misuse some graph, take a statement out of context. 

Pick any reason you want. Pick any silly debate. Semantics will not improve matters regarding the detrimental effects predicted.

It seems a little crazy that the most intelligent species on the planet <that is us humans by the way> would actually sit on our intellectual asses have some meaningless debates all the while simply doing a ‘wait and see’  while we could actually try to do something.

Anyway.

I began with the whole climate issue because it is a prime example of a small cult of ignorance working its web of ignorance to trap the majority. It is a prime example displaying how doubt can be spread in such a way that it impedes any progress <and in fact encourages investing energy where it could be invested elsewhere>. And this isn’t about debating <which I could accept if not even encourage if it were to better knowledge and the minds and thinking>, but rather this is about semantics fostering ignorance.

Ok. Climate change aside <because this rant isn’t really about that>.

I have some concerns, in general, about this strain of anti-intellectualism.

This general cult of ignorance which appears to be weaving its way into today’s world <and certainly in the good ole USofA>.

To be fair, maybe it isn’t really ignorance, maybe it is simple confusion <because it can get really really confusing discerning truth amongst the shouting as well as what is a fact in the onslaught of fragmented information>. Regardless … it is concerning.

Here is what concerns me, aggravates me and disappoints me.

Throughout society and the media it seems that ignorance is no longer a void to be filled, but a virtue to be celebrated. We seem to be celebrating aspects of ignorance under the guise of ‘selective truths.’ Celebrating ‘being open minded’ more than celebrating ‘being mindful.’

Yes. I understand what I just shared is a very very fine line.

But I imagine the real point is we seem to celebrate the cults who espouse ‘common sense’ as more meaningful than facts. And not surprisingly these cults know what they do works.

Want another example?

PewResearch did a 2015ish survey on ‘Do you “believe” in evolution?’

While the survey reveals that the responses align with basic conservative versus liberal – or ‘open to more risk’ – thinking which of course aligns with political loyalties < 67% of Democrats accept the validity of evolution in contrast with 43% of Republicans> that really isn’t the concerning output. It’s the fact that the latter figure, the 43%, decreased from 54% over the past 5 years.

Uhm.

Yeah.

Our knowledge is actually devolving, or unraveling, through the actions of the cult of ignorance. Yeah. A stubborn, relentless, cult of ignorance can make a dent in the reality universe.

Ok. Moving on. Because I do not want to debate issues, but rather simply discuss ignorance.

I believe recognizing your own ignorance is not something to be ashamed of, it is an opportunity to learn. Shit. I do it each and every day.

But there is a certain type of ignorance which is almost becoming a badge of some type of warped superiority over those who do have knowledge or expertise.

The cult sits around discussing topics with others sharing similar points of view which only leads to some intellectually lazy assumptions about the people making arguments that of a different perspective.

Simply put … it is much easier to sit around with friends discussing how stupid & naïve the other people are than actually discussing and thinking about the issue. Shit. People even sit around dismissing research & scientists as ‘kooks’ or ‘do not know what they are doing’ or saying things like ‘it is flawed.’ They state these things unequivocally despite the fact that if someone were to actually read an entire research study <instead of the soundbite that media latches on to> you would find that they are smart well thought out studies with facts and conclusions <the most famous of these is most likely the infamous ‘right brain-left brain myth’ … which the original researcher has spent a lifetime trying to tell people is wrong>.

So we have cults sitting around in their thinking cocoons and some semi-reputable sounding entities <and some really smart people on editorial media shows trying to drive ratings> creating as much distraction and doubt as they possibly can and where there’s the appearance of any doubt, well, politicians jump on board and then? We are off to the ignorant race.

How grim is this race? Well. I found this well written rant somewhere:

“However, I propose that we consider a more grim reality.  Americans have become ignorant, complacent, and incompetent at virtually everything we do.

Before you throw out my theory as pessimistic rants, consider more deeply your workplace, the places you shop, and the things you see and hear everyday as you go through life.  Evidence of our ignorance, complacency, and incompetence is all around us.  We are so ignorant and complacent, in fact, that most of us do not even realize that we are wallowing in dysfunction.

Sure, the failings of borrowers and lenders are at the heart of the financial collapse that just took place, but a more insidious disease has enveloped society as a whole.  Most of us are too dumb to know what is going on around us, we are too lazy to do much of anything that does not bring instant gratification, and we stink at what we do for a living.  Fortunately, since these qualities are shared by our bosses, peers, friends, and family, we can all get along well enough and avoid feeling like a bunch of bumbling idiots.

Well. That was harsh.

Regardless. I don’t completely agree with the depth of the semi-rant. I do not believe we are incompetent, nor complacent, nor dumb. But I do agree that there is a thread of purposeful ignorance, maybe simply call it lazy ignorance or combative ignorance, … woven seamlessly into today’s society <uhm, society, that would be us, as in we the people>.

In my eyes it almost seems like there is confusion between intellectual hypotheses and real intelligence.

Look. Mental masturbation always feels good. But at some point science & facts & research driven proof overcomes sheer hypotheses. While the depth of ignorance scares me at it’s root, it’s foundation, it is actually easy to see how it happens:

                   “… if falsehood, like truth, had only one face we would be in better shape. For we would be as certain the opposite what the liar said. But the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand shapes and a limitless field. “

Montaigne

Anti-intellectualism, or this purposeful  ignorance, can take on a hundred thousand shapes <maybe an endless number> versus truth.

Whereas truth has one and only one face and shape.

In a world where quantity often overshadows quality, many people tend to begin to think all the quasi-intellectual theories being shouted inevitably takes shape as overwhelming evidence of truth … and the inevitable opposite … that something that is actually true is not true. This is simply the many faces of falsehoods coalescing into some absurdly limitless shaped field facing the one truth. Truth gets smothered by a dazzling array of doubts <garbed in common sense or slivers of fictional fiction>.

And sometimes this anti-intellectualism often challenges real knowledge under the guise of ‘simplicity.’

Like ‘if this is true … then the entire thing must not be true.’

Shit.

Truth is not like a house of cards in which if you pull out one card the entire house falls. If I have 52 cards that say one thing, and the other card shown is a joker, I tend to believe the 52 cards. The house remains as it is. The cult of ignorant actually use the joker to suggest the entire deck is wrong.

Regardless. This all becomes more challenging because we live in a world where it is quite possible for someone of average or below average intelligence to still place a high value on knowledge, education, and intellectual pursuits. In other words I don’t have to be Einstein to appreciate that studying hard and becoming as well-educated as possible gives children more opportunity and that smart people deserve respect. Likewise, it is entirely possible to be of above-average intelligence and still be anti-intellectual.

That said.

I do believe there is a link between anti intellectualism and intelligence. Because if someone cannot understand something they revert back only to what they can understand – and fear that which they don’t understand.

I hesitate to throw IQ into this discussion but it is a proven fact that most people, as in over 50%, simply aren’t intelligent enough to grasp a substantial portion of science.

This isn’t elitist.

It cannot be.

Because it is me. I am the enemy and I can see myself.

I am not intelligent enough to grasp a substantial portion of science.

Shit.

I m not intelligent enough to grasp many things.

While we can debate the complete accuracy of IQ measurements the one thing that even the most vehement detractors can’t deny is that it provides a highly accurate overall predictor of one’s ability to grasp difficult concepts.

For example, if one were to place bets that an individual with an 80 IQ will never, ever be able to calculate the velocity of an object through space given a certain gravity and distance traveled would become a very rich person indeed if they could find someone to take the bet.

If we jump just a few points ahead, to 100 IQ, the limitations are not as extreme. However, they’re still significant. You won’t find any quantum physicists with a 100 IQ and you’d be very hard pressed to find a college graduate in the sciences with a 100 IQ.

Now. Science is interesting as I rant about ignorance because inevitably you have to throw into the mix the fact science is by its very nature a constant reshaping of “truth” into ever more accurate models.

Because, like it or not, science reserves the right to change its mind <and I am using science as a metaphor for almost all things>. In almost all things we give the best estimate of an answer given current knowledge.  And we reserve the right to change or modify that answer if more information is found.

Even worse?

The new information is often very difficult to grasp even for experts in the field.

Regardless.

Couple points to make.

IQ does matter. Which means those who do have the ability have a RESPONSIBILITY to use it properly.

And for all of us <iq aside>.

“It is wonderful how such celebrated opinions are born of such vain beginnings and trivial causes. It is precisely that which makes it hard to inquire into them: for while we are looking for powerful causes and weighty ends worthy of such great fame we lose the real ones: they are so tiny that they escape our view. And indeed for such investigations we need a very wise, diligent and subtle investigator, who is neither partial nor prejudiced.

Many of this world’s abuses are engendered – or to put it more rashly, all of this world’s abuses are engendered – by our being schooled to fear to admit our ignorance and because we are required to accept anything which we cannot refute. Everything is proclaimed by injunction and assertion.”  – Montaigne

Montaigne said this in the 1700’s and yet the point is that this ignorance still matters. I imagine I can find some solace in the fact he recognized the battle with cults of ignorance even then. But the battle is in the here and now. A Newsweek report stated that “the world is becoming more and more inhospitable to incurious know-nothings — like us.”

For quite some time Americans, in particular, have gotten away with not knowing much about the world <I have gobs of research to support how un-knowledgeable we tend to be with regard to geography, history, economics and government>.

That’s not going to work in the future.

The information economy demands brains instead.

Its kind of interesting because there is a relationship between knowledge and politics <which also scares me>.

                          “The issue isn’t that people in the past knew a lot more and know less now. It’s that their ignorance was counterbalanced by denser political organizations.”

Jacob Hacker

Overall ignorance has consequences.

An uninformed population is more easily fooled <or driven into selective information cults> leading to less working understanding of current events with significant power to drive events at exactly the same time. The cult of ignorance can only be challenged by people assuming some responsibility to learn more. I would argue it is an obligation to civilization, but that sounds too high handed. So lets suggest it is simply a responsibility to who we are and the world, and country, we live in.

“When you live in a democracy, there are very few good excuses for not having minimal knowledge about what is going on in the world. How much newspaper reading would it have taken to realize that between 1992 and 1996 the deficit decreased? Or to realize that Saddam did not have a hand in 9/11? Now ask yourself how much time the average American spends watching mediocre television. People can choose to be ignorant or disinterested, but that choice is fundamentally their own.”

Isaac Chotiner

Ignorance undermines our entire culture.

When people are ignorant, candidates are more likely to lie, confident in their ability to get away with it. When the electorate is disengaged, policymakers feel less pressure to exercise good judgment, they pander to the lowest issue common denominator <which tends to be money in someone’s wallet> therefore promising more money <or better economy> … knowing that once elected the game changes.

And we need to be careful to not flippantly respond with “I just do not have time.”

Americans always make time for the things they find important.

That is culturally and sociologically how we work.

We watch sports, follow celebrities, make reality shows successful … pick whatever you want. When we want to care or make time for something … we do. At some point we need to care about becoming more enlightened thinkers or cults of ignorance will grind us to a halt – intellectually and tangibly in ‘lack of doing what is important.’

And while I am scared of these cults I am more likely scared of the consequences. What do I mean? Our debates with these cults, which are actually anti-intellectual debates, grind us to a meaningless standstill.

In the end.

I will admit that I am scared … yes … scared … of the growing cult of ignorance.

The most critical issues of our society – the economy, climate change, gun violence – it seemingly matters only what you believe in.

And instead of responding upon lines of reason, on which these voices would increasingly lose a coherent argument, they respond with volume, and emotion driven under the guise of common sense.

And here we are today.

Believe what you want and shout it really loudly.

It doesn’t matter if it is true or factual – just believe it and shout.

I shake my head because it’s never been easier to get — and stay — well informed. People just have to take some responsibility. I am not suggesting we shouldn’t accept some pride in what knowledge we may have, but I am suggesting we are more humble in accepting the limits of what we know. This also assumes we are confident enough in ourselves so that we do not need to denigrate others for doing what we cannot and knowing what we do not. This also assume we accept our own ignorance as a spring board to learn more and become better.

Do I consider myself ignorant, complacent, and incompetent? In many respects … absofrickinlutely. But. I also have a sense of self-awareness about it. And that gives me hope that I can overcome my ignorance at some point.

Ignorance, complacency, and incompetence are not immutable traits.

I say this despite the fact people <attitudinally culturally> tend to ignore all sorts of things that don’t fit into what we conceptual believe to be true. Research suggests that a paradigm shift in society don’t happen incrementally but rather in great leaps:

During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher …therefore … as anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.

This thought … that conceptually … at almost any time … more knowledge can negate the truth of any given idea is slightly unnerving. And it is more unnerving because I know these cults of ignorant prey on these constant movement. They seek ‘immutable truths.’

And yet we are being demanded to adjust based on the most dissonant ‘truth.’

And who the hell discerns a dissonant truth from an ignorant truth?

Yikes.

Someone smarter than I.

Regardless. What I do know is that simply shouting shouldn’t discern truth. I also know that a quantity of facts supporting something is more important than a minority of dissenting opinions. I fully understand in a web based world where data is available at our fingertips that we are actually all simply being crushed by the weight of data and information being thrown at us. Therefore the path of least resistance is that most people is fall back on emotion and feel good <or feel bad> factors.

“I say there is no darkness but ignorance.”

William Shakespeare

There is darkness in the truth that most of us are unable to judge our ignorance.

How do I <personally> find light in the darkness of ignorance?

I seek out the humble, the ones who tend to whisper their knowledge. I tend to find them the minds that … well … matter the most.

“I consider you the most honest and truthful of men, more honest and truthful than anyone; and if they say that your mind . . . that is, that you’re sometimes afflicted in your mind, it’s unjust. I made up my mind about that, and disputed with others because the mind that matters is better in you than in any of them. It’s something, in fact, they have never dreamed of. For there are two sorts of mind: one that matters, and one that doesn’t matter.”

crime and punishment Dostoyevsky

Becoming knowledgeable.

Fighting ignorance.

We all must be accountable for ourselves. We each must take responsibility.  We can make meaningful contributions to the world. We must fight the urge to join a cult of ignorance <any cult> and I admit that is difficult because it is always easier to sit with those who share your opinion.

Maybe we all must listen for the whispers of truth & knowledge a little more closely. Ponder. This seems important.

=====

“Because if there’s one thing I learned from remaking my entire life, it’s this: we are strong as fuck, we can change our stories, and we can do hard things.”

Nicole Antoinette

====

So. When I first started writing my blog in 2009 I read a variety of other blogs just to get a sense of what is good writing, good storytelling and, well, what was good. In my heart of hearts I knew what I wanted to write and how I wanted to write, but over the years I had so much of the “here is what you need to do & how to do it” shit pounded into my head that I was second guessing myself.

Time and time again I kept finding myself reading blogs that were unfiltered well written thoughts and Life episodes. They tended to be stream of consciousness and tended to make you laugh, cry, shake your head, sigh and, most importantly, think.

They were real, not ‘authentic’, just real. Real glimpses of how real people think about shit (whether it be Life or business).

Interestingly, two roommates in the same city I lived in at that time <although I never met either of them> wrote separate outstanding blogs – Jamie Varon with A Life in Translation and Nicole Antoinette with Nicole is Better – which set me on the path of how I write enlightened conflict.

Be Real. Tell the Truth <as it is really seen>.

Share it all with thoughtfulness and with some real-life attitude.

I say all that because I opened with a slightly edited quote from Nicole to say: Life rarely goes the way we plan it.

Shit. Life rarely goes exactly the way we want it <even without specific plans>.

That is neither good nor bad; it just is. Yet, in its neither goodness, nor badness, it is unsettling. Sometimes uncomfortable. Like squirming in a hard plastic chair waiting to hear what the test results are uncomfortable.

Whether you take life by the horns and run with it or wait and seek specific opportunities at some point you will find yourself on that uncomfortable chair. And on that chair you will assess who you are, where you are and what you are.

Uh oh. And then, sometimes, that chair seems even more uncomfortable.

You sit there and think: “WTF. How did I get in this chair?” And not only do you want to get up off that chair, but you want to get out of the fucking room. Shit. You may even want to remake the entire house you live in.

And you think:

I am not a builder … how do I build a new home?

I am not an adventurer … how do I go somewhere I haven’t seen before?

I am not sure where I want to go just that I don’t want to be here … how do I choose a direction?

The answer?

We are strong as fuck.

We can change our stories.

We can do hard things.

Every one of us gets to a place in Life where we look around and go WTF.

What happened? How the hell do I get out of here?

Now. Some of these places are a little deeper in hell than others, but, suffice it to say, they all reside in hell. And you want to get out.

So, not to be flippant: you move. You get up & go. You get up & do.

You are strong as fuck.

You can change your story.

You can do hard things.

The truth is we face Life with strength or, well, you lose in Life. Most of us decide to face the hard shit because we have this inner true strength as described by philosopher Immanuel Kant: “that even small decisions should be made as though we were deciding for all humanity, not just for our paltry selves.”

In other words we realize we can change our story because the bigger story is Life and not our ‘paltry self’ (which is actually just representative of some words on the larger pages of Life). That doesn’t mean you feel any less lost or any more sure of where to go or what exactly to do next; it just means you have the strength to get up & go and do the hard things.

———–

“To feel lost is an indication that you want more out of your life.”

Jamie Varon

————

Now (part 1). Part of what I am discussing is not really change, in my mind it is ’emergence’ or simply ‘becoming.’ What I mean by this is that you aren’t really changing at all but rather digging deep within and just uncovering & discovering what has been there all the time.

Now (part 2). Now part 1 is important because part of what I am discussing about this WTF moment is a warped version of existentialism. It is the moment you face up to where you are in Life and make a decision: a decision to be less self-deceiving, more decisive, more committed, and more willing to take on responsibility for the world you exist within.

A philosopher named Martin Heidegger suggested the reason why it takes “the moment in which you make that decision” to make this personal decision to “do what needs to be done to address where we are in Life”, rather than just doing it pretty much all the time, is because we have a nasty habit of mentally creating this obstacle called das Man <translated as “the they”>. Some nebulous “they” who suggests “they say it is a waste of time” or “they say it is impractical” or “they say the opportunity has passed by.” When pressed we cannot really exactly identify who this “they” is but we know “they” is everywhere and circumvents our personal decision making power. What ‘das man’ suggests is that we convince ourselves we are not actually free to make the decision and do what needs to be done.

“They” constrict the likelihood of success.

“They” gives us the excuse to not admit we are actually free to do something.

“They” will obstruct our change and edit our story.

“They” suggest this is change, and change is bad, because “they” can’t see what already resides within you.

To be clear.

We all indulge in this thought process.

In fact. We indulge in this thought process the majority of the time in our lives.

That is, of course, until you reach a moment. A WTF clarity moment. And in that moment you have a choice:

free to believe you are not strong enough, you cannot change your story, you cannot do the hard, or

free to believe you are strong as fuck, you can change your story and you can do the hard things.

That is the choice.

Let me end where I began. With Nicole’s quote.

When you hit that moment. Just get it in your head the truest of true Life truths:

You are strong as fuck.

You can change your story.

You can do the hard shit.

Anyway.

Life rarely goes the way we want it to go, let alone goes the way we plan it, but we are more than capable enough of dealing with all the twists & turns. In fact. When faced with the WTF moment, we have enough to do the hard stuff to change our story, discover what is actually within that “they” may have suggested we didn’t really have and, well, we are strong as fuck and can do the hard shit. So we just do it. Ponder.

---

“As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.”

Benjamin Franklin

————–

Silence when it is because you didn’t say something is a, well, a haunting silence. It haunts because inevitably we must account for our idleness when it happens. It is the repercussion of the version of ‘things you don’t say.’ (see: https://brucemctague.com/things-people-dont-say ).

That means this is not about things you purposefully ‘don’t say’ … because that is about selective silence … this is more about regrets and missed moments and shit like that.

This type of silence is more a ‘regret silence’ and is about accountability in our own minds, ie., accounting of the repercussions of choice, and choices, we make with regard to ‘idle silence.’

—-

In my voice

there is at least a sign

of living geometry

the words of life

I have never understood

the absurd

difference that runs

between death and the illusion

of the heart’s beating.

Salvatore Quasimodo

—

Despite the fact I think the words you stop yourself from saying are the ones that will haunt you the longest <and I am fairly sure most people know this>, we still struggle with warring impulses to speak up and shut up.

Look.

I am a no regrets guy. I kind of feel like it’s a waste of energy looking backwards and regretting shit. In fact. Most of the time I would argue the things you think you regret probably did more to make you the person you are today than anything you didn’t regret.

That said. Idle silence can be fixed in some cases. Yup. You can if you spend a little time thinking about some of the things you didn’t say, recognize them and figure out if you can do something about it.

By the way.

This is not navel gazing <of which I am not a huge fan of>, but rather an examination of your actions, or inactions, in assessing and improving. And maybe in the examination you will find yourself seeking an opportunity to say one of these things:

“I’m sorry I didn’t …”

We’ve all have made some bad idle silent mistakes. And apologies, when used well and sparsely, can have real meaning.

Not cheap meaning, but valuable meaning.

To someone else, or, to yourself.

So say you’re sorry.

And don’t attach a “but” excuse to the apology. Eliminate ‘but I was really upset …’ or ‘but I thought …’ or any ‘but statement’ that diminishes the apology, absolves you of the mistake or shifts even the tiniest amount of blame back on the other person.

Say you’re sorry, say why you’re sorry, and take all the blame.

No less … no more.

Acceptance is a small quiet room, no less than you want, no more than you need.

“I’m sorry I let you down.”

By the way.

This is not “I’m sorry.”

This is sorry attached to something.

Attached to something because sometimes people take a chance on you and for some reason you don’t step up and get it done. This means someone else stuck their neck out and you didn’t care enough or were not good enough or … well … just not enough.

To be clear, once again, this can be someone else or it can be yourself in terms of how this is viewed.

Most times in these situations we make excuses … or simply ignore the fact someone took a chance on us and we put our head down and get on getting on. We rarely take the time, or maybe don’t have the guts, to stop and say … “I know you went out on a limb for me and I’m really sorry I let you down. I will do my best to never let it happen again.”

Yeah.

I know you can’t go back in time.

But maybe if you are lucky, you can still say it even though it is better late than never.

My real point is to ‘never let it happen again.’

If you don’t step up when someone puts you in a position to step up, own it. No excuses … no caveats … own it.

It ain’t easy. But this is a good hard. The kind of hard that makes you a better person.

Anyway.

I am chuckling as I wrote this because there will be a shitload of people who will not ‘get’ what I am writing about. I say that because there are a lot of talkers in the world. They talk and talk and … well … talk. They bludgeon you with words. And some of them may look back and actually find some idle silence to be accountable for, but then they will use gobs of words to try and be accountable for the idle time.

—–

 “Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can’t, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.”

Robert Frost

—–

Look. We all have some ‘idle silence’ to be accountable for. We all have made some silence choices we most likely regret. We will never always get it right. That is Life. But we can always be accountable for our choices. And we should be accountable for the things we didn’t say … the idle silence. Ponder.

Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief … which will you be today?”

Capitalism. I am going to attempt to discuss capitalism objectively. I will admit I am getting better at doing so mostly because so many young people question me on the benefits <as well as the seemingly endless array of drawbacks>. That said. If you speak with young people there are a lot of thoughts surrounding communism, socialism and capitalism. While many of us older folk get in a tizzy over that, I do not. I believe it is healthy to discuss the nuances and aspects.

Communists view capitalism the most cynically.

“Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps.”

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Schumpeter viewed capitalism with a practical and realistic eye.

“There exists a parallel between education and the scale of moral values in the intellectual sectors and the administrative or bureaucratic sectors against the values and technical criteria of the economic system as it operates.”

Joseph Schumpeter

Which leads me to say I am not sure there is a more polarizing or oft-discussed issue in today’s world than Capitalism — its merits and its flaws and its effect on society & culture.

Capitalism seems to get wrapped up in right versus wrong and morals and greed and a bunch of other things. I have said it before and will say it until the day I die: capitalism is simply a system in which people work and think and behave. It may encourage some things and discourage some others, or let’s say incentivize people to do and think certain ways, but in the end it is a system in which people make choices.

That said. Stephen Covey <author of ‘7 habits of highly effective people’> reminds me of some important principles when it comes to business and capitalism. I admit I originally wasn’t a big fan of Covey and thought “7 habits of highly effective People” not only a vapid read, but the kind of tripe that encouraged non-effective people to think they were effective simply because they ‘implemented’ what effective people seemed to do <rather than make their behavior extensions of their general being>.

But I also admit that i believe almost any business book with regard to ‘what makes people successful’ tripe and relatively useless in the scheme of things <in that people tend to use them as a ‘how to be successful’ rather than thought pieces>.

So my initial thought was nothing against Covey in particular.

Anyway. In hindsight I think I missed the real point of the book (and Covey). I read the book as “a things to do” primer. By the way, my fear is the bulk of readers did as I did.

My point?

I should have taken note that he really was arguing less about discipline, but more about characteristics of personal character and purpose <beyond dollars and cents>. He was adamant that employees were not merely pistons in a machine, powered and oiled to efficiency through rewards and punishments, but rather employees were people. And, even better, individual people <not flocks of sheep>. I should have taken note that he drew inspiration from researching the past. He read almost 200 years of “success literature “.  He discovered that for almost 150 years the most common theme in American business leadership literature was character and that it was only after the Second World War it switched to touting superficial qualities such as appearance and style.

I should have taken note when he added an 8th habit:  “find your voice and inspire others to find theirs.”

I believe in hindsight I should have taken note of his steadfast belief in character above all else.

The Economist wrote this about him:

“… he tried to rescue the notion of character from both the simple minded purveyors of self-help (who imply that you can change your character as easily as your underpants) and the social service establishment (which ignore questions of character by blaming everything on the system).”

And maybe what I wish the Economist writer had noted is that it seems like we have become a working society of “how to” lists.

• How to get things done.
• How to be a better person.
• How to be happy.
• How to be a good leader.
• How to be effective.

I wish Covey were still alive because once he saw how we have become a ‘how to’ society <rather than one which learns how to on their own> I tend to believe he may have just gone back and written a new book called “oops, 7 equals zero if you don’t understand the notion of character.”

In my pea like brain I see the issue as this.

Today’s business world has become a person silo business issue.

Huh?

• Silo one – I am a person of character.
• Silo two – I am a person who can drive profit.

Uhm. And both silos are in one business person. And what this means is exactly how we get these crazy cause related business issues. What I mean is that the profit person is in one room and then goes to another room and says “well, let’s do something good.” And good is just something else you check off your list so that your character person can pat itself on the back and say “yup, I do have character.”

Do I know how to solve it?

Nope.

I know I do not believe Lenin ‘Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps’ because while I do agree that no one can lift themselves up by their own bootstraps I don’t agree that capitalists are not capable of self-sacrifice.

I also know that I wish I could send an email to Stephen Covey or even Peter Drucker.

They would know what to do and what to say.

Maybe they could address the natural challenges capitalism offers to businesses and business people that, in general, it is system that is not needs based, but rather profit based. And that translates into despite the fact we have huge needs that don’t get filled, our business world seems to remain mostly all about the profit.

Capitalism, at its worst, focuses money, profit and success on the already successful. It doesn’t oppress the poor it simply ignores the poor as the rich get richer.

Historically speaking this bears out.

Corporations used to be ‘collective’ enterprises: for the people and the people’s people <society>. Well into the 1970’s companies still defined themselves in terms of products/services offered and overall contribution to society. It was beginning in the 1980’s when finance capitalism drove vision and shareholders profits to become the ultimate objective <trumping even quality of offerings>. Raakesh khurana <Harvard> stated at a business roundtable in 1990:

“Corporations are chartered to serve both their shareholders and society as a whole.”

Ah. But then in 1997 he denied responsibility beyond that of the shareholders.

“The notion that the board must balance the responsibility to stakeholders other than shareholders fundamentally misconstrues the role of directors… “

I am not picking on him, he was simply reflecting upon the current status of the business world. What this really means is that companies, and people in companies, focused on the mere aggregation of financial assets.

This also means business simply stressed every man for himself (and, yes, i purposefully say ‘man’).

And CEOs have certainly thought of themselves. Between 1965 and 2000 the ratio of CEO pay to the typical worker expanded from 24:1 to 300:1. Maybe more concerning is the spread increased significantly between the CEO and the 3rd in command. CEO’s, due to income alone, became isolated from the real worker as well as the real world. They started living in their own bubble <or some version of a business hell>.

By the way, this aggregation of financial assets also means management became inherently more short term focused … and ended up rejecting slow thoughtful methods of decision making and became enamored with gut & instinct.

An outcome of this trend?

Leaders became charismatic; not thought leaders. They became more inspirational and less rational.

In the end I will state the obvious: the pursuit of wealth, or profit, for its own sake not only creates objective blindness, but that blindness strips all productivity of morals and ethics.

And I will also state the obvious: pursuit of wealth and profit is a complex formula.

It is very easy <too easily I may add> to make it an “I” issue. As in ‘person decision’ which inevitably leads to some random ‘psychopathic’ type discussions where this person is ‘this’ or ‘that’, but it really isn’t.

It is a societal and cultural multi-dimensional issue, as in, ‘I do some things because external factors either encourage or demand it <in business and every day Life>’. Yeah. Beyond the incentive levers of an individual business, society wields its own levers of incentives.  My last comment on this part about capitalism is that any crisis we may believe we have with regard to capitalism is first and foremost a crisis <or some derivative of crisis> of society’s character.

Which makes me circle back to Covey.

Effectiveness and ‘greatness’ in leadership begins, and ends, with character. Despite what some boardrooms suggest and some ‘results based’ ideology, profits do not measure true effectiveness.

Regardless. I will close with something David Simon <producer of The Wire> said very well about capitalism:

“Mistaking capitalism for a blueprint as to how to build a society strikes me as a really dangerous idea in a bad way. Capitalism is a remarkable engine again for producing wealth. It’s a great tool to have in your toolbox if you’re trying to build a society and have that society advance. You wouldn’t want to go forward at this point without it. But it’s not a blueprint for how to build the just society. There are other metrics besides that quarterly profit report.

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile.”

Ah.

…. the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile.

Rationalizing what is happening in today’s society is a natural tendency and it is much much easier to focus on ‘capitalism’ rather than suggesting any dysfunction as effects of modern society: over-stimulation, consumerism, something in the water, the kids today, or too much television <despite the fact we often do>. But I find it difficult to believe there was ever a time … within any economic system … when people weren’t constantly running afoul of their own basic human traits.

What do I mean? We tend to rationalize the pursuit of our own drives. We always have and always will. We tend to, well, denounce, condemn, criticize, censure, attack, rail against, lambast, vilify, revile <pick whatever word you would like> other people for pursuing theirs if theirs happens to oppose ours. All this natural conflict of our ‘humanness’ leads to general unhappiness with ‘the system.’ But before we start wagging our finger at capitalism as if it has been a naughty little boy, we should be looking in the mirror.

We should be examining our character.

Anyway. So I close this brief discussion on capitalism with words from a USA State of the Union address:

“… wheel of progress – to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice, and fairness, and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen. The America we want for our kids – a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us – none of it is easy.”

Sometimes we take things for granted.

We certainly take aspects of capitalism for granted and when things don’t go well we lash out in a seemingly indiscriminate fashion.

We look at big things as little things we deserve.

We see what others have and expect that we should have it also.

That isn’t capitalism’s fault that is our <people’s> fault.

Honest work.

Well.

That takes character.

So maybe the issue isn’t capitalism, maybe its, uhm, our own character. Ponder.