==

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken

===

 “Voters are basically lazy. Reason requires a high degree of discipline, of concentration; impression is easier. Reason pushes the viewer back, it assaults him, it demands that he agree or disagree; impression can envelop him, invite him in, without making an intellectual demand…. When we argue with him, we…seek to engage his intellect…. The emotions are more easily roused, closer to the surface, more malleable.”

1968, media advisor Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon

===

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
H.L. Mencken

===

This is about social intellect and, I imagine, the question of whether the majority of the general public is, well, stupid. This is written with United States in mind, but I imagine many countries have a version of this issue. The issue is one of an ideological split; that isn’t really an ideological split. What I mean by that is that it is ideological in name only: democrats/republicans, liberal/conservative. And I say in name only because the labels confuse the issue which is actually about social intellect or differently said ‘the mental ability to engage in civic issues intelligently.’ That said. Beyond the labels, one ideology embraces policies, thoughts, and some ideas while the other simply embraces the belief that they are against everything I just said simply because the other ‘side’ is evil, the enemy, or all those things will destroy some mythical vague outline of what the country is (or isn’t). Consequently, the first group sees the second group as incapable, of, well, thinking. Consequently, in thinking they are incapable of thinking through the seemingly obvious foibles in their mythical vague narratives, they call them stupid. So. We end up with a country where a large segment of the population sees one side as having evil ideas and the other side as incapable of thinking, or stupid. To put it mildly, that simplistic concept is not very helpful.

Which leads me to the idea of social intellect inequality.

To be clear, social intellect is not about intelligence. Social intellect is the ability to assess the dimensions and nuance of civic responsibilities, and concepts, in order to contribute in an intelligent way with societal discussions if not actually participating in the decision-making. Just to begin making people feel uncomfortable today, I could argue that the primary contributors to societal system failures are the people who did not have the desire to develop their social intellect. This made them less-than-capable of effectively navigating through most complex issues throughout life. Once again, to be clear, this same person could be incredibly skilled in a profession and be grounded socially in a community, but, is less-than-capable of grasping the intricacies of how an entire society, country and system works. I remind everyone of that because then the real issue within a society is ‘what the intellectual level of the society is compared to the complexity of the economic and political environment in which it needs to survive’ and ‘is it effectively matched up.’ To be clear, today’s situation is a bit different than if we asked these questions in the past. Typically, a societal intellectual level will rise as the education systems get better and wealth is distributed among a larger group of people. In the past, wealth and education have tended to align with increased social intellect. I would argue the wealth and education aspects have diverged, i.e., in today’s world you can become pretty wealthy even while being ‘less-than-educated.’ From a social narrative aspect this becomes really really important because, as John Kenneth Galbraith said, ‘the relationship between wealth and intelligence is specious at best.’ Said differently, you can be stupid and still have money. Yet. Society has a nasty tendency to connect intelligence to wealth. Regardless. Setting aside wealth and education, if the complexity in the economic and political environment is rising faster than the increase in the intellectual level of society then the social intellect of the society is actually falling in relative terms. This is where inequality comes in. Because while education has improved and wealth is a bit more ubiquitous** (certainly to the extent that the majority of the American middle class is fairly comfortable in their homes and their lives):

• one portion of the population has intellectually risen to the complexity of the economic and political world or at least as close enough to be able to discern some of the proper actions that are needed
• one portion of the population, while possibly intellectually rising, has not risen to the same level.

** note: the reality is that in the United States most middle-class households have a comfortable lifestyle, albeit they may not feel like they have enough as they look at the higher income hhlds, and hhld wealth appears to have ‘de-linked’ from social intellect. Many, many, comfortable households simply skate on the superficial surface of social intellect most typically under the (a) common sense banner or (b) the patriotism banner or (c) a combination thereof.

That latter group is certainly not stupid and in fact it’s silly to suggest that anyone in the population can fully understand all the complexities of society in the world today. All I’m suggesting is that a segment of the population has fallen to an intellectual level where they are overwhelmed by the complexities in the world. For this group, in particular, if the speed and the strength of both technological advancements and global integration remains far above the speed of their intellectual development then both the total size of the incoming overlapping mental stimuli and the time required to assimilate and assess will increase. Uhm. And, yet, people seem to be actually embracing ‘speedy thinking’ more and more as they also embrace a ‘time starved’ narrative. To be clear, both are nuts. And bad. This social intellect challenge not only creates a continuously unstable societal, economic and political environment, but increases the risk of destroying the whole system as the asymmetry between the intellectually capable and the intellectually less-than-capable get farther and farther apart. As a defense mechanism to this cognitive onslaught, this intellectually-less-than-capable group may believe they can insulate their life paths/fates/communities from other areas of society, other communities, and even other countries. Unfortunately, for them, an interconnected world it is not only about the intellect of a country or a population within a country, but within a global scope.

Regardless. Democracy implies some version of intellect equality. Democracy suggests because everyone can be involved, they are all equal intellectually.  I would argue this is why democracy feels shaky as the intellect inequality tugs at the foundation of the democratic system. Look. Having the right to decide one’s own future in a democracy is a great feeling, however, if done without having the necessary social intellect it ends up in selecting the wrong future or, let’s say, selecting the paths which offer lower probabilities of a better future.

Which leads me to highlight the simple solution trap.

The objective should be to increase the overall intellectual level of not just the entire society, but of specific groups and populations who may be slightly less intellectually capable. A society, or half of society, cannot simply discard a significant portion of society as ‘stupid.’ In fact, I would suggest the intellectually less-than-capable provide a larger risk to society in totality and cannot be ignored. Why? Well. When overwhelmed by the complexity this group can most effectively be reached through someone promoting irrational patriotism as the simplest ‘objective’ and consequently intentionally imagining patriotism as sacrificing one’s own interests to a country for the potential welfare of society in total. Intellectually, the argument comes down to some simplistic “what is best for the country is best for everyone.’” It’s kind of a warped hollowed out intellectual rationale. I say ‘hollowed out’ because there are many things that are best for the country AND best for everyone; just not as a blanket carte blanche on all things to be done. That said. This asymmetrical relationship between intellect levels, which is not a difference between smart and stupid, is actually more about socially aware versus socially unaware. This becomes a dangerous issue to navigate because every society and their social system needs to balance the personal interests of the individuals versus the interests of the society and the short-term interests of both versus the long-term interests of both. A successful society navigates the contradictory objectives. I say that because the truth is that a society typically resides somewhere in the shade of gray versus the extremes. But with intellect inequality the less-than-intellectually-capable inevitably reside in some simplistic extreme while the intellectually-capable typically reside in the more nuanced complex space. Ponder what I just said because this is a nuanced view of ideologies. One that may seem foreign in today’s world where simplistic labels are misused to identify ideological leanings.

=====

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

Robert Heinlein

Which leads me to ideologies.

The less-thoughtful, the ones who for good reasons or bad reasons, do not pursue some observational critical thinking, end up crafting a simplistic ideology which is crafted in a way that it is more an attitude with loose behaviors attached to it rather than ideas with actions. The easiest one to point to is patriotism or some version of elevating country over anything else. Regardless. It becomes a loose ideology which, intellectually, a lot of shit can be placed within. Once again, this is not stupidity, it is more just intellect laziness. While it may seem like ideology is the intellectual basis of societies, ideological expressions tend to represent distorted perceptions of realities which, in turn can produce some real distorting efforts. In today’s world the distorted realities have taken on some concreteness through measurement and productivity and actual production. Through these somewhat dubious concrete ‘numbered’ things, social reality and identity definitions get molded into, well, a ‘reality’ shaped in the form of the ideological attitude. Yeah. Once ideology, the abstract, becomes concrete it is legitimized as an effective illusion for a society even though that illusion is of some alternative society to real reality. At that point ideology takes on sort of a flat preciseness in that they no longer represent choices but instead declarations of undeniable facts.

“One, they cherry-pick evidence. Two, they take the information out of context and misrepresent what happened. They disregard the truth that’s in front of them. They downplay and dismiss it. And finally, they flat out lie.”

Herbert Marcuse suggested it all creates ‘the one dimensional man.’ As I’ve written about before increased complexity encourages many people to increase simplicity. So as the world becomes more multidimensional, if not even to a quantum level, interconnected complexity there will always be a group of people, sometimes a significant amount of people, who become more and more one dimensional in many of their thoughts and ideas. To be clear this complexity is perception and reality. What I mean by that is while the world is getting a bit more complex, if you listen to enough ordinary people describing life, it quickly moves from chess to The Matrix and you are being asked to take a red pill or blue pill or some shit like that. Let’s just say that we should be wary of ordinary people because oftentimes the ordinary people aren’t as wise as we would like. And by ‘not as wise’ I mean that they reject many of the thoughts that would actually be helpful to improving their mindsets and their mental models. Suffice it to say rejection is bad. Denial and contempt are typically for little people with nasty minds who typically think they have made themselves all on their own and they owe nothing to anyone about what came before. Well, from there this version of a faux ideology takes on some real psychological trappings.

Which leads me to becoming bigger people.

As Jerome Scott and R. P. Lynton put it: “Every man requires emotional and intellectual satisfactions which alone secure for him his belonging to a community.” The path from little people to bigger people seems to be narrowing day by day. Maybe it’s because once an abstract ideology becomes concrete it becomes a club, not a community. I say that because if belonging is important, belong to ‘the club’ is exponentially important in terms of social identity. And THAT is important because when this need is suppressed, anything from psychological maladjustment to mental derangement can occur. Yeah. I just said that. Some experts suggest the most obsessive psychosis arise from a failure of social adaptation and from the suppression of community relations. When that happens, a person tends to seek substitutions – through social media and ‘clubs.’ And, yeah, this is where technology – social media – can begin to play a massive role. Technology is an alternative reality in and of itself as it portrays a wide variety of illusory realities. These faux realities outline criteria for a version of life that some people will find social identity within and be able to clearly point to who Is ‘without.’ This sociological structure is forged by technological forces and economic perceptions beyond what lies immediately outside the front door. The illusion exists as an attractive alternative to anything seen on the street outside. They are not the result of thought, doctrine, discourse, well, they partially are, but all within, ‘the club.’ Uhm.  A club of (sometimes nasty) little people. Anyway. From that point on the illusions become a condition of fact. From there all social beliefs, all social reforms (or reductionism), all social changes, are located wholly within this condition of fact. From this condition of dubious facthood the shaping of society and social boundaries will vindicate it as well as exploit it. It is a little world where “us” reside and “them” do not. The problem is the “us” gets littler and littler as they become more unchanged, paranoid, and actually inefficient in the larger world, i.e., reality. This little world insidiously mutates the larger, bigger, thinking world as it pushes and shoves and punches and stabs that which wants to expand. But let’s get back to becoming bigger people. Head, heart and wallet. The pathway is always found in calming fears, keeping scepticism and cynicism in check, reshape the brain and offering the vision of a more prosperous future (either for the individual or future generations). It is as Claude Munson suggested: “It is a question of strengthening the environment in such a way that, in practice, all subjects come more or less quickly under its influence.” People need to be placed in a positive social environment where they can thrive, emotional and intellectual satisfaction, or be encouraged to adapt in positive ways.

Which leads me to end with cultural despair.

While both ends of the social intellect despair for greater society they do so in different ways. There is intellectual passivity and intellectual activity. And in our upside down world today often the passive believe they are the active and believe that the intellectual active are the well passive sheep. They see passivity in following science, data, logic, reason, real knowledge-based experience, and associate their own intellectual activity to be found in the nebulous common sense. What this means is in an upside down world of logic and realities where ultimately cultural despair is created through every corner of society.

Rejecting the discipline of the mind as well as the overall corruption of the entire concept of education, a concept which had actually elevated the ‘ordinary person’ to some intellectual rigor of thought, a passive intellectual group then goes forth and corrupts the social mind and social fabric. It all creates an almost willful disregard for common knowledge replacing it with the oft mis-placed and oft-misused common sense. If we are truly honest, a significant swath of society lacks the observational critical intellect needed to pierce some of the complex issues we face. So those in despair then run after every person in power offering a simple solution hoping for well something other than despair. Everything is questioned – what is success, what is equality, faith in scientific method, what is progress. All the ideas and concepts which grounded us as we grew up get questioned. There is a grand clash of idealism, realism, and some form of materialism, from which cultural despair arises.

Maybe this version of cultural despair is best captured by Philip Tetlock.

Regardless of what side of the social intellect scale you reside on what you think isn’t really based on the level of Education or even actual experience instead it comes down to the way someone thinks. The ones who typically do amazingly badly with regard to how they think about things were those who believed that there was a big idea which explained everything world was simple and could be understood simply and that they could just stamp their big idea unto every situation. The ones who do well thinking through things were those who had no such big idea, who regarded the world as complex took their information from many different sources and were willing to be self-critical and learn from mistakes. The key inevitably comes down to checking whether you were right or wrong. And even that is tricky because the majority of people seek out proof for what they predicted or thought rather than broad based information to check against it.

I believe it was Jonathan Haidt who said when we are presented with evidence for or against a hypothesis, we ask ourselves one of two questions.

• When we want to believe something, we ask ourselves can I believe it? Then we search for supporting evidence and if we find even a single piece of pseudo evidence we can stop thinking. We now have permission to believe.
• When we don’t want to believe something, we ask ourselves must I believe it? Then we search for contrary evidence and if we find a single reason to doubt the claim, we can dismiss it.

I believe this is called motivated credulity and motivated skepticism. And maybe that’s where I will end this piece with credulity and skepticism. Social intellect balances itself on what is credible enough to overcome the skepticism. A good healthy skepticism should force better observational critical thinking until we can arrive at a point where there is a credible conclusion. We seem to have lost that balance. Somehow some way we must arrive back here as a society in order to engage in civic issues intelligently. I would argue continuing to engage in civic issues unintelligently is the path to ruin. Well. About this? Not solving this means we will fail to secure the emotional and intellectual satisfaction required to maintain a healthy community and society. Ponder.

===

“You give away nice like it doesn’t cost you anything.”

Levi laughed. “It doesn’t cost me anything. It’s not like smiling at strangers exhausts my overall supply.”

“Well, it does mine.”

“I’m not you. Making people happy makes me feel good. If anything, it gives me more energy for the people I care about.”

Cath and Levi in Fangirl by Rainbow Rowell

===

“If you were a great talent, but not a nice person, we had no hesitation in saying ‘No.’ Life is too short to sacrifice so much of it, to living with a bastard.”

Bill Bernbach

===

Not only has the world become a bit nastier it sometimes feels like if you are not nasty there is something wrong with you. You aren’t strong. You aren’t a leader. You aren’t confident. Well. That’s not only nuts its also a pretty unhealthy way of thinking about life.

Which leads me to say that we all know that the world is often not kind and what can happen. Yet. We make our own world. As Milton said:

“The mind is its own place, and in itself,

Can make heaven of hell, a hell of Heaven”

Now. I will admit that kindness and niceness needs to get a bit tougher (and, yes, I believe you can be tough and be kind and nice). What I mean by that is it seems like there is something unique to our era that encourages the tricksters and cheaters to not only have confidence but be confidently nasty. They thrive in fantasylands of myths and tales willing the narratives to take the form of reality; even when they are not. and when you point out the magical thinking or fantasylands, they get nasty.

I say that to make a point about increased nastiness and tough niceness.

There is increased nastiness in the world because there is an increase in cheaters try to convince us of some alternative reality. They have to be nasty in order to shut down, well, reality. Ponder.

There needs to be increased tough niceness to battle the nasty cheaters and charlatans. Kill them with kindness AND reality. I say that because people really don’t like nastiness. Yeah. they may find it entertaining in the short term, but in the long term everyone is much much more comfortable when a citizenry is kind and nice to each other.

It doesn’t always happen in the moment but over time reality is kind of unforgiving in pointing out that if you are the kind of person who wants something badly enough to be nasty, you will inevitably discover that the price they have paid for it is too high.

Which leads me to suggest this is an individual and society issue.

The individual part is easy to see – be nice rather than nasty and you will be more consistently surrounded by people who actually like being with you. For the society aspect I will lean in on Peter Drucker and his 1999 book The New Realities. He believed the disappearance of the belief in salvation by society would create an environment in which would likely be anti-society … and that salvation could only be achieved outside society … only in and through the person (selfishness & individual zero-sum thinking) and even perhaps through withdrawal from society (to small likeminded tribes). A Bruce translation. Let’s call this the growth of a “me” generation or “what’s in it for me” philosophy.

He may have meant it in a slightly different way, but that is how his idea came to life. In addition, society tends to offer 2 important pillars: experts to help make sense of things and some basic common sensemaking beliefs. So once society had been deconstructed experts were deconstructed as well as some important common sensemaking beliefs. It deconstructs collective societal values. Which leads to valuing the individual (beliefs and wealth) over the collective; or at least proportionally the individual became significantly more important than the collective.

It became easy to be nasty and it became easier to find charlatans and cheaters who nastily espoused our grievances.

Which leads me to suggest that the increased nastiness is a reflection that society is sick.

There are unresolved problems of attending to the common good and we are increasingly unable to address the problems of society. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that as businesses fail at their commitment to society the government began establishing huge bureaucracies to attempt to address the issues and have failed to measure up to the problem. The lack of success of government in solving social problems is not solely the government’s fault or incompetence. It is more a reflection of lack of alignment between people’s attitudes & behavior, i.e., if we cannot agree on what is the right thing to do, we will never be supportive of government’s efforts – even if they are the right thing to do.

Personally, I think we are becoming nastier because we are unhappy we are not being nice and doing kind things as a shared societal responsibility <including businesses>.

Maybe that s my point.

If society is sick, and being nasty is a symptom of that sickness, maybe being nice and kind is the cure. Ponder.

==========

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

Bernard Cornwell

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

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer, hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at, but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

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

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

So, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie, but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency. They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is, well, hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope.  Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

Melina Marchetta

=====

originally published December 2016

===

“And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves. Some of them hated the mathematics that drove them, and some were afraid, and some worshiped the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling. If a bank or a finance company owned the land, the owner man said, The Bank—or the Company—needs—wants—insists—must have—as though the Bank or the Company were a monster, with thought and feeling, which had ensnared them. These last would take no responsibility for the banks or the companies because they were men and slaves, while the banks were machines and masters all at the same time.”

Steinbeck in Grapes of Wrath

===

“A constant focus on trying to find ways to trick users into engaging with products rather than giving them a reason to.”

Ed Zitron

===

I certainly have a dubious relationship with measurement. I tend to believe business measures more out of fear than anything else. That said. Not measuring anything is stupid. But today I am just talking about how measurement shapes society and how society goes about things and the danger to all of us being measured.

What do I mean?

This leads me, first, to discuss how measurement shapes awareness.

Society is strewn with perception-driven hues. The problem with that is we, the people, are increasingly embracing an increasingly finite view of everything. It was William Blake who said “if the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees thro’ narrow chinks in his cavern.” Measurement narrows our sense gating channels that we naturally have so that our perceptions reflect a very small part of the world around us. This is where measurement comes into the picture. We tend to focus in on the small world necessary to achieve whatever particular measurement drives our awareness or drives something important to us. Yes. I am saying that measurement actually creates limitations. Basically, measurement can make a closed system of a naturally open system. Kind of a bounded rationality to bound awareness.

Measurement doesn’t allow the natural leaking of humanness <unpredictable & irrational that leads to innovation and improvements and learning> in that upsets the dream of symmetry, linear and expected. The truth is that this predictability is doomed to fail and there is an inevitable disruption to conventional wisdom if not the status quo in totality. Yeah. The measurement disrupts measurement. Despite the fact conventional approaches within a measured system, most often based on the linear analysis of cause and effect of ‘best practices’, will always fail and, yet, society continues to demand simplistic, more measurable, linear answers and solutions. Rather than embracing the unpredictability of a complex world and positively expecting continuous transformation <in a wide span of change or evolving process> society gets more and more anxious as symmetry is not only attacked, but broken. My point here is that not only is society’s awareness diminishing, but its desire for measurement is encouraging an overall “awareness objective blindness” shaping an increasingly fragile view of life and the world.

Which leads me to the second point that measurement actually shapes reality.

Counting makes things visible and visible things always count. What this eliminates is the fact that every new object clearly seen opens up new versions of perception to us. Instead, measurement is how continuity is built into the system which guides society. This also suggests the invisible really isn’t important. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that money is easily counted therefore money becomes the measure of all things but that is a different piece for a different day.

Measurement is inevitably crafted from history, for a future outcome, and history has an incredibly solid structure of which one component is memory. Institutional misguided purposes may reign, ineffective leadership may encourage chaos, but measurement withstands the all that attempts to destroy the historical structural arc. My point here is that ‘power’ <institutions and people in control> know this and use measurement for the purposes of controlling society/people. Just ponder how this idea trickles down to the existing realities in education, entertainment, sports, social media, business and even communities. For every angst people have about a society gone awry there is very likely a measurement behind it.

Which leads me back to how measurement can hollow out humanity as it shapes humans. Measurement and its methodology, and its cousin methodology, has become a mercenary for hire within society. What measurement also does is dehumanize outcomes and output. What I mean by that is while humans have an impact on what is actually measured, they appear to have little accountability for the impact of their actions in attaining that measurement. Measurements logic is simply the measurement itself. What is astonishing about our measurement systems is how little personal decency or ethics plays a role in the reasoning of measurement. Simply, measurement shapes outcomes not decency. In fact, measurement is detached from the “how” of the objective to be attained. In this measurement world creation may demand an architect or a professor or anyone with an obsession to the detail needed to accumulate what will be measured, but who that architect or professor actually is from an ethical perspective is significantly less important. This society will inevitably find experts in measurement, not experts in morality because the measurement itself IS the logic and reason. And while what I just shared may appear to harsh a critique, at minimum, measurement invariably rewards outcomes over any real common sense or even offers a head nod to proportional application of individual morality or even substantive meaning <the outcome is expected to make workers feel meaning>. In other words, to a point I will come back to later, there is a general lack of value of content over outcome.

The impact on the individual is captured in this thought from Robert Bly: “A person suffers if he or she is constantly being forced into the statistical mentality and away from the road of feeling.”

This is what a measurement society shapes. Suffering forced into a constrained mentality to meet a specific task rather than feeling for the opportunity and possibilities of emergence.

What this means is that it does not really matter whether some technology or ‘thing’ – project, initiative, task – preserves something or destroys something in order to meet a measurement. The measurement is the justification.

Which leads me to how measurement encourages us to ignore ‘content’ in the pursuit of what is measured.

While what should matter is what it is observed to do, what it creates or destroys in order to achieve something, the reality is society cares almost exclusively on the measurement objective. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that a society not wary of promises made to us by the designers or the ones with the material interest in the measurements is doomed to embrace a number of measures, and measurements, that will send us more and more paths hollow of moral and ethical behavior in our pursuit of ‘measurement success.’

The essence of learning whether human, machine or technology is developing the ability to detect, recognize and eventually reproduce patterns – not measurements. The outcomes are an outcome of the patterns. The patterns are important because they are the ‘content’ from which possibilities arise. Measurements minimizes possibilities while patterns offer trampolines for possibilities. This is especially true as systems in which society thrive become more and more complex and more and more interconnected where finite measurement may simultaneously encourage short term success AND failure as in the measured goal is reached at the expense of society’s benefit. Ponder that a bit. If society embraced ‘the content’ and sought out patterns, inevitably people, and networks of people, would stop seeking to meet specific measurements, but rather seek to optimize moments and situations within a construct of a grander positive vision. It is through this vision that the individual activity actually acquires the ability to optimize the gradients of optimal behavior/actions/morality to progress in value creation (for the task or for the organization/business or for society) which may, or may not, meet some specific measurement.

“The purpose of a system is what it does.”

Stafford Beer

Which leads me to the larger crisis of how measurement has infiltrated society.

A measurement crisis occurs when society loses touch with reality, and society, because it has institutionalized a systematically distorted measurement infrastructure. The measuring, as a focus, absolves people of morality and humanity. Regardless of the need for deep structural transformation the reality is measurement ricochets between the system, people’s lives business, social reality and society. All of this measurement tends to address the process of production or service delivery thereby reducing standards for the procedures and practices of business/everything by establishing norms for their social patterns through numbers and measurement and even identifying structure. Quality of actions and behaviors arc toward standardization and measurement of process and not the content. This spawns a society built around obsessive data gathering and metrics which are then used to objectively measure what is called quality and ensure it is being delivered. This is simply a race to mediocrity from not only a process standpoint but also a hollowing out of human, and humanity, substantiveness. This does doesn’t mean measurement has doesn’t have value just that measurement can be structural cages <built by people in power seeking to maintain power over>. The reality is measurements are, fundamentally, structures. Measurement practices enact realities. They serve as lenses and function to represent aspects of the world in order to garner some consensus and thereby shaping individual and collective perceptions of reality. They can also function as technologies and tools to enable the construction of new realities – either functionally or socially. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that measurement is intrinsically related to power and control. Those who have the power to create and institutionalize measures and standards control the culture the behaviors and, overall, society. This is in part because standards and measures are unavoidably normative. They say how things ought to be how practices and products and people should look and behave. This means as a consequence instituting measurement is an act of power because doing so means exercising control over people and things. The truth is people humans are controlled through measures and standards. Generally speaking, we like them. Not only do they help us understand our perceptions of reality but they also help us reflect in terms of our endeavors and their value or maybe what is valued by the system itself. Which leads me to measurement induces reflection. We see ourselves through our measures and standards. We are what we measure. The danger in this is when measurement encourages society to lose touch with reality because it is institutionalized a systematically distorted measurement infrastructure. What I mean by that is measurement becomes addictive to those seeking power, and control, and mathematics – the foundation of any measurement – divorces behavior from the questions of morality and integrity which SHOULD be the at the core of the justification for any behavior – measurable or not. measurement simply becomes the guardian of bad ideas and bad behavior. Measurement simply creates a certain voraciousness without thought.

“…the holy men sat in an atmosphere reeking of antiquity, so thick with the dust of ages that you can’t see through it–nor can they.”

Gertrude Bell

This means societies, or maybe more distressingly, people with ideologies, intoxicated by a particular theory of how things should be will usually spawn a system of false measures. They will use measurement to trick people into not only doing things but actually believing that is what ‘reality’ is supposed to be. Measurement instruments and techniques will be built that appear to deal in realities, but instead deal and what is wished for and desired by the institution <or people in power> itself thereby simply becoming control mechanisms. The measurements are used as truncated representations of the complex dynamic world so that people can take them as sufficient understanding of reality when they are in fact insufficient and often misleading. This is worse than flying blind. It is flying blind when you think you are seeing clearly. In harsh terms this suggests designing people through the engineering or building of behavior and mindsets – through measurement. It suggests that the growth processes of individuals, functionally and psychologically, and society in totality, as things of manipulation to be worked on and shaped just as you would the needs and the objectives of a business.

Harshly, this treats society under the guise of “if you do not measure it, you cannot monetize it and if you cannot monetize something then you cannot technically see if an economic investment has worked.” This summarizes the main problem facing, well, everything with regard to investment in anything <including humans and humanity> that everything is required demonstrate that money is well spent.

“Man is a rationalizing animal not a rational one.”

Robert Heinlein

Which leads me to why measurement is so appealing.

It constrains time into a finitely recognizable space. Or maybe differently said it creates a finite space into which we can cram recognizable things. Yes. It’s a comfort zone.

So, yes, time is now a space. Technology, through digital destruction of normal physical presence means that culture is now organized temporally. Social media feeds’ transition from chronological to algorithmic sorting was a manipulation of time and relevance, now primarily determined by someone else, is now the main criteria for occupying valuable real estate in your attention field. And while recency, the freshest information gets priority, plays a role this is where measurement steps in. All information, however significant, must eventually be pushed aside to make room for the new but measurement actually defines significance <even if it is not significant>. This means we tend to jump onto the first informational life raft that can contribute to attaining the measurement objective when feel like we are we drowning in all this information <which is almost all the time>. Technology, as Marshall McLuhan suggested, was an extension of the body. But the corollary is that the body can only extend so far and technology can also demand the amputation of something, in this case, several functions – mental as well as tasks – simply to survive in this environment or, as a corollary, to thrive in whatever measurement zone that exists.

This doesn’t mean we, as individuals, cannot control the rearrangement of functions, but we would be lying to ourselves if we didn’t note the rearrangement arises from the environment/context itself all driven by some measurement we have agreed to. I say this because typical measurement in society actually constrains the ability to rearrange despite whatever ‘instructions’ the environment may provide.

Which leads me to end with the point remains that not only does measurement shape society, but there will be people who actively seek to construct that shaping.

To be clear. There is no political message lurking in that sentence. Societal signals are apolitical and non-ideological therefore measurements are more about simply managing awareness and shaping reality based on, mostly, whatever warped view we may have on what is needed for, or what we perceive is the best for, the future <all based on a very finite view as noted at the beginning of this piece>.

Our society is so deeply shaped by metrics we actually have begun not only navigating everything by measurement, but defining success by the metrics, i.e., we signal and then measure against that signal. The most likes, the most sales, the most growth, the most things, the most followed, all define how we score each other as well as what we do. I would also note that not only do they shape, but they help define the pace and cadence of how we navigate life. Metrics can speed up, slow down, and simplify not only decisions, but decision-making — all of which are the building blocks for shaping society. The metrics create the definitions for all of this and definitions are simple yet central reflections of society so, yes, measurements are de facto definitions. And in this danger lurks. Measurements, just as designed systems tend to be, are constructed from an assumption of correctness. They are built backwards from this assumption. The danger lurks within the fact that the structure, whatever it may be, to meet the measurement goals is unable to assimilate any anomalies or emergent aspects, no matter how positive they could contribute towards an unmeasured success, because they would not assist in reaching the measurement objective. Yeah. This also means that imagination is sacrificed at the altar of a solid stone construct of measurement.

We use ranking and scores to orient ourselves, but performance metrics are also a filter through which we experience the world and our position within it. They are a measuring stick that we use to evaluate and judge ourselves and others. To be clear. We are doing this not because we, society, is stupid but rather more out of survival instincts. Almost everyone perceives the world becoming more and more complex and uncertain therefore our natural tendency is to embrace measurements as they encourage a perception of some level of certainty. They are grips to hold onto. The danger is that much of that measurement is not only ‘future flawed’ <not a particularly useful contributor to a better future>, but superficial therefore the meaning we give to the world is filtered through a massive measured popularity contest in which everyone participates, but the prize is unclear. Ponder because we are the ones being measured and there is someone deciding what should be measured and not all measurement will shape the society we want.

===

“What people don’t understand doesn’t exist.”

Jan Carlzon

——–

“Chance favors the connected mind.”

Steven Johnson

===

Ok. We chase a lot of things in business in search of ‘advantage’. We sometimes chase them so blindly and relentlessly we don’t even recognize the rabbit hole we have started running down. Differentiation is one of those rabbit holes.

Now. I have a warped perspective <it includes rabbit holes> with regard to differentiation and differentiating in the business world. I think it’s a shit objective. Ok. It CAN be a shithole objective. But suffice it to say I believe chasing differentiation is … well … yes … often a rabbit hole.

To be clear. I don’t dislike differentiation and I believe a well differentiated sustainable idea can dominate a market. But. Chasing differentiation seems to take on some fairly absurd efforts to attain the objective. In addition. I worry about differentiation as an objective because it points people in the wrong direction. If I were to kill this whole differentiation thing, I would begin by saying “define, define, define.” Define yourself with such a clear distinctive thought that permits you stand up and say ‘here is who I am.’

Here is the deal. Sometimes you may look similar to someone else. But more often you will look like ,well, you. And in a sometimes complex fragmented world where everyone is shouting how different they are <and people are becoming more & more cynical> distinctness can win. And more often than not you will also be, well, different. In addition. In today’s world about the only sustainable differentiation isn’t a thing, it is knowledge, thinking & what you have done with what you learn.

Regardless. The meaningless rabbit hole. In our blind pursuit of differentiation we can make some fairly absurd decisions with regard to thoughtless specialization, nuanced differentiation and niche definition. In our blind pursuit of differentiation we can gleefully land on some ‘spot’ and declare differentiation victory only to have it all negated because of lack of alignment throughout all aspects of operations. Attempted, or false/meaningless, differentiation is useless and distracting and a rabbit hole.

Bottom line on differentiation is the reckless pursuit of it encourages us to lie to ourselves, i.e., convince ourselves of ‘true difference’ when it is simply meaningless differentiation. And therein lies the worst of the rabbit hole. Pretending to not see the truth, or maybe <to be kinder>, to pretend it is what it isn’t.

—————

“… the person who pretends to not see the truth is committing something much worse than a mortal sin, which can only ruin one’s soul – but instead committing us all to lifetimes of pain.

The truth is not just something we bring to light to amuse ourselves; the truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth. When it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place; no light can penetrate. Happiness evades us and we spread pain and misery wherever we go. Each person, above all others, has an obligation to recognize the truth and stand by it.”

Jacque Silette

—————-

That last point is semi-important because many business people simply ignore truth as they pursue this elusive <and debatably poor objective> thing called differentiation. Far <far> too many business people embrace acceptable doubt and the possibility that a stupid belief might have something going for it in the pursuit of ‘differentiation’ all the while completely ignoring something that makes you distinct <but possibly not different>, or, let’s call it ‘an obvious and rational truth.’ People ignore it because they believe it will get you nowhere.

Trust me. These are the meetings and discussions in which I often sit dumbfounded and silent and thinking ‘wow … the rabbit hole just gained a whole new crowd of loons.’

—-

“…I was calm on the outside but thinking all the time.”

A Clockwork Orange

———-

Our relentless pursuit of differentiating most often than not leads to an unimportant product feature <not what customers consider valuable>

–——-

“Differentiation is a unique quality, perceived or real, of a good or service that distinguish it from a competing good or service…”

Your Dictionary.com

——–

Look. I fully realize that the need to be distinctive and competitive are the reasons why the company needs to think about differentiation.  However, differentiation can take on so many faces there is no reason you should end up chasing down some rabbit hole for some elusive ‘this is what you MUST seek’ objective as defined by one expert <only to have another expert state unequivocally you need to chase another completely different shiny object>.

Suffice it to say, I can almost guarantee whenever someone brings up differentiation it is more often than not simply code for “please enter this rabbit hole.”

Next. The perfection rabbit hole. On a parallel course is a similar group chasing perfection often ending up in the same rabbit hole as the differentiators <can get awful crowded in that business rabbit hole>. The pursuit of perfection is an insidious rabbit hole. Its stench seeps into the darkest corners of an organization. And while the stench is enough to make anyone’s stomach heave most organizations have people with no real ability and yet strive to maintain an aura of ability under the guise of ‘seeking perfection for the good of the organization.’

More good employees are actually LED into the perfection rabbit hole than employees who actually CHOOSE to dive into the perfection rabbit hole. That said. Organizations are built over this particular rabbit hole. Every organization. It is the unfortunate burden of every organization to deal with the pursuit of perfection.

————–

“Just because you took longer than others doesn’t mean you failed.”

Hassann

—————

Maybe that is my biggest point about rabbit holes and business. Some of the things we seek most in business, whether it be differentiation or perfection or whatever silly thing you have decided will better your business, always seem to take longer than what you want. We get impatient. And if we get really thoughtful about this whole impatience we would realize that our aggravation is with Life and not any inability within ourselves <or even in assessment the foolish pursuit of this un-real reality objective>.

Note:

we SHOULD be more thoughtful about this more often … mostly because if we do not far too many of the wrong people get fired <the right ones> and too many of the wrong people <the wrong ones> get praised and encouraged to maintain the ‘pursuit’ for the good f the organization.

Regardless. Life does not suffer fools lightly. Life is oblivious to your impatience <and relatively indifferent to you in general>. And Life bleeds into any and every organization.

How does Life deal with the fools and silly impatient people? Rabbit holes. It gives us rabbit holes to chase after silly things and dive into in our relentless pursuit of attaining “it” and waste our lives wandering aimlessly within.

But here is where Business and personal Life diverge.

In personal Life you are responsible for the stupid choices you make. Choose to enter a rabbit hole and the issue is all yours to own. In business you can actually get shoved into a rabbit hole whether you want to or not.

All I can tell you is that when I hear someone leading a discussion about ‘how are we different’ and ‘what’s our differentiation?” I start swiveling my head around scanning for rabbit holes.

All I can tell you is that when I hear someone in the hallway espousing the need to pursue perfection I start swiveling my head around scanning for rabbit holes.

 All I can tell you is that when I am in a meeting and someone is discussing both differentiation and perfection I don’t swivel my head, I just sigh, because I know I am already in a rabbit hole.

That is business … and rabbit holes. Ponder.

==

“Stop looking for happiness in the same place you lost it.”

via creatingaquietmind

==

“Well I guess it’s only life,

It’s only natural we all spend a little while going down the rabbit hole. “

The Shins

==

“We don’t create a fantasy world to escape reality, we create it to be able to stay.”

Lynda Barry

==

Ok. We chase a lot of things in Life. We sometimes chase them so blindly and relentlessly we don’t even recognize the rabbit hole we have started running down. Happiness is one of those rabbit holes.

Whoa !

WTF.

Happiness is a rabbit hole?

Well. Suffice it to say happiness is a tricky thing.

Having it is awesome.

Seeking it is … well … a rabbit hole.

The search injects us with most of our everyday stress which means most of our stress has nothing to do with what we have, but rather what we don’t have <seeking what we want in other words>.

And while wanting a new car or some shirt or the cool new phone is a tangible ‘want’ <and not even close to sending you down a rabbit hole>; happiness is much more elusive. In fact. Much more elusive than you would imagine <or want>.

First. Our brains struggle to remember happiness in a realistic way. Semi-happy moments in the past take on a Life of their own and become exponentially happier in the memory. Yeah. Happiness has a wary relationship with reality.

Second. Our brains relentlessly tug at and tease out the minutiae found in unhappy moments. This, ultimately, translates into the fact we cannot seem to forget unhappiness and inevitably, because of that, do anything – include some absolutely absurd things – we can to avoid it.

Therein lies the rabbit hole. Life is not meant to be avoided.

Shit.

Life cannot be avoided <whether you try to or not>.

What do I mean? While we seek to control our own destiny and write our own fates … others grab our Life while we aren’t looking and write whole chapters for us that we can only look at and say “WTF” just before the inevitable ‘not written by us’ happens.

———

“Life is like a library owned by the author.  In it are a few books which he wrote himself, but most of them were written for him.”

Harry Emerson Fosdick

————

And all that ‘not written by us’ stuff keeps on getting in the way of what we want to write about happiness for our Life as well as it gets in the way of erasing the unhappy shit. This particular rabbit hole, this relentless pursuit of happiness, makes Life particularly difficult.

———-

“It hasn’t been easy, and it never will be. After all, every day is also a chance to slide back into the darkness. To live in ourselves and our regrets, instead of this moment. To run away from those that would help us and let self-hatred drive us back into isolation, despair, and destruction.

Nick Spencer

——

Every day is not easy and actively pursuing happiness shoves our happy ass in a slippery sloped rabbit hole faster than you can blink an eye.

Ok. As a corollary to chasing happiness, lets maybe call this the other rail on the tracks down into the frickin’ rabbit hole, is chasing simplicity <often believing this ‘elusive simplicity’ will lead to happiness>.

Is this a paradox in Life? Shit. I don’t know, but I do know the more we seek simplicity the more complex things tend to get and … uhm … the less happy we become.

Whew. Boy oh boy, talk about the slippery slope leading down to the rabbit hole of self-hell. Seeking simplicity is it.

Simplicity entices you day by day and even hour by hour. And each day you do not attain simplicity the more and more you look at it as some type of failure and you try harder and harder for something I am fairly sure you just cannot attain. Or if you can attain it … well … it doesn’t come from a book or some formula or even some sage advice from a friend, it is something more earned by living and attempting and finding.

Simplicity seems so simple and yet it inevitably takes much much longer to master than you feel it is supposed to.

Simplicity seems so damn easy that we, well, get impatient when it doesn’t happen.

Let me state that differently. We get impatient with Life. Uh oh. It’s not like we can dictate the pace & flow of Life <I will come back to this>.

The next problem?

Even if you actually DO attain some simplicity you are aggravated it took so frickin’ long. This is compounded by the fact that simplicity is one of those weird things that as soon as you attain it you start hearing other people say “geez … why did it take you so long to figure THAT out?”

————–

“Just because you took longer than others doesn’t mean you failed.”

Hassann

—————

<I use this quote to close the rabbit holes business post too>

And maybe that is my biggest point about rabbit holes and Life and reality.

Some of the things we seek most in Life, whether it be happiness or simplicity or whatever silly thing you have decided will better your Life, always seem to take longer than what you want. And we get impatient.

And if we get really thoughtful about this whole impatience … we would realize that our aggravation is with Life and not any inability within ourselves <or even in assessment the foolish pursuit of this non-real reality objective>.

Life does not suffer fools lightly. Life is oblivious to your impatience <and relatively indifferent to you in general>.

How does Life deal with the fools and silly impatient people?

Rabbit holes.

Life gives us rabbit holes to chase after silly things and dive into in our relentless pursuit of attaining “it” and waste our lives wandering aimlessly within this hole with slippery walls and minimal handholds to help us climb out of it.

Well. That summarizes reality … and rabbit holes. Ponder.

=====

“It’s dark because you are trying too hard.

Lightly child, lightly. Learn to do everything lightly. Yes, feel lightly even though you’re feeling deeply. Just lightly let things happen and lightly cope with them.

I was so preposterously serious in those days.

Lightly, lightly – it’s the best advice ever given me. So throw away your baggage and go forward. There are quicksands all about you, sucking at your feet, trying to suck you down into fear and self-pity and despair. That’s why you must walk so lightly. Lightly my darling… “

Aldous Huxley

=====

Life truths.

Hard and lightly.

Haste with patience.

Forward diagonally.

Happy and sad.

Success and failure.

Right and wrong.

Thinking and doing.

Dreams and hard work.

Whew. This means that the truly great things in Life may be a coin you can put in your pocket — a coin made up of two sides and two faces.

Yeah. Life is usually a combination of opposites fighting a tug of war moment to moment. I bet no one told you that when you were growing up.

Far too often we are told the secret to life is one thing.

Far too often someone is not telling is the truth <or maybe they don’t really know the secret to life?>.

Th truth is Life <and business also> is a wonderful, maddening blob of inconsistency.

The only way to survive , and not be totally boring, inept or a hermit, is to steal a little of something from both sides and do your best to proportion it all out in the end.

Proportional?

I need some sadness to recognize true joy <only I certainly don’t want to dwell on sadness nor walk around as Happy the Clown every minute of the day>.

I want a leader who is energetic and demanding and cajoling, pushing, shoving, pulling, inspiring people toward a horizon < but I want the moments of idle strength and compassion intertwined>.

I want to work hard … so hard the muscles, brain and/or physical, are strained and hurt … and get to maybe get a glimpse of one of my dreams on occasion <so I can dream a little when not working hard>.

I want people to play hard and play to win <in any endeavor> … but do so with grace in victory & loss, with sportsmanship & fairness and respect for the game.

I want, well, it doesn’t matter what I want. Pick your ‘hard-lightly’ Life combination. I guarantee you will find the most interesting people, most interesting experiences, most interesting moments, most interesting anythings are a reflection of this ying-yang combination. Life is meant to be lived, and experienced, hard & lightly.

Now. By the way.

Just because Life is meant to be lived this way doesn’t mean it is easy to actually live it that way. Living hard, or living lightly, is not only addictive, but also often generates a sense of ‘lostness’ when shelved for a bit.

Why lostness?

Well. It is mostly fear that we will not refind or regain it therefore we hesitate to ever let it go from the way we currently live our Life.

So what do we do? We ‘take a break.’

We ‘get away from it all.’ In other words instead of seeking some ‘how we actually live’ balance in our lives we just step away from the way we live our Life by simply not going lightly <if we typically go hard> or not going go hard <if we typically go lightly> and we don’t do anything other than how we live our Life so, ultimately, we just choose to do nothing to ‘recharge.’

I would suggest that you don’t need to ‘take a break’ to recharge, but rather if you seek the proportional ‘yang’ to your ‘ying’, well, you will find additional purpose as well as your ‘ying’ takes on an entirely new image n your eyes & mind.

• *** note: proportional versus balance: I purposefully use proportional rather than balance because on an individual, person to person, basis it is rarely a 50/50 split – even over time. everyone customizes their life between hard & lightly as is appropriate to their personality, ambition and life desires. once again, this is rarely 50/50 and everyone should just seek what their optimal proportional mix is.

Regardless, just approaching Life one way means you miss out on what is most interesting in life – going hard & lightly.

Aw shit. Look. All I really know if that if you can figure out how to go hard and tread lightly at the same time, you will most likely be successful in business & in Life. You will most likely be appreciated, respected, sometimes liked and certainly not hated. I know … I know … the ‘tread lightly’ part is really really hard if you like to live Life going hard.

But.

As I just told someone go hard for the things you want and dreams you seek to reach toward and if you continue to do these things for you, knowing that your moral compass is set correctly and that your instincts with regard to ‘what is right’ versus ‘what is wrong’ are good, you will be happier and the people around you will rarely be disappointed.

Ponder.

=======

“We cling to our fairy tales until the price for believing in them becomes too high.”

Ransom Riggs

====

“The best way to expose our ignorance is to hold on to biased ideas and opinions, because we fear giving the upper hand to the other side.”

Charles F. Glassman

====

Business is a tricky combination of adapting and consistency.

Suffice it to say discerning what to keep and build some consistency, and what to change or adapt, is, well, the key to creating a successful business.

Letting go of shit is difficult. We all know that.

But. Knowing when to hold on to something is just as difficult.

Simplistically:

<1> many organizations are burdened with older employees who tend to hold on based on their experience, and

<2> many organizations are burdened with younger employees who tend to let go of existing ideas and opinions based on their lack of experience.

Both sides are stubborn, fearing to give the other the upper hand.

And that is where business really needs to get its shit together. This whole ‘upper hand’ thing.

Because success isn’t about compromise it is more often about good ideas winning no matter where and when and who they come from.

When someone or a generation feels like they have the power, or run the risk of losing power, they do stupid things. Obviously, the business pays the price, not the person doing the stupid things. That is why adapting and selecting what to be consistent about should be about anything but power. It should be about creating a culture & organization in which old & new is debated and ‘the good of the organization & business’ decides what to hold on to and what to let go of.

Far too often the power structure in a business <and this can be one individual wielding an inordinate amount of power or an age group/cohort fighting for their space> holds the ‘fairy tale’ success formula, uhm, until the price for believing them becomes too high.

Sigh.

Unfortunately that moment is often too late to ‘fix’ what has gone wrong.

Regardless. A business’ success, and flaws, is typically driven by a couple attitudinal things  <a> a general feeling that you could be doing better and <b> the virtue of the participants.

Doing better.

There is gobs of pressure put on a business both internally and externally. Internally <be successful or be fired> and externally <the market is brutal on any business which does not show growth>. Even if the business has been steadily improving someone will be hammering away on either how terrible things are or how much better it can, and should, be.

Virtue of participants.

A business, in order to function efficiently and effectively, is dependent upon the virtue of the participants. A lack of virtue engenders wasteful transactions, wasteful actions and breeds an overall monitoring cost which can paralyze an organization from any movement or adaptation.

Both of those things I just shared are power. They both have the power to do good, and bad, for a business. What I mean is that the price for believing, disproportionately, in doing better is virtue-driven – that can make the price too high to meet simple ‘doing better’ objectives.

Power, ultimately, resides in, and will always, identifying what should remain consistent and when & where to adapt. All of that is organizationally driven and not individually driven. And yet … it is the individual who must assess all actions & behavior with the intent to always seek when ‘the price in believing something becomes too high.’

In the end I would simply note that the strongest most powerful thing you can do for a business is to understand that doing better with virtue can work.

This is not a fairy tale.

Just know there are no shortcuts and it isn’t easy — you have to work for it.

You have to find ways <just having it as objective will not work>. You have to somehow do something, sometimes anything on occasion, all the while keeping your head on straight and go do something that saves … well … the business <which is kind of like saving the world>.

—

“Somebody once said we never know what is enough until we know what’s more than enough.”

Billie Holiday

—

Happy Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is about turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, stuffing and pumpkin pie.

Uhm.

Or how about a Bucket of Balls?

Yup. Turkey testicles.

—–

Have a ball at Timothy O’Toole’s Pub in Chicago.

This casual sports bar has made a tradition of serving up crispy, deep-fried turkey testicles during the holiday season. The meaty nuggets are ordered by the bucket and are accompanied by ranch, barbecue or buffalo dipping sauce. The balls have become so beloved that the bar holds an annual Black Wednesday (that’s the day-before-Thanksgiving) turkey testicle-eating contest where the winner takes home a frozen turkey.

—–

Sigh. Only Americans could create a bucket of balls for a Thanksgiving tradition.

Anyway. The first Thanksgiving was more like five deer and some birds, a shitload of shellfish, twigs, acorns and, well, no pie.

In fact, the feast the Wampanoag Indians and Pilgrims ate in 1621 was, ducks, maybe a swan <gulp>, shellfish <thin clams or mussels>, nuts <anything they could mash>, no sugar <so no stuffing or cranberries or, well, pie>. We know the colonists regularly consumed ducks, geese and swans. And, instead of bread-based stuffing, herbs & onions or nuts might have been added to the birds for extra flavor.

Turkey or no turkey, the first Thanksgiving’s attendees almost certainly got their fill of meat.

Fairly bland, but at least the Pilgrims & Indians weren’t killing each other <like many families do on Thanksgiving, uhm, I note that so noone thinks killing each other around the Thanksgiving table is actually a tradition>.

Anyway. I cook a turducken every thanksgiving. It is this fabulous creation of layered turkey, duck and chicken with a spicy stuffing mix. It is an, admittedly, exorbitant excessive culinary delight.

And as I gaze at it I thought of all the years in the past as I lived a nomad life away from any family, my own or anyone’s, and I think of the solo trips to islands and far off countries and … well … luxuries many people have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

At that time I never thought anything about the ‘luxury’ or any sense of extravagance.

At that time, in my mind, I deserved the break.

I say this gazing at my turducken when I know people in other countries … shit … in cities in my own country … will never know this luxury adorning my dining room table.

Am I altruistic?

Shit no.

I tend to believe I am simply gaining some perspective on what I used to consider, well, I deserved. And it makes me reflect upon people and how they think about ‘what I deserve.’ And as I begin discussing ‘what I deserve’ I will hearken back to the original Thanksgivings and the fact the original pilgrims were not called pilgrims.

—

“Those who were members of the Separatist Church Movement referred to themselves as ‘Saints.’ About 60 others who came over in the Mayflower with them were called ‘Strangers.’ But they all knew how to have fun and enjoy life. They made and drank a lot of beer, hard cider and something like today’s brandy.
Occasionally there was drunkenness and fighting.”

So. The original thanksgiving was a celebration for the harvest. in other words, for work. It was kind of the first Labor Day.

It was not indulgence, it was not extravagance, it was a celebration of real output <not income>.

I would suggest it was an understanding of balance. And an understanding of the Life value proposition – work & what I deserve.

Look.

That is a hard thing to understand.

It seems like it should be easy, but it is not.

—

“The hardest choice in life is usually between what you want, and what you deserve.”

Rashida Rowe

—

Society makes it tough. Particularly today’s society. “Society”, as it was back then, were the Pilgrims as a small tight knit group of people with similar attitudes honed by similar hardships. They had a common interest in success and outcome from hard work. All those things make it easier to not only understand the balance, but share the balance.

Today?

Today it is difficult.

Society makes it difficult.

Society has a nasty tendency to complicate our understanding the ‘deserve’ balance.

Everywhere you turn there is the message screaming at us that we need to give ourselves a break and have a treat:

==

Girlfriend, put your feet up and enjoy a mani-pedi.

You deserve it!

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

–

Hey mom! Following an afternoon with your crazy kids, you deserve a stop at the mall to treat yourself to new shoes or that designer handbag or, well, whatever you want!

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

–

Life got you down? Retail therapy! You deserve it.

<note: …. always with an exclamation point>

==

While I focused on women <because there is an inherent underlying capitalism theme that women are being too hard on themselves — juggling the duties of being mothers, wives, professionals — all at once and should spend money to solve that> the fact is that all of us are encouraged, because we demand too much of ourselves, to ‘stop punishing ourselves’ and go out and indulge ourselves in some way as therapy.

Ok.

First.

I am all for breaks.

But in the good ole days Thanksgiving was but one indulgent break from 365 day toil. That is a well deserved break.

In comparison. Today?

Weekly pampering?

Monthly reward for work well done?

Daily indulgence of something to break the day up?

Where is the number?

What is the number?

How much do we truly need and doesn’t more of it actually:

<a> make us expect more (answer: yes), and

<b> create the impression we are sacrificing more in our everyday toil (answer: yes).

Secondly.

Uhm.

Instead of “punishing ourselves” by plowing through life we reward ourselves with making purchases that sit on a credit card <called ‘debt’> or spend money on some intangible indulgence which depletes four wallet size <and savings size> which could be used to actually accumulate something that could actually bring us closer to whatever our vision is.

Look.

Before everyone gets defensive about how many indulgences are required to get you through the week, consider the source of your belief that you need some indulgent break every week.

Were you really raised to believe some continuous indulgence <under the guise of ‘reward’> is a basic part of human life?

Or was the idea planted by some marketing genius promoting therapeutic benefits of whatever indulgent behavior they want to sell you?

Let me caveat this a bit by acknowledging life can be a grind and that the way work is conducted, for the most part, certainly makes us seek something better or some off-ramps on occasion and certainly encourages us to think we desrve better <or something more than what we are getting>.

That said.

We all should use every opportunity to better ourselves. And this includes thinking about what we truly deserve.

But what we deserve is, and should always be, balanced by our understanding of ‘effort.’ And effort should be all about making every minute count.

Let me be clear.

I love the American ambitious ‘you can do anything’ culture <although it has been warped a bit by the “hustle culture”>.

And I dislike it at exactly the same time.

Why?

Because it is a constant struggle.

All of us get tugged by ambition <work hard> and at exactly the same time get tugged by fairness <value for my work as part of everyone else’s work>

No.

I am not suggesting you cannot have and do both.

Yes.

I am suggesting it gets tough to balance.

One is driven by individualism <what I deserve and I want a good happy Life>.

One is driven by collectivism or some version of pluralism <I would like everyone around me to live a good happy Life>.

It is natural to focus and put a heavier emphasis on the “I” portion, especially at first because you typically have nothing <or little> and you believe you need ‘something’ before you start worrying about fairness or general Life happiness of others.

So. The true struggle occurs once you … well … have.

You have invested the effort, you have worked and focused and did and all of a sudden you have entered into the “I deserve” mentality <zone>.

That is actually a byproduct of ambition. Ambition, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Unfortunately it brings some baggage along with it. It’s almost like you go on this ambition trip without any bags and when you get off the train you have a bag you carry off. The bag is a metaphor for tangible shit you have accumulated <which reflects your effort in your eyes as well as the eyes of those who look>, but it also contains mental shit. Self value, self-actualization and self-esteem. And it is the mental aspect which builds up the ‘deserve equation.’

We almost consider it as an aspect of winning … as in ‘winning in Life.’

I played the game.

I put in the effort.

I deserve the trophy.

And maybe that is where we get it wrong <sometimes>.

Playing the game versus winning.

Life, in general, is not measured by how many wins you have <or awards you get> it is about how you play the game. It really shouldn’t be about “winning in Life” it really should be “Life played well.”

Unfortunately, that is not part of the USA DNA.

We are an ambitious group of people who like to have, and measure, progress.

We are a group of people where ambition is not a negative word, it is indicative of a positive spirit. It is indicative of an underlying competitiveness which resides in the souls of 99% of Americans. I am not suggesting it is the only characteristic within us .just that it is always there and always suggesting ‘keep going.’

—

“The problem in France is that ambition is not a compliment.

It’s almost a bad word. ‘Ha, look, he’s ambitious.’

So that’s a very difficult situation for an athlete: As soon as you try to be ambitious you have people mocking you.

For instance, we would never have made the war in Iraq. On the other hand, we may never win anything.”

Bouin

—

This is not about slamming USA.

Shit. This is not about slamming your own ambition.

This is not an indictment of a ‘can do’ spirit or an indictment of ambition.

This is simply a reflective moment on how we think about what we deserve on Thanksgiving.

We deserve more than a ‘bucket of balls’ on Thanksgiving.

We deserve a sense of success for effort. Not anything truly tangible, but a sense.

We deserve a good sense and a good feeling for playing the game well, and with effort.

If we figure that out, I tend to believe all the rest will simply fall in place. Ponder. And Happy Thanksgiving.

====

“All men dream: but not equally.

Those who dream in the dark recesses of the night awake in the day to find all was vanity.

But the dreamers of day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, and make it possible.”

T.E. Lawrence

———–

“On stormy nights they both dreamt intensively, violently – they often drowned.”

Heat and Light by Ellen Van Neerven

====

“What use is idealism when the ideals are false ones?”

Byron

====

Hope, optimism, dreaming, even idealism, seems out of vogue these days. “Be realistic,” “nothing is going to change” is the war cry of the general masses or, at minimum, the cynical few. This is the real crisis we face. For the truth is more often than we like to admit our idealistic visions and dreams actually come to fruition, in some form or fashion, in the real world. and what that means is less idealism and less dreaming creates a reduced chance of real progress.

I will say its weird, at least to me, in that how we view people, who is essential and who will be valued <not the same>, is often also the way we view some idealistic thinking and dreams. Ideals and dreams are essential and of value <although not all are created equal>. Now. I am going to focus on business, but the lessons within are also ones of society too. Just ponder it all as you read along.

It was Mary Parker Follett who discussed, in Community is a Process, idealism and realism meeting “in the actual.”

The actual is complex. Shit. “Actual” could simply be complexity itself. Business demands navigating complexity BY AND THROUGH a combination of idealism and realism. We can talk about sensemaking and choice making and embracing uncertainty, but the weapons we wield as we wander through complexity is idealism and realism. Sure. We also focus on greed and profit when the truth is the motives of business are numerous and complex. We want profit and yet we work for self-development, working together, service, completion, progress, esteem, craftsmanship, creation, etc. This is another extrapolation of Mary Parker Follett’s “law of the situation” where each situation has its own order and own complex mix of motives. Idealism, realism and ‘in the actual’ are all part of the weave of complexity of which any group of people working together as well as any individual ‘doing’ will interact with their own weave of motives. Simply saying it is ‘greed’ or ‘just a paycheck’ is lazy. Work is more complex and people are more complex and even the connection between idealism and realism is complex.

And maybe that is why I now suggest an ideology of incrementalism is fraught with peril. While on the positive side it offers potential consistent positive progress on the downside it can be representative of putting off important things until it’s too late to do anything about them. Incrementalism is the worst of both idealism and realism. It sacrifices the best of both while promising the best of nothing.

“The remarkable monotony of the proposed solutions throughout our recorded history testifies to the elemental simplicity of the matter. Generally speaking, they always amount to seeking shelter from action’s calamities in an activity where one man, isolated from all others, remains master of his doings from beginning to end”

Hannah Arendt

Ok. I believe every business has an ambition. In fact. I believe every business has different ambitions all at the same time – money, morals, size, Purpose, etc. that ambition can come in any size but it will always own some combination of idealism and realism. That specials sauce combination is theirs and they hope to attain it or aspire to reach it. it is their ‘hope’ of what can be.

To me.

All hope to me should be grounded in some sense of idealism and reality.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you cannot have both.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you cannot have both idealism and realism.

I, frankly, don’t understand when people suggest you shouldn’t have aspects of both hope & pragmatism, possibilities and pragmatism and idealism & realism.

We should want both AND demand both. It is reaching for the stars and reaching realistically. It is keeping your feet in the clouds and, yet, head on the ground.

But that’s how I think.

I think you can be both idealistic and realistic.

I think it is possible to offer a sense of a difficult path forward without creating a larger sense of ‘doom or Armageddon’ to create the sense of urgency which we often deem necessary in order to inspire real action.

And, inevitably, that is what this is all about.

How to inspire people not just to inspire, but to take action?

How to inspire larger ideas and larger actions and the smaller steps inbetween?

This is a tightrope all business people walk.

The difficulty on this tightrope is that there will always be people debating, and criticizing, while you walk on this tight rope. They will argue whether the ambition is big enough. They will argue whether the ambition isn’t small enough. They will argue we need more radical change. They will argue we need less radical change. Shit. They will argue we need no change moving forward, but rather reverse some of the changes made.

And you know what?

Some of that, in all of that, is right. Some of the past is awful and some of the decisions we will make for the future, and in the future, will be awful. Conversely, some of all of that will, well, not be awful.

To suggest that there are easy answers or that the steps forward are clear and simple is stupid. Stupid and foolish.

Just to be clear. Within the “Idealism and Realism” debate can be found the constructive decision which any leader tries to find their own course in leading. We debate all of this shit in our own heads and then we debate it in conference rooms and boardrooms every week. This debate, simplistically, are the doubts that reside between idealism and realism.

We are responsible for past decisions and, yet, try to unburden ourselves so that we can make progress.

Simplistically, just because I <maybe> made an awful decision in the past doesn’t mean I will make an awful decision in the future.

Simplistically, just because I maybe offer a hopeful idealistic decision for the future doesn’t mean it is a realistic decision for now.

Simplistically, just because I try and slow everybody down on some idealistic discussion shouldn’t suggest I am any more ‘canny or wise’ than everybody else let alone the person who offers the idealistic hope that people may gravitate toward — it just suggests that maybe I am trying to balance it all with reality <and maybe incorporate the fact that, pragmatically, I would like to incorporate some possibilities for people today & tomorrow>.

I will suggest, no, I will tell you the harsh truth getting good shit done within ANY size ambition is hard.

Getting shit done means balancing overreach and under reach.

Balancing possibilities and pragmatism.

Balancing idealism and realism.

Balancing the practical and the hope.

Balancing what people think they want and what they need.

Balancing the majority and the minority.

Balancing what is good for one and good for all.

Anything less than that is oversimplification.

Oh. Shit. And then there is context. One can never lose sight of context.

You have to balance the idea, the hopefulness of ‘what could be’, against pragmatically where you have been <what has happened if not what has just happened> as well as where you are.

It is incredibly simplistic to suggest any past decision should be compared to a decision you will make. Just as it would be incredibly simplistic to judge a business leader if they were to take over a large company which was truly heading into a shithole versus a company which had some problems but was, in general, businesswise healthy.

Every transition has its own singular issues. Every situation has its own singular issues. Every business has its own singular issues. And, let’s be clear, every one of those situations has singular problems.

We should all recognize that in the overall life cycle of business problems and opportunities, practical and possibilities, hope & despair, heroes & villains, will appear in different forms – all with the intent to either further our ambitions or steal our ambitions and crush our ideals.

This is not cynical, this is … uhm … reality.

I would suggest reality is navigating idealism and reality mostly by assessing the problems, or obstacles, to your ambition.

Harping on whatever those problems are doesn’t really get you anywhere.

They are what they are.

I could also argue that arguing over idealistic ideas and vision without admitting some pragmatic realism doesn’t really get you anywhere. It is not a binary discussion nor are pragmatism and possibilities, idealism and practical, mutually exclusive.

====

“Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.”

John Galsworthy

===

Look. We all hate cynicism, but far too often we confuse it with pragmatism and practicality. I would also suggest we all get tired of pragmatism because, well, far too often it sounds small. But I would also point out that we all not only get tired, but absolutely unequivocally hate, unrealized idealism. “Large” unrealized equals zero, nothing, nada. People don’t like a zero, nothing, nada no matter how large the zero, nothing, nada is.

Neither option, looked upon in isolation, is attractive or likeable.

And you know what? We all know in our heads this is a tightrope. We sit down and assess what we have, assess what we could have, assess resources, money, whatever, and figures out, pragmatically, how to get going doing the business of doing business – that desires to attain that ambition.

We may not always get it right and we may not always get done whatever is needed to get done to alleviate the problems, or all the problems, that exist in the here and now. But I would point out that, realistically, you can never alleviate all problems and that problems exist, contextually, no matter if you are idealist or realist, pragmatist or a ‘possibilities driven’, hope or practical person. The only constant is that problems existed to be addressed, exist to address and will exist to address all to eventually be solved ONLY if both idealism & pragmatism and possibilities & the practical are embraced.

Not accepting that as a business truth is foolish.

Not accepting that as a business truth is, in fact, lazy thinking.

Any business ambition demands both idealism and pragmatism. The idealism is the spark of possibilities and imagination while the realism stops you from simply being a ‘dreamer’ or wasting resources tilting at windmills.

Maybe, just maybe, we should be sitting back and thinking about how you can both be idealistic and realistic.

In the end.

I hate almost all binaries but choosing between realism and idealism is the most distasteful to me.

Every business deserves both idealism & realism, possibilities & pragmatism and grander hopes of individual significance. Every business deserves to think, and believe, it can matter – in its family, neighborhood, community, city, state, country or global. Whatever their ‘mattering ambition’ is they deserve the intrinsic motivation found in that ambition – while grounded in some realism.

Once again, let me say, maybe, just maybe, we should stop embracing just idealism, or just realism, and see that optimizing the combination is the path to optimizing the future. And while I typically dislike optimizing (it often feels like compromising) maybe, just maybe, in this case, we should all go into the optimizing “in the actual” through idealism, realism and dreaming. Ponder.