the logic behind societal vibes 17 Feb 9:57 PM (8 months ago)
== “I’ve learned that you simply can’t control those bad vibes.” Kenny G == “Just as thoughts are not facts, feelings are not facts either. Emotions are information, but when that information is powerful, intense and loud, as emotions can be, then we are more vulnerable to believing in them as a true reflection of what is going on. I feel it therefore it must be a fact. Emotional reasoning is a thought bias that leads us to use what we feel as evidence for something to be true, even when there might be plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.” Julie Smith == I almost called this ‘feelings versus reality,’ but let’s stick with vibes for now. Vibes is simply an extension of “feelings over facts” or even perception is reality. To be clear, sometimes what you feel about something is a reflection of reality, but for the most part your feeling is simply a reflection of some part of reality you have chosen to focus on. And from there reality goes into a death spiral because often what we choose to focus on is, well, wrong. Which leads me to the misuse of data. Whew. Nothing feeds vibes more than a misused piece of “data.” Some scrap of faux logic feeds an entire vibe meal. Lets use the “60% of people live paycheck to paycheck” to discuss this. The reality is maybe 18% of people actually live paycheck to paycheck – as in that’s all the money they have. That said. Apparently 60% of people ‘feel’ like they are having to live paycheck to paycheck. That’s the logic gap. And it is within the gap where ubiquitous data thrives. You would think we , as a society, would have learned this in discussing climate change. For years, if not decades, climate change has been proven, and agreed upon, by over 95% of experts and climatologists. Yet that less-than-5% pried open a gap which confused the hell out of people. That climate change faux debate was simply the precursor to everything in today’s world. It where the charlatans learned how to use data to their own purposes. What I mean by that is “use the exception to suggest the rule.” Along the way they combined this learning with “he who shouts the loudest and most confidently wins.” The exceptions of data were wielded like heavy dull axes on a society dulled by an overwhelming amount of data. Vibes often get fed by misused data. Which leads me to dulled versus stupid. I just said “a society dulled” but this isn’t to suggest most people are dull/stupid. Generally speaking, people are not stupid. Generally speaking people face some challenges with regard to truly learning despite what they feel like they observe. Human beings, apart from being fragile mentally fragile in certain instances, critically thinking fragile in certain instances, as well as selectively data starved in certain instances, has consistently shown a limited capacity for transfer learning. What I mean by that is we mainly extract superficial patterns and have a tendency to not be able to deal with a hierarchal structure of data where a meta structure of thinking is often constructed from a myriad of smaller mesa components. We struggle with open ended inference and have a poor history of integrating prior knowledge. We certainly cannot inherently distinguish between causation and correlation and we tend to assume a predominantly stable world while struggling to deal with a confluence of systems that are continuously changing with varying rules, varying outcomes, and varying successful processes. So, as we consider progress and priorities and likely future paths of not only our society but of our own thinking we must constantly be exploring better ways of assessing our own intelligence an ability to assess reality True progress means we do need to become better prioritizing not only the data but the paths that we pursue. Which leads me to logical illogical vibes. One of my pet peeves is the saying “perception is reality” because, well, reality is reality. If your perception is not reality, it just means you are living in a non-reality world and I would suggest you are in for a rude awakening one day (maybe not tomorrow, but one day). Vibes based on flawed data is exactly the same. Selective data plucked from qualified research and data simply gives you some dubious logic to an illogical universe. It is within this illogical universe in which things like vaccines can be bad, soft power (diplomacy and foreign aid) is wasted monies, tariffs can generate enough revenue to fund necessary societal needs and immigrants are actually bad for the economy (they are not), more likely to commit crimes (they are not), and voting (they can’t). That isn’t to say that I could find a selective data point to make any of those statements seem logical. Its just, well, it would be selective data misused and, therefore, creating a vibe not reflective of reality. All that said. This is the illogical logic world we live in. Ponder.
The post the logic behind societal vibes first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
I do not pretend to understand 15 Feb 9:48 PM (8 months ago)
=== “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. But from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.” unitarian minister and slavery abolitionist Theodore Parker == “However, even if we accept that citizens are not primarily causally responsible for our poor information environments, it could be argued that they nonetheless have a remedial responsibility to mend them.” Solmu Anttila === James Fell, who is a must read for everyone, recently published a piece called “the moral arc of the universe is bullshit.” James, being James, suggests the arc of human nature is more “go fuck yourself” rather than any commitment to greater good. Anyone who reads my thinking knows I do not agree. But. And this is a big but. As I wrote years ago, I am constantly disappointed with humans. I have come to the conclusion that while people are inherently kind, and the arc of the moral universe does eventually bend toward justice, the arc doesn’t bend unless an exponentially larger amount of morally just people are involved – than the morally unjust people. I have said, again and again, the morally unjust seem to have an outsized power and outsized effect despite their fewer numbers. The corrupt, morally and behaviorally, simply bludgeon society and civilization with a wanton disregard for chaos and mayhem. They act without norms and rules and regulations, and laws are viewed as simply things that other people do. I do not pretend to understand why they think that way or act the way they do, but it worries me how many people view them as successes. What I would point out to those people, and have, is success in the moment is not reflective of success in the future. From the heights of morally corrupt wealth gains, the falls are many and deep. It would behoove us to point that out and maybe even celebrate the fall more often and more loudly. Which leads me to the arc of humanity. “I’m trying to make the case that humanity is worth it.” John Green If you step back into United States history, I could argue the westward expansion of pioneers fostered many of the Democratic beliefs and practices. What I mean by that is the problems facing pioneers were unique from their past experiences. In fact, many of the problems, and issues, required solutions difficult to understand to the non-pioneers. I could argue every wagon trail, and every ensuing settlement, became an infant republic. I could even argue basic social democracy was embedded in initial settlements as class distinctions almost seemed meaningless where hard work, teamwork, and speculation not only was the line between death and survival, but also thriving in that it could transform whole poverty-stricken communities, or individuals, into a higher wealth strata. It was a unique type of social equality where, in many situations, resilience and hard work was everyone’s initial wealth. The problem in discussing today’s arc of overall humanity is that there is a myth that all these pioneers were unusually individualistic marked by an independence of thought and action and adventure. The reality was the majority of pioneers understood that it took a village to be successful, if not to survive. There was an acknowledged interdependence, and interconnectedness, which created a bond of community and ultimately prosperity. The true individualistic individuals were few and far between and while, mythically, we empower them with superhuman morals and ethics the majority of the truly individualistic people had what James Fell called a ‘fuck you attitude.’ A few became exorbitantly wealthy and powerful (at the expense of others), but for the most part the majority – through hard work and resilience and a sense of community – bent the arc of morality and progress and prosperity. Which leads me to the larger lesson: there is a difference between myth and reality. We celebrate individualism (and so-called grit), but in reality, resilience is found in community bonds. Social cohesiveness is simply stronger than any one individual. I will also add that a community of morally just is always more powerful than the morally unjust. Why? The morally unjust are zero-sum and individualistic. Even in a team they always have an eye out to screw the others to their personal benefit. They are constantly seeking to tear down while communities are constantly seeking to build. And maybe that is where I will end this section. Builders always win in the end. I do not pretend to understand people other than I believe people like to build things. Which leads me back to human involvement with arcs. “Consensus reality is gone. We are blessed to live now, in the West, in a strange world without common sense. As fact grows stranger than fiction, we should embrace the surreal and try harder to imagine more outlandish fictions. We might begin by accepting that we are being lied to all the time, that most of what we hear and see is an illusion, misrepresentation, or performance—and that’s fine. Life has in many ways become a fiction, reality is vanishing under its own representations, we are suffering from collective delusions, we are teetering on the precipice of the real, with a multiverse of fantasies spinning out beneath us.” Dean Kissick (on contemporary art) Arcs are patterns. And therein lies possibly humanity’s greatest present challenge. In a truly globalized, interconnected, world we are constantly aware of everything and, yet, incapable of perceiving the patterns, and arc, of the greater whole. This actually doesn’t drive us ‘up’ to engage and macro-ly seek to see patterns, but rather it drives us ‘down’ where ‘vibes’ replace real patterns. I think this is called apophenia (seeing patterns where there are none, overloading the particular with excessive significance, and reframing one’s own disparate observations as generalizable [...]
The post I do not pretend to understand first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
2025, the kayfabe year, or, the year of performance 31 Dec 2024 9:11 PM (9 months ago)
== kayfabe Kayfabe is a term used in professional wrestling to describe the act of portraying staged events as genuine “When a fact begins to resemble whatever you feel is true, it becomes very difficult for anyone to tell the difference between facts that are true and “facts” that are not.” Katharine Viner “Alternative facts aren’t facts, they are falsehoods.” == 2025. My “prediction” is it will be the year of performance, or, the kayfabe year. This year has been creeping up on us for over a decade if not more. What I mean by that is decades ago someone suggested that perception was reality. From that point on that belief has been burrowing its way into the minds of people. And while reality is fairly resistant to perception performative efforts, perception is a stubborn motherfucker because it taps into feelings more than the rational brain. In addition, along the way the performative perception artists gained two allies. The first was the World Wide Web and social media. A relentless onslaught of fragmented truths and partial facts created a shifting ground of uncommon sensemaking. It was like a tectonic shift, all the time, in what the common public knew and understood. The second was a kind of purposeful passivity with regard to defending reality. What I mean by that is those of us who believe in reality felt like it was so obvious that perception would just bang its head against the reality wall time after time .. and get nowhere. The problem that I overlooked was that reality needed to be defended. It needed to fight back. Which leads me to my prediction for 2025. Perception has now roared to the head of the class and is attempting to teach everyone that reality isn’t reality and what you perceive is real and performance is more important than substance. Yeah. I believe 2025 will be the year of the performative grounded in perceptions. Let’s call it kayfabe. Kayfabe is used to create the illusion that professional wrestling is not staged. It’s similar to the suspension of disbelief used in other forms of entertainment, such as movies or soap operas. What this means is nothing can be ‘disbelieved’ and anything is possible. Full disclosure. I have always disliked professional wrestling. Mainly because I imagine I was never able to accept the unspoken agreement between wrestlers and fans to pretend that wrestling events, characters, and stories are real. That said. Used by performance artists, kayfabe – managing perceptions by defying reality – is all about making the people they need to believe; believe. In addition, you need others to not only believe, but ‘do.’ Yeah. In this version of a performative world while the performance artists are seeking something for themselves, they are also asking others to do things. It is within the ‘ask’ in which performance artists are most insidious. What I mean by that is they make things black & white, simplistic to a fault, in a world in which reality is more often found in the greys and nuance. They thrive in the black & white because in this world of judgement of actions “the perception is ‘x’, they didn’t deliver ‘x’, therefore ‘x’ is not reality.” Yeah. Real behavior is judged on perceptions. Upon a razor thin line perception and reality dangles. Which leads me to politics. To be clear, politics as I am referring to it also resides in business. What I mean by that is business has always had the ‘performance douchebags,’ the ones who acted confidently, spoke confidently, treated perceptions confidently, none of which matched reality. We have always had people in business who have not only been attracted to those douchebags, but actually followed them. And therein lies the problems of performance anywhere. This kind of politics begins to mix the fake world of perceptions with reality, bringing real tension (in an individual as well as in society) through a mindfuck of what might or might not be real; what is possible and what is probable. The mindfuck resides in all the people having to constantly figure out, and debate, what is real and what is not. This all gets exacerbated by the performance artists who view no perception as off-limits. In fact, it almost seems like the more outrageously non-real, the better because in this warped performative world it seems to create a higher likelihood the mindfucked people begin seeing it as, well, reality. To the performance artists its ‘better’ because in this blurry world of ‘I feel’ versus ‘reality’ no one can figure out if what they are seeing is real or not. Its dangerous for society because this performance politics, this kayfabe, is grounded in a slick configuration of muddied isolated factoids, half-truths, and unequivocal lies, all delivered with unequivocating confidence. Within this performative world everyone loses the ability to distinguish between what’s real and what isn’t. Reality gets deconstructed on a daily basis and performance trumps substance. As Hannah Arendt stated “the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction – the distinction between true and false no longer exist.” I bring in totalitarianism because there is not a single performance artist, in business or public life, who has the best interest of society or the public or the business in mind. They are in it for themselves and they seek power if not wealth. Which leads me to the year of performance. So 2025. As we, the people, decline to embrace reality for performance, on occasion it will be a year where things do not actually happen, but it will feel like they did. Reality will be distorted when discussing real issues therefore making the issues themselves unrecognizable thereby making real solutions impossible. It will get a bit worse. The real issues become harder to distinguish from performative perception management ultimately leaving society cognitively, dysfunctionally, paralyzed. Within this dysfunction there will be [...]
The post 2025, the kayfabe year, or, the year of performance first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
the competence of “making it” 21 Nov 2024 10:32 PM (11 months ago)
== “The experience of the human race indicates strongly that the only person in abundant supply is the universal incompetent.” Peter Drucker What is “making it” in 2024? What I mean by that is in today’s flattened society making it isn’t some title or increased responsibility or even some version of social mobility, its more simply a zero-sum wealth concept. In other words, “I have more than they do” is making it. Please note that accumulation is not linked to competency; it is solely an outcome-based claim and objective. That said. Years ago, I wrote a piece called the commoditization of competency where I outlined that optics were becoming more important than actual competence. But that issue, while it remains, has taken on some different characteristics in the current environment. Which leads me to the redefinition of ‘making it.’ In the past a central belief of all Americans, in particular those of lower income and middle class, was that the son and daughter of a blue-collar worker could become a PhD in physics or even the president. At the same time there was a slightly naïve belief an irresponsible child of the most elite family in town could actually make mistakes from which they could never recover. I won’t suggest that both of these beliefs were completely myth because in reality every year we could find examples, within specific lives within specific communities, within which this occurred. Simplistically this is a social mobility and anti-caste narrative (with grains of truth). And while in the present it’s become obvious that both of these things are obviously less true, the larger issue begs the core question of mobility “to what.” And this is the core issue with regard to competence. Because competence is typically what undergirds upward mobility, i.e., one needs to gain significant competence to be able to gain significant upward mobility. But if the societal narrative is to question mobility in general then competence itself gets redefined because there is no longer an objective of getting ahead, but rather the objective is to simply get ‘what you deserve.’ And what you deserve is untethered to competence. While what I just said may sound a bit esoteric, it bears out in today’s world. The reality is in America today social mobility, if defined by more wealth, is alive and well. More people, of every generation, are earning more than their parents did. The issue is that wealth increase doesn’t equate to “upward mobility.” Its just in today’s world you can “make it” simply by getting wealthier. I would be remiss if I didn’t remind everyone of what John Kenneth Galbraith said “the link between intelligence and wealth is specious at best” and that is where upward mobility DOES matter. In the good ole days you actually had to gain competency to gain responsibility and that responsibility had increased wealth attached to it. That equation no longer exists. I can be a dumbass on YouTube spewing random opinions, and misinformation, and still make hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is no link between competency and “making it.” Which leads me to competence. In the past there was a solid belief that in the long run competence set limits as to what a person could become. If you wanted to play a professional sport you had to learn how to do that sport better than anybody else. If you didn’t do that, you could certainly be something else, but you could not be that. I use that as an example because in the past we believed this was a truth for all professions. If you wanted to be a lawyer, you went to a law school. If you wanted to go into business, you mastered maths, accounting, and the art of effective quick decisionmaking. We were also taught that the penalty for sliding through life without having mastered any competence was a sentence to mediocrity. This doesn’t mean that we always equated competence with formal education, although education was understood to undergird many of the competencies necessary for true upward mobility, because we understood car mechanics, craftspeople, service providers, and public service people like police and firemen, had certain competencies and always stood high in our value judgments. It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who pointed out “I admire people who know how to do things.” My point here is competence was always tied to being able to ‘do something’ with a high level of competence and that competence was valued in and of itself; not assessed a value based on some outcome. Which leads me to the current competency crisis. Doing has become a blurry amorphous assessment. What I mean by that is that in today’s short term vanity metrics world we tend to focus on some published measurement or metric. What this means is that we ignore the mechanics to achieve that measurement or metrics as well as we don’t even question whether that measurement or metric is actually valuable. This all matters because somebody could have multiple measurements and metrics posted on their resume and yet they actually have no specific competency. Or their competency is not a specific skill or even be competently smart. For example Einstein was seen as a genius with an extremely high competence in physics and mathematics. Elon Musk, on the other hand, is acknowledged by peers as neither the smartest nor having any specific strength in a skill; his only competence is having a vision. Bill Gates was also a visionary, but he also had incredible competence within the specific industry that he built his vision upon. This isn’t to pick on Elon Musk, this is simply to make a point. The world needs visionaries, but more importantly it needs competency because it is those with the competency who actually do the things to actually make it happen. And it’s probably my generation’s fault, at least in part, in that in the past we used to split people up into doers and thinkers. In [...]
The post the competence of “making it” first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
cancers of the soul 19 Nov 2024 10:23 PM (11 months ago)
== “Hatred is not the norm. Prejudice is not the norm. Suspicion, dislike, jealousy, scapegoating ― none of those are the transcendent facets of the human personality. They’re diseases. They are the cancers of the soul. They are the infectious and contagious viruses that have been bleeding humanity for years. And because they have been and because they are, is it necessary that they shall be? I think not.” Rod Serling == “If you wanted to dismantle an entire generation from the inside out, it wouldn’t take much. Forget bombs or economic sabotage—too messy, too obvious. No, if you really wanted to destabilize a generation, you’d start with something far more subtle: you’d convince them that the world revolves around their feelings. You’d make them believe that every thought, every impulse, every fleeting emotion is sacred, and that the universe is obligated to rearrange itself to accommodate whatever’s going on in their heads.” == Hatred. Prejudice. Suspicion. Dislike. Jealousy. Scapegoating. All are feelings. Just as another tautophrase suggests, “the heart wants what it wants,” this tautophrase exists, “the mind wants what it wants.” This becomes important when you are faced with a world run on feelings. What I mean by that is that ‘feelings’ is a fragile construct so if you live in a 24/7 world, cable news/talk radio/social media/search engines/algorithms, which is constructed to game and use your feelings, well, you/we are fucked. In fact, in a ‘feelings world’ individual purpose is replaced by individual validation. Or let’s just say even the most well intended Purpose construct gets deconstructed in a feelings validation world. And when feelings are the compass, we become emotionally fragile and hyper-focused on self and ‘making it’ becomes less an objective, but rather a construction where you do not have the hammers, nails or architectural plan. This gets compounded because the worldwide web is a 24/7 sharing machine. We barely notice this constant input and output of information, this ceaseless sharing, yet, it has psychological, social, and emotional consequences. Our feelings become our stories and we instantly share our thoughts, feelings, experiences and stories with hundreds or even thousands of people. This ceaseless sharing subtly shapeshifts your behavior (even if you think it doesn’t). Multiply that by the millions of strangers who, day by day, offer you unsolicited input and you have entered into the ‘feelings overload’ zone. Simplistically, you have dematerialized. Which leads me to concrete dematerializaton. It was Annie le Brun who coined this term. It constitutes the progressive loss of all tangible relationship with the world. Basically, it encourages us to accept feelings as THE impression of living. Its kind of a subversion of a world of experiences where everything of value is in the experience not fundamental, pragmatic, tangible value received. It becomes a substitute for reality (and makes it easier to substitute value in what we may see as a failing world, i.e., a failing world of feelings. A ‘world’ can become a failing world if it ‘feels’ like it is failing (even if progress is occurring, prosperity is increasing and by any tangible measure living and life is improving). It just ‘feels‘ wrong. Oddly, ironically, this feelings world deprives us of real emotion inspired by originality and reality. It is a more banal view of reality and the world because there is no personal relationship to time and space – other than feelings. And because feelings are so nebulous and intangible, we begin shaping ourselves based on fragmented, crowd-sourced feedback, adjusting in real time like a social marionette. Ultimately our feelings aren’t really ours, but rather a conglomeration of strangers’ expectations. This has always been true, but as Toffler pointed out in Future Shock, in the past the audience feeding our feelings input system was finite. In today’s social media world that input machine is infinitely larger in scope. The entire world offers every impulsive input into your world. Visibility-on-steroids leads to vulnerability-on-steroids which leads to defensiveness-on-steroids which leads to feelings overload (feelings-on-steroids). We are not completely unaware all this is happening and, yet, we end up living semi-aware that all our ‘feelings’ are a little skewed, a little infected, a little warped by strangers, and,, generally speaking, fucked up. We grow into gnarled versions of ourselves in this fucked up algorithmic soil. Which leads me to powerlessness. Just like we are powerless against cancer, we are powerless to the manipulations of algorithms. It takes a great power, and objective responsibility, to fight back against algorithms. Unfortunately, it’s a responsibility that most of us are poorly equipped to handle. We tear ourselves apart over and over again not exactly knowing how or when to stop engaging with algorithms. Our privacy, and private thoughts, are now public. Yeah. In today’s world it takes an exorbitant effort to maintain privacy. We have to actively choose not to share, to resist the temptation to engage online, to keep our thoughts and experiences to ourselves. The truth is most of us are not willing to put in that effort and, in fact, almost believe sharing is the status quo. And here is where it becomes a danger in a ‘feelings world.’ When sharing is the default, we share without thinking providing a constant stream of outputs to a world waiting to offer unsolicited input. From there it begins feeling like, well, every feeling, in every moment, is a guiding star. Minor feelings feel like existential crises. This is where true powerlessness sneaks in. When people believe that their feelings define reality, they’re incredibly easy to manipulate. Outrage and fear are powerful tools, and when you feel them deeply, you will ‘feel’ like you deserve to take some extreme measures to alleviate those feelings. This obsession with feelings is a psychological quicksand. The more you try to control the environment to protect your feelings, the more vulnerable you become to any shift in the public context. In fact, you get pulled further and further away from reality. You stop looking at hard facts, [...]
The post cancers of the soul first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
rich but sick 17 Nov 2024 10:50 PM (11 months ago)
== “America, fundamentally, is an incredibly rich country with a sick society.” Noah Smith == “The primary use of ‘misinformation’ is not to change the beliefs of other people at all. Instead, the vast majority of misinformation is offered as a service for people to maintain their beliefs in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” Charlie Warzel == Let me begin by saying well I feel incredibly fortunate with regard to my current financial situation. That said. Throughout the years I’ve had more than my share of sleepless nights worrying about money. What would happen if my car broke down the next day. How would I pay rent two months from now or even could I afford to buy the book that may help me professionally. Now. Financial worries are real. but they also take on a disproportionate size in our minds. This isn’t to suggest that financial worries should be diminished in any way, it’s just that in all the worries that we tend to face day to day the weight of a financial worry is significantly heavier than many of the other burdens. I begin there because I have spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the United States as well as Europe and I’ve heard about financial worries and financial burdens. The reality is that burden weight is weighed solely by the individual bearing the burden. What I mean by that is that, objectively, you could look at one individual in one situation versus another individual in another situation and clearly see that one is facing significantly different financial worry than the other. The problem is that financial worries are subjective to individual context. Which leads me to rich but sick. The United States is an incredibly rich and wealthy country. Even our low-income people live healthier and more robust lives than their counterparts in almost every country in the world. The overall wealth of the country is almost astounding. The amount of luxuries and ‘wants met’ versus ‘needs met’ in almost every home in the United States is the envy of the world. It almost makes you think that it’s become far too easy to believe that what you have is what you deserve. This isn’t to say that there aren’t real financial worries and in fact for such a wealthy country we seem to avoid some of the easier solutions to ease some of the more prevalent financial worries. Accessible affordable child care. Expanded Medicare, or even a Medicare-for-all option for the total population (anyone ever wonder how good affordable healthcare would be now if Republican governors had embraced it from day one?). Affordable education not just to colleges, but trade schools. These are simple programs proven to be extremely effective across the world as well as proven by the United States during the pandemic to ease some of the financial worries and allow each individual to maximize their potential by shedding some of those worries. Regardless. There obviously will be people who are struggling financially day to day if not month to month, but America is an incredibly rich country. So, what is the general feeling of malaise the citizenry feels? Maybe its, well, we are rich but have a sick society. Which leads me to who, and what, is making us sick. Let me begin with the oil companies, the banks, the tech companies, and the big businesses. Simplistically most of them are selling out our future for present profits (and power). This isn’t to say they do not offer some value, just that they tend to be short term focused versus long term focused. Most of them are focused on making money and gaining advantage any way they can, take shortcuts, and choose quick fixes over long term societal good. Their sole focus on short term and quick bucks means they have less interest in building communities, i.e., their responsibilities of ‘in and of society.’ They shrug off societal/community responsibilities and accountability under the guise of profitability. This becomes even more important as other common sensemaking institutions falter. Church decline, decline in news trust, decline in trust in government, even decline in trust of doctors. If society cannot trust anyone, or anything, it will inevitably get sick. Rich, but sick. Which leads me societal unhealthiness. The combination of general wealth tainted by some extreme inequalities and the inability to apply some fairly common-sense solutions creates an unhealthy society. The basic asymmetry creates an imbalance which makes everyone a bit sea sick. Worse, it creates some cynicism (which is corrosive to trust). Even worse, hopefulness is then seen as naive. If you ARE actually rich, you hold on to power with ragged claws. If you don’t FEEL rich (even though you do have some wealth), you relentlessly try and bring down those in power you blame for that feeling. Both of those things create a sicker society. Look. All I know is that hope is risky; you can lose, and you often do, but history shows that if you try, sometimes you win and that hope can be a cure for societal sickness. Ponder.
The post rich but sick first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
so I lock myself inside my head and I just run in place 15 Nov 2024 9:37 PM (11 months ago)
== I have no space, no room to move around And this box is getting smaller, I’m trying to get out How did I get so far from where I was? When did I decide to lose my way? Who have I become? I’ve got a new low All 52 cards in a row I’ve been right, I’ve been left I’ve been wrong, I’ve been left behind I’ve been up but mostly down I cannot help feeling like I have so much at stake So I lock myself inside my head and I just run in place So many directions I don’t know which way to go I’m so busy doing nothing, I got nothing to show Middle Class Rut – New Low == “We are the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no great war, no great depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised by television to believe that we’d be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars – but we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed-off. Tyler Durdin, Fight Club == I believe many people feel locked inside their heads because they never attain resolution on things. Our heads get normalized from the top, cascading through thoughts like a virus. Ultimately that virus begins to affect our decisions and decisions set the tone for what’s acceptable. Uhm. What happens if we don’t make any decisions or, well, just run in place in our heads thinking and thinking and thinking. Well. Before you know it, it becomes a reinforcing cycle of behavior creating an environment where right and wrong are about as clear as mud. This is where technology begins fucking with the inside of our head. Social media, life, business, all keep slinging things in front of us and while we may get some things done, we are leaving an increasing number of things in the past unresolved. This asymmetrical ‘completion’ creates an uneasy tension between the past, present and future. Maybe said another way, we are stuck in a continuum of unresolved things. That said. What happens if you feel like you are just running in place? What happens if you feel like you’ve lost 52 cards in a row? What happens if you feel like you are constantly reaching a new low? You are locked in a mental hole. Shit. A hole where everything is as clear as mud. From there you have a tendency to grasp at straws. This is a dangerous time. You are locked in your head and, well, the rest of the world is unlocked and moving. Look. We all face tough moments and tough situations. And 90+% of the time we muddle through – either stumbling our way or thru some insightfully smart maneuvering, or somewhere in between. But when you are locked n your head, despite making it thru things, you are constantly attempting to rationalize how you did it – without any real resolution. Well. At least anything that sounds rational. “Man is a rationalizing animal not a rational one.” Robert Heinlein Which leads me to winners and losers. When you are stuck in your head it becomes difficult to see whether you are a winner or a loser. In fact. No matter how you muddle, good or bad, you constantly feel like a loser or you are losing. At its worst, you feel like you have lost 52 cards in a row. In this head space, more often than not, we become heuristic imbeciles in how we define success and failure as we flail about. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that success always rests on a fairly fragile balance between the needs of the individual and those of the collective and it would behoove us to understand that balance does not naturally occur in a technologically driven world, it needs to be monitored, calibrated, recalibrated almost on an exhaustingly minute-by-minute basis human by human. This sounds incredibly exhausting if you buy into the thought we are constantly facing unresolved things, but, if you don’t fight for some control, power moves to anyone who has the most data, about the most people, and can convert it into understandable narratives. I will point out that if data is used the right way, it can actually make us smarter collectively, not just richer personally, but that is a societal winners/losers discussion. That said. The problem is that we are now at a moment where the social contract is being renegotiated involuntarily because while we are locked in our heads, somewhere inbetween, some dubious characters are crafting ‘the social contract’ which will replace the one we may know and like. And maybe that is where technology screws us the most. As we run in place in our heads, we keep getting fed a lot of shit in terms of information. Many (many) sources are shaping what is locked in our heads with distorted ‘facts,’ alternative realities and lies. None of which (a) helps unlock our heads or (b) assist us in achieving some common sensemaking with reality. I imagine my point here is if you are stuck somewhere in between your ability to picture what the future may, or should, look like, your view is impaired and the world is simply shaped by a bunch of tools trying to hammer loose screws into your head. Which leads me to unlocking. Being locked in your own head is frustrating. Sometimes even maddening. Sometimes it makes you angry. I don’t have some secret to share about how to unlock yourself. All I know is that it sucks, it feels sucky, and you have to sometimes suck it up and be creative in your pursuit of some key to unlocking it. I imagine my point is the real personal inventions, which are the things that unlock yourself from your head, aren’t necessarily found in seeking [...]
The post so I lock myself inside my head and I just run in place first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
if you are going to be indifferent, I quit. 8 Nov 2024 3:59 AM (11 months ago)
Reality is the leading cause of stress for those in touch with it. == Trump posted a word cloud based on his speeches: the biggest word was “revenge.” Many of his threats reflect Trump’s now familiar tactic of reversing charges against his opponents, conjuring a mirror world in which he claims they are guilty of the very offence of which he is accused. I am tired of talking about the presidential election, Trump and MAGA governance as if it is representative of the majority. But here we go. Despite all the talk about how the election would come down to a small group of undecideds, it didn’t. It came down to indifference or, maybe worse, disillusionment (the feeling that the system isn’t working for them so they will not do any work for the system). Yeah. Here is what I mean. Given where we are right now (soon after election day) my numbers are going to be close to accurate and will not change significantly. Only 54% of the voting population voted. Let me say it differently. 46% of people who could have voted; didn’t (what this means is that whenever some pundit, or analyst, talks about the election dynamics they need to refer to everything as “of the people who voted”). Harshly, 46% of adults were indifferent. What that means is that while Trump, and MAGA, will shout about majority “spoke” and winning the popular vote; here is their key number – 28%. Given the horrible voter turnout on election day, MAGA governance will be the representation of about 28% of all eligible adult voters. Let’s say that again. 28%. His 70+ million votes is maybe 21% of the population and 28% of adults eligible to vote. As a side note, this is similar to 2016 where the numbers were 18% and 24% respectively. So, we are not a 50/50 divided country; we are simply a country governed by 28%. Yeah. A minority, once again, just chose the most powerful position in the world. As a side note to this, everyone should remember that Trump, and his cohort of MAGA followers, governed as if they were a majority. To be clear. MAGA is a finite cohort. It was 26-28% in 2016. It is 26-28% in 2024. 70 millionish will vote for Trump year n and year out; no more, no less. 2/3rds of US adults will never vote for Trump. Which leads me to involvement matters. A majority did nothing to stop this from happening. This is not an ‘anti-establishment movement.’ This is not a ‘reestablishment of conservative values.’ This is nothing more than a large indifference to involvement with a sliver minority voice being motivated enough to push one candidate over the finish line. Look. I work almost exclusively with think tanks discussing the future of business, society, and the patterns in the world. I work with economists, c suite business executives, behavioral scientists, and social philosophers. My role tends to be a reflection of what I imagine is my personal ideology which what most people would suggest is ‘progressive conservatism.’ Almost everything that I suggest and I think about balances pragmatism and possibilities (possibilities have no value if they cannot be achieved). That said. One of the least discussed aspects of discussing the future and progress is people. Because while the future can be viewed through eyes of possibilities and pragmatism and hopes and patterns and risks and opportunities and even technology, the truth is each of those things are dependent upon people. If people do not participate, get involved, to bend the arc of history, progress and possibilities just don’t occur. Pragmatically what that means is if people do not bend the arc, i.e., be actively involved, inertia sets in and status quo, wrapped up in some nostalgic views of what is good, tends to reign. This is a historical truth. I bring that up because if people are indifferent, and are not involved, progress doesn’t occur. I struggle to see how true progress can occur if 46% of the voting population is indifferent. Which leads me to say I hate the indifferent. I’ll admit. I hate the indifferent. I have always believed that living means taking sides. Business, as well as Life, demands participation. Elections are exactly the same. Someone may choose to be indifferent, but all that means is that someone else is not only making decisions for you, they are affecting the arc of your life and, consequently, your destiny. To be clear. This is a fact. It may not be a direct correlation, but the point is that even if you work hard, are persistent and have clear objectives, if you are indifferent, all the external factors will increase the gravity of the environment you are doing all of those things within and drag you down. I should note if your own life and destiny matters to you that when you participate in the deadweight of indifference you may actually be facilitating the twisting of society’s fate. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out, again, this is not just true of Life, but business. And while I do believe this discussion gets warped in some incredibly unhealthy ways, business should not ignore the discussion and being indifferent really isn’t an option. Once again, this is true for each individual. All that said let me circle back to disillusionment. One of Trump’s, and his cabal of kooks, superpowers has been the ability to increase a general malaise of disillusionment. I have often referred to it as his narrative that ‘America is in a shithole,’ but the grander issue is he amplifies a sense of disillusionment almost to a point where a lot of people just throw up their hands and say (a) there is no sense in being involved or (b) burn the whole thing down. Anyway. Indifference or disillusionment only 54% of the voting population participated; 46% were indifferent. Ponder that for a bit. “I hate the indifferent. I [...]
The post if you are going to be indifferent, I quit. first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
Democracy and One and We, the People, Can Make a Better Future 4 Nov 2024 9:40 PM (11 months ago)
== “Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” Aristotle ==== “Life in freedom is not easy, and democracy is not perfect.” John F. Kennedy === Today USA chooses a new president. I sat down this morning not really sure what to write. So, what I did is go back to see what I wrote on election day 2016. I am going to republish it after I share some quick thoughts on the difference between 2016 and 2024 (the repost will remind us of some similarities). This is a weird election and weird time. The democrats are clearly focused on the future while the MAGA movement is a weird mix of past nostalgia and ‘fixing’ what they perceived to be as ‘broken.’ Through all the crazy shit Trump is spewing, the closing theme seems to be “fixing what is broken.” It’s a bit of a head scratcher because the economy is rocking, the fundamentals of prosperity and growth are solid, crime is down, the immigration issues are solvable (if congress would do their job), inflation is back to acceptable levels (and, frankly, Trump year levels) and, frankly, it’s the democrats who would like to ‘fix’ some things (most notably abortion rights). But Trump pounds away on trying to convince people that America is a shithole country (although his words are “a garbage can for the world”). Its weird. The “fixing” revolves around nostalgia (“fix progress so we can go back to a better past”) and a non-existent reality. What I just said resides the biggest difference between 2016 and 2024. In 2016 the government could have been quite fairly blamed for ignoring some fundamental issues. It certainly wasn’t a shithole country, but it could certainly have focused on some obstacles, and flaws, to the progress toward ‘great’ better. That cannot be said now. The Biden administration has done a stellar job of addressing fundamentals that tap into present greatness and future greatness. Anyway. But there is a troubling aspect which shifts the election from simply weird to a bit dangerous. Today a small group of leaders, supported by a significantly sized minority of citizens (think maybe 36% of adults), has rejected the idea that all people are created equal and seeks to destroy our democracy in order to install themselves into permanent power. To be clear, the citizens may not feel that they are doing so but the leaders absolutely do. Anyway. Prior to the civil war, Abraham Lincoln suggested Americans rededicate themselves to the ‘unfinished work’ and making America great. In his words: “take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” All that said, here are my words I shared on election day 2016. Some seem a bit naive in reflection and some seem a bit prescient upon reflection. But. The truth remains the truth, we the people have the power and one person cannot dictate our future unless we permit them. === So. Today USA chooses a new president. I sat down this morning not really sure what to write. I do know that America is bigger and stronger than any one person. I do know that even if Trump is elected, someone who I believe is a narcissist and incompetent, it will not be a disaster for the country. I do know that even if Clinton is elected, someone who I believe will be an unspectacular but pragmatically extremely competent president, it will not be a disaster for the country. Yes. This election feels a little bit bigger than many of the others in the past. I imagine it feels that way because the contrast between the two candidates in terms of true qualifications are so stark not because the objectives are so stark. And maybe even more so because it seems like the moralistic/ethical contrast may be even more stark. That said. Despite what everyone may have been hearing for months on end through media, traditional and social, this election is truly not about change versus status quo. Why do I say that? Well. Because every president wants to change shit and these two are no different. In fact. The so-called status quo candidate is running on a platform that incorporates more detailed change then the so-called change candidate. But, in the end, while the new president elected certainly does matter it only matters in terms of tone & broader perspectives. I think it is helpful to remind people <and congress> of this. It’s because I love our country more than I do my personal points of view that I know the institution of who and what we are as a country is larger than 1 person and 1 point of view. It is larger than any individual “I think” or “this must be” because the country ceases to exist if we remain so far apart that we can agree on nothing which inevitably means we either do nothing or do something so banal it will never show an ROI. So, where I agree with either candidate … I will support them. If they try to reach consensus, I will support them. Where I disagree with them I will continue to disagree and will work to make sure they know I disagree <and if enough people agree with me then they become a one term president>. That is the way democracy and freedom works. The people will speak today. If they vote my way, fine. If not, then the majority/plurality has spoken and that is what a democracy is. In our country you do not have to win 90%, or even [...]
The post Democracy and One and We, the People, Can Make a Better Future first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
not anyone can do this job 3 Nov 2024 10:27 PM (11 months ago)
===== “The life so short, the craft so long to learn.” Hippocrates == I once wrote this: “And, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.” === So. Let’s go back in the wayback machine to November 2016. Trump was the president elect and a shitload of people were freaking out. The world was bifurcated by “he can’t do that job” and “of course he can do that job.” It’s as if half the world thought, well, anyone can do “this job” if they had some success doing another job. It became a lazy argument on one side and an incredibly complex argument on the other. Regardless. That argument failed because it was grounded in the wrong fundamentals. The truth, the reality, was Trump was not a good business man, he was a good salesman. Not to disparage salespeople, I’m just making a distinction. And he ‘sold’ enough people on whatever he was trying to sell (I thought it was weird because he was selling America was a shithole, but anyway …) to get a job he was supremely unqualified for. And, if people were truly honest, he really sucked at being the president. He certainly, objectively, was not a calming leader who offered certainty to 330 million people on a daily basis nor did he produce results matching the “sales promises” he made (as noted earlier, economy was good, not great). He ran on crushing ISIS (which was 90% done by the time he came into office), build a border wall (he did send a shitload of money on 55 miles worth), created huge deficits through a tax cut which disproportionately benefited rich people like hm combined with huge subsidies to subsidize whole industries to compensate for a dull axe tariff strategy and, well, he mostly didn’t do anything constructive. For the most part he didn’t fulfill responsibilities of being a prescient, he didn’t act like a president, and made an American president the comedic punching bag of the world. So, when people tell us to calm down with regard to Trump, I think they are nuts. He didn’t do the job the first time and hi seriously doubt he will be able to do the job this time and, oddly, the price at this stage is higher. Why? Well. Everything is going pretty well for the United States at the moment. Economy great. Growth great. Employment great. And all of those things are a fragile complex weave of things. Do I believe the Biden administration crafted all the great things in a whole cloth fashion? Nope. The outcome, the good stuff, was partly good decisions, some good nudges, and a confluence of unplanned good events. But you know what? That is what knowing how to do a job works. You put yourself, and your country, in a good position to take advantage of emergent opportunities. That’s doing a good job. Trump never did that and he never will. He doesn’t have the vision to see patterns before they occur – he is too transactional. Basically, he can’t do the job of the presidency. Anyway. I am saying we shouldn’t have calmed down then and we shouldn’t calm down now. He is still supremely unqualified, and he may actually be even less qualified now than then (I find it unqualifying in business if someone’s competency digresses over time). Gays and LGBT and blacks and minorities and women do not need to calm down. While his agenda is not theirs, his agenda creates negative consequences and effect on theirs. Business leaders should be scared shitless and should not calm down. All immigrants, legal or illegal, should be scared shitless and should not calm down. No one should calm down because Trump will continue use “loose lips sink ships” type of asshat rhetoric and will continuously create unneeded trouble for himself and the country and the citizens. And he will deserve the trouble, but the country and citizens deserve better. But what makes him most unqualified not just as a present but also as a leader is the fact he bases all practical tactics and actions on hope. Yeah. Its kind of like trickle down economics; another hope concept. You do something and you hope something else happens so that it creates the outcomes you hope will occur. That last sentence is Trump in a nutshell. He wasn’t very good at anything other than (a) playing victim, (b) absolving himself of any responsibility, (c) blustering and bloviating every day, and (d) creating chaos and uncertainty. He, and his administration, is amateur hour which is simultaneously funny and scary. I had one delusional friend say in 2016 “don’t worry, there are so many things in place anyone could do the job.” That is fucking nuts, but I think a shitload of people actually think this. This is a dangerous cultural issue we face now. The commoditization of qualifications & competency. In today’s world there is a general concept that anyone can do any job as well as anyone else. We sit around bitching about decisions leaders make and say ‘we could make a better decision than that.’ It leads to a belief that certain skills don’t matter and qualifications, particularly if you can be called an ‘expert’, aren’t worth a shit. The consequences of this is real skills and qualifications are commoditized and no one can tell the difference between the qualified and the asshats. And once that becomes a non-issue those being evaluated by the larger public are considered equals in people’s eyes with regard to skill & competency. And, holy shit, what a fucking false equivalency that is whenever Trump is involved. He is a salesman. He is a [...]
The post not anyone can do this job first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
of course your world is your world 2 Nov 2024 11:35 PM (11 months ago)
== “You marvel; remembering that of course your world is your world. Your subjective ontology (aka that which is objectively true for you). This is the orientation amidst the salience landscape of the inter-subjective meaning-ness we share. Some things shine bright to you in this world, some things feel apt, and some things resonate with a deep relational hum.” Dr Jason Fox == Aren’t you afraid? ‘Of what?’ ‘Of losing yourself.’ ‘That’s what I’m hoping for.’ —– Maggie Stiefvater === Simply because things, in reality, have expired doesn’t mean we willingly let them go. In fact. We tend to put them on expensive oxygen machines attempting to breath life back into them. We invest gobs of money on life support systems on things that are for all intents and purposes, dead, rather than investing all those resources (mental, physical, monetary, time) on what we see before us, i.e., the emerging, the alive and breathing stuff. In my pea like brain this happens because we have a crazy relationship with the concept of “want.” Which leads me to what we (you) want. We are in a weird world in which: We seem to think if we don’t, or can’t, get everything we want, the world is going to crumble before our eyes We seem to think if we don’t, or can’t, get everything we want, we have lost, i.e., somehow there was a pathway to getting 100% and the ‘others’ didn’t get it We seem to think about public issues as personal issues, and vice versa, conflating some fairly horrible personal compromise advice and public good compromising. While a and b are absurd mindsets, it I with c where we actively make ourselves miserable. We receive an onslaught of banal personal advice suggesting any compromise screws us individually, as in dreams, desires and some fairly unforgiving beliefs in ‘things.’ Its nuts. And unhealthy. The suggestion is that if you “compromise with life, you kill your dreams and live your plan B, C and D.” Once again. That’s nuts. Rarely, if ever, does anyone get 100% of what they want. And let’s be clear. Rarely, if ever, 100% of what you want is actually the best for 100% of the people let alone, in the end, 100% good for you. Therein lies the challenge of compromise. Your 100% never represents the best for the 100%. Your world is your world. Period. Which leads me to say we have corrupted the way we think about how collective debates and agreements work. Simplistically, the corruption has occurred in individualism. Look. I am not suggesting every individual shouldn’t seek out what they want or even what they believe is best for them and what they believe. What I am suggesting that pursuit shouldn’t ignore what the other people in their community, city, state, province, country and maybe even the other 7,999,999,999 people in the world may want and need. That’s the layers of compromise. Yeah. That’s a lot of layers. Yeah. Maybe that’s why getting 100% of what you want is a bit of a fantasy. But in fantasyland there are people screaming ‘winners and losers’ ignoring the fact that, well, no one seems to be winning and shitload of people are thinking they are losing. We have corrupted compromise or at least corrupted the idea of conflict and conflict resolution. “The corruption of the age is made up by the particular contribution of every individual man; some contribute treachery, others injustice, irreligion, tyranny, avarice, cruelty, according to their power; the weaker sort contribute folly, vanity, and idleness; of these I am one. It seems as if it were the season for vain things, when the hurtful oppress us; in a time when doing ill is common, to do but what signifies nothing is a kind of commendation.” Montaigne This corruption of compromise breeds a sense of everything changing, but in an invisible corrosive way. We only see the change in a low level slightly nagging a feel of unease and unhappiness. And because of that, mentally we shift our focus to what is visible and away from the invisible <that which creates the unease> and we fixate on what we think we know rather than unlearning/revising what we know. In other words, we get stuck in the fantasyland of what we want as being the ‘be all and end all.’ Once again. this is nuts. We want lots of things and the odds of getting all these things is really really low. And you know what? Sometimes what we think we want is not actually what we need nor what we should want. Your world is your world. Which leads me to integration, not compromise. Technically speaking, what we need to be doing more of is not compromise, but integration. Integration is a Mary Parker Follett idea. In 1925 Follett argued that conflict, as a natural and inevitable part of life, does not necessarily have to lead to adverse outcomes. Rather, if approached with the right attitude a conflict can present an opportunity for positive or constructive development. Follett suggested there are three ways to respond to conflict: Dominance Compromise Integration Dominance means victory of one side over the other. This works in the short term, but is unproductive in the long run. Compromise means each party having to give up something for the sake of a meaningful reduction of friction. Far from ideal, compromise often leaves parties unsatisfied – having given up something of value. Integration means creatively incorporating the parties’ fundamental desires/interests into the solution, i.e., no one gets everything they want, but everyone gets a bit of what they need.” Great life solutions integrate aspects of what everyone brings to the table and if we are really honest, the end product is probably a bit better than any individual solution going in. And isn’t that the way it is supposed to work? You don’t get everything you want, but you get a lot of what you need. [...]
The post of course your world is your world first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
listen to this twit talk about women 1 Nov 2024 4:38 AM (11 months ago)
== “that’s the same thing as having an affair” == The closing arguments in the presidential campaign is a contrast in a number of things, but mostly it has become a contrast between respectful and disrespectful. One campaign has unequivocally stated that no matter who you vote for you will be listened to and represented and the other has, well, referred to ‘other voters’ as the enemy within. The heinous parts are tucked within the definition of ‘enemy.’ Because in this case the enemy is grounded in some 1800’s version of what a traditional marriage should be about – women subservient to men. Yeah. Reminder. Its 2024 not 1824. Which leads me to a Harris-Walz campaign ad voiced by actor Julia Roberts which encourages women to vote for Vice President Harris in the presidential election, even if their husbands are backing former President Trump. “In the one place in America where women still have a right to choose, you can vote any way you want. And no one will ever know,” Roberts says in the ad as a woman on screen meets up with her husband after casting her ballot for Harris. The voter winks at a fellow female voter as her husband asks if she made the “right choice.” Suffice it to say, MAGA world has not responded well. In fact, some have suggested that a wife lying about her vote is as bad as an affair. Yeah. Ponder that one as a closing argument. “If I found out Emma was going to the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair” Fox News host Jesse Watters == “I think it’s so gross. I think it’s so nauseating where this wife is wearing the American hat, she’s coming in with her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go you know and have a nice life and provide to the family, and then she lies to him saying, ‘Oh, yeah, I’m gonna vote for Trump,’ and then she votes for Kamala Harris as her little secret in the voting booth” Charlie Kirk To be clear. They are suggesting a husband is working hard to afford his wife’s lifestyle and her action undermines him. Ponder that just a bit. Look. I am sure there are politically split households, but in the Trump era it is just difficult for me to envision. It is quite conceivable that someone could have voted for Romney in the same household where someone voted for Obama, but Trump is so divisive, and not normal, that it seems like a bridge too far. But I believe that is something that particular couple needs to navigate, not me. Regardless. The idea that a woman, a wife or partner, simply has to do anything let alone vote some way simply because the man does is a horrible thought. Oh. And a horrible closing argument to the majority of a 2024 population. “Listen to this twit make Donald Trump’s closing argument. Women, you know what to do. #VoteKamala.”
The post listen to this twit talk about women first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
the normal gay guy vote 1 Nov 2024 2:21 AM (11 months ago)
== “Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if me and Trump won just the normal gay guy vote, because, again, they just wanted to be left the hell alone,” JD Vance == This election cycle is nearing its end (thank god). But the closing arguments for each campaign have been, well, enlightening. Let’s just say the normal candidate has stayed the course, consistently offering polices, vision and ideas – and using words that “normal” people use. The other candidate has, well, chosen a different path. I imagine they view it as “a less traveled path but far more interesting” in their minds. That less traveled path includes not just the crazy shit and a barrage of lies, but some fairly abhorrent words and thoughts. Which leads me to normal gay guys. I am not gay. I do have a number of friends who are gay. All of them are normal. All of their friends are normal. They, mostly, have normal issues and normal opinions and live a normal life. And, as most normal people, they want to be left alone to live their own lives. So. Here is where it becomes non-normal. JD Vance suggested that White upper- and middle-class children are incentivized to identify as transgender to gain admission to elite colleges. Uhm. And then tied that to gay people. “Think about the incentives, if you are a, you know, middle-class or upper middle-class White parent and the only thing that you care about is whether your child goes into Harvard or Yale, like obviously, that pathway has become a lot harder for a lot of upper middle-class kids, but the one way that those people can participate in the DEI bureaucracy in this country is to be trans, and is there a dynamic that’s going on where, if you become trans, that is the way to reject your White privilege. That’s the social signifier. The only one that’s available in the hyper-woke mindset is if you become gender nonbinary.” JD Vance Now. I will admit. Parts of that sound like madeup gobbledygook to me. But the net of it is absurd. Worse? The implication is that a trangender chooses whether they are transgender or a gay person chosses to be gay. And somehow within that choice is normal or non-normal. Fuck you JD. That’s what I say. You are, or you are not, it really isn’t a choice to anyone. Beyond that. Studies have found that because of the discrimination, harassment and lack of support they generally experience in earlier grades, students who identify as transgender would be a lot less likely to have access to higher education in general, let alone an Ivy League school that is difficult to get into, compared with those people who identify with the gender that matches the sex they were assigned at birth. I find the overall Trump campaign closing argument uncompelling and, frankly, abhorrent for the most part. Appealing to the “normal gay guy vote” is a weird play. But it gets a bit weirder. Democrats, apparently, not only don’t seek the ‘normal gay guy’ vote , but they want America to be unhealthy and overweight.” Huh? Because, apparently, if you are in poor health and overweight you will become a liberal. Yeah. And its actually a play for straight male vote: “Have you seen all these studies that basically connect testosterone levels in young men with conservative politics? Maybe that’s what’s going on. Maybe that’s why the Democrats want us all to be, you know, poor health and overweight is because that means we’re going to be – no, it means we’re going to be more liberal.” There are no studies that ‘basically’ say this. He is just making shit up. All in all it is quite the closing argument to America.
The post the normal gay guy vote first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
good actors versus bad actors 31 Oct 2024 11:24 PM (11 months ago)
== “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” Plato == “Good buildings come from good people, and all problems are solved by good design.” Stephen Gardiner == This began as conversations with a number of people about technology and technology companies. But what I quickly found myself doing in conversation after conversation is shifting away from technology, specifically, and just speaking about people. What I mean by that is that we have a tendency to speak of humans in a dehumanizing way with regard to technology, i.e., some nebulous good actors and bad actors. If we strip away the word ‘actors,’ at its core we’re basically speaking of people and, therefore, discussions around technology or society or business or almost any facet of a community and civilization should revolve around what makes a person do what they do. I don’t disagree that we need some fairly heroic efforts to address our technology driven future, but maybe instead of heroic we should simply speak of behavioral values. Which leads me to technology and the future. That said. I do agree heroic efforts are needed to bend the arc of technology. I believe people, left to their own devices, would design a nice tech future. And while technology may be an opposing force, I would argue its business’s objectives that drive the future off course. I say that because I am less worried about ttechnology and more worried about business. Fix business and technology stuff, as well as the people stuff, will follow (in my mind). I worry a bit about bad actors, maybe a bit less than most people, because I see good actors stepping up to the plate and fighting the bad actors. If you haven’t listened to this podcast Kevin Scott , at the end he offers up his view on this (and I have stated that view for several years so I agree). It’s a good listen in general although I find he, as do most tech people, talk about rural in a very tech-centric siloed way (and I have other views about how tech could help the rural splits). Regardless. The ‘good actors’ will be the ones who recognize: it is a humancentric world where the optimal future is found in technology as an augmentor there will be uneven distribution of benefits from technology and we should seek to mitigate that it should be a learning-oriented future Which leads me to who the good actors will be. Sometimes the problem in today’s world is that it’s not particularly easy to be identify the good actors versus the bad actors especially as there is an increasing level of self-identified rebels (all proposing they are rebels for the good of people). The rebels are rarely hesitant about specifying which things, including values, they reject. The problem is everybody feels like they are rebel these days. What that means is that every one, every citizen, will at some point have some aspects of their life ridiculed by argumentative rebels. And when everyone becomes a rebel, the entire narrative will fundamentally get mired into the mud of hypocrisy. What I mean by that is a fundamental cause of disaffection is the contradiction between what any particular community, or class of people, says it believes; and what it does. These contradictions create confusion and that confusion takes on some fairly ugly hues which ultimately contaminates our view of society. The contamination is captured n some seeming hypocrisy. We may say we believe in mobility, but not for some people. We may say we believe in a Christian ethic, but not in business. Across the country we preach morality and yet certain people don’t have to play by those rules. We support altruistic endeavors, but we vilify anyone who works for it. We proclaim ourselves to be nonviolent people driven by hope and aspirations, but we insist that each person be allowed to have his or her own gun and fear ultimately drives the fundamental desire to own a gun. We preach the virtue of loyalty and business, yet we see the people who do this often reach the age of retirement spiritually empty and economically unprepared. We view success in society grounded in a creed of accumulation, but ultimately, we discover that this brings neither happiness nor stability. This creates a constant state of contradictions and hypocrisy within which good actors and bad actors battle. Which leads me to rebels as good and bad. So, our rebels tend to be good and bad. But maybe we should judge the rebellious a little differently accepting that the majority of life and progress is found in between the contradictions. What I mean by that is the progress typically resides in the gray. And while responsibility demands black and white, and the solutions demand a proper assumption of responsibility in the attention to the problems requiring change, the solutions are not simple nor simplistic. The true heroic rebels and the good people are those who showcase a willingness to challenge the patterns, which is not about change in particular, for it is within navigating the patterns and challenging them which instigates the change where it is needed. I would argue the truth is the rebellious shouldn’t focus on some generic set of values, but rather an increased emphasis upon the most vital of values: responsibility. And the true test of the good rebellious resides somewhere in a future where the responsibility to affect the patterns is not exciting, but merely hard work. Yeah. Less flashy victories just simply the performance over the long haul that determines the value of the rebellion and the rebellious. Which leads me to optimism. In a world which encourages dystopian thinking and dystopian views, optimism is often the most ridiculed of values. I will confess that throughout my life I have generally been optimistic. I often refer to myself as a cynical optimist. That [...]
The post good actors versus bad actors first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
“I am not a nazi” 30 Oct 2024 9:39 PM (11 months ago)
== “I’m the opposite of a Nazi!” Donald Trump, reassuring us that he is definitely, totally, absolutely not a Nazi. == Fascism: a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition At the core of fascism is loyalty to tribe, ethnic identity, religion, tradition, or, in a word, nation. == a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control == Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person == So. Kinda feels like if you have to tell people you are not something, you have an issue. Just the fact anyone would have to explain, let alone a presidential candidate, that “I am not a nazi” means that some people may actually be thinking you are one. Uhm. That seems bad if you want to be a president. It makes it a bit difficult to simply bucket it into the “other side being hyperbolic” category. Anyhoo. Let’s be clear. One can be a fascist, and apply fascist rhetoric, and not be a nazi, but if one is a nazi, they are fascist. Trump wallows in the wretched hollow in-between. In that in-between he fosters a lot of fascist like shit. Once again, he could absolutely spew fascist rhetoric and not be a nazi. Social scientists have pointed out for decades that not all fascist movements are the same nor created equal. It’s an idea that morphs to the user and to the context, but for the most part it is a counterrevolutionary reaction to the rise of Marxism, socialism, or liberalism. For Hannah Arendt, it was totalitarianism. For others it is seen as a contingent process (a counterreaction to socialism and/or liberalism. Is it an ideology? Is it more a style of leadership? Is it a political method? All I really know is whatever it is, it is always captured in rhetoric. And that means we end up debating words and meanings. Which leads me to Trump (“the opposite of a nazi”). We are continuously encouraged to not believe what Trump says, but if we can’t trust what a president says, how do we attain common understanding? (answer: we don’t. ever.). That becomes a bigly problem because his aggressive rhetoric never ends; it doesn’t even pause. If Trump is elected next week, it will continue all day, every day, for four more years. And it will be in front of you, in the news, on your screen, on social media, every day, for four more years. And THAT means we will debate all day, every day, what is fascist and what is not. Lets be honest. We just can’t tune it out. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to simply tune out the firehose of invective. When a presidential candidate says things like this, it is newsworthy. When the President says things like this, it is definitely newsworthy. The roots of Trumpism is grounded in something real – mass disillusionment with liberal democracy (or just government writ large). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the roots of fascism reside in mass disillusionment. From there we shift to charismatic leadership as a facet of fascism. It’s a mass political movement led by a charismatic leader. Now. Bernie Sanders is charismatic, but no one would say he’s a fascist. Heck. Some movements are authoritarian, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re fascist. Here is where context matters – “what is it about the context today that shares something from a previous context, in terms of how we understand fascism back then?” And that’s where there’s a major debate, right? The goalposts constantly move so we reformulate, and we say, “these are things that constitute fascism.” To be clear (once again). Trump thrives in the wretched hollows within this goalpost shifting. Which leads me back to the beginning: we are publicly, honestly, discussing fascism. Here is the thing. The most important thing (in my mind). The fact we are even having the discussion. One of the characteristics of Trump and Trumpism, and even MAGA, is that it always explores the ‘lines’ of things. It edges into the unacceptable, the illegal, the gray areas of norms. It creates just a bit of plausible deniability and just a smidge of acceptability. So, in the end, how do we judge because it is a nuanced thought. So, let’s offer a nuanced thought and a non-nuanced thought to end this Trump and fascism debate: Nuanced – “the enemy within.” Fascism is grounded in a an unequivocal “us versus them” narrative where “them” is defined by “us” and while someone may self-identify as an “us,” you are not admitted to the “us club” unless the “us elite” (authoritarian/totalitarian inner circle) accept you. I am fairly sure Trump WOULD have been a Nazi (as long as he could be a leader), but I don’t think he is one, he is simply a stupid narcissistic bully, i.e., an authoritarian. In fact I don’t know anyone who’s a liberal who doesn’t think “Donald Trump is an authoritarian, perhaps, fascist leader.” I would be surprised if it hasn’t crossed the mind of every sane person. Suffice it to say if someone is considering it, you just may be. Non-nuanced – consistent signaling. Every leader attempts to craft lasting relationships with people grounded in the ability to send the right signals at the right time, i.e., the ability to show not tell (although “showing” the right words offers through lines). A leader’s vision is just a big ball of signals. In fact that’s what the vast majority of human relationships consist of. Trump’s superpower is consistent signaling while getting the external world to view his often heinous signals in a one-off manner. My point here is if someone sends out a bunch of signals, [...]
The post “I am not a nazi” first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
the America is for Americans and Americans only narrative 27 Oct 2024 9:39 PM (12 months ago)
== “His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.” on Hitler’s philosophy == “the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.” JD Vance == “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” Donald Trump == I was tempted to call this “the comeback of the deplorables” or even “insisting on the right to lie”, but then there was truly a gathering of deplorable speakers at Madison Square Garden for Trump’s closing election argument. They insulted Latinos, Black Americans, Palestinians and Jews. Trump advisor Stephen Miller’s claim that “America is for Americans and Americans only” directly echoed the statement of Adolf Hitler that “Germany is for Germans and Germans only.” While it is all truly deplorable, it also employs some psychological voodoo. When coupled with “the enemy within” it permits Latinos, black Americans, Palestinians, Jews and even some white people to proudly stand behind MAGA with “not me, them.” In other words, they aren’t talking about me it’s the enemy. The voodoo gets wrapped up n a shitload of lies (which I will get to) but what they all seem to forget is you, the citizen, don’t get to choose whether you are the enemy. MAGA hierarchy chooses. They choose by your words, behavior, attitude, and most importantly, servitude to Trump. Yeah. The big lie they are selling is America is for Trump and Trump only. That is fact. And, weirdly, its about the only fact/truth MAGA world seems to embrace. But this lie is SO big, SO audacious, that disaffected groups actually begin believing Trump offers salvation (or at least a better path). I mean, c’mon, how can any Muslim/Arab American believe Trump – the author of the Muslim travel ban, unrepentant Netanyahu “do-whatever-you-want” advocate – will actually have Palestinian Arab interests in mind going forward. Seriously? I have written before about how Trumpism is based on some alternative reality thinking, but underpinning it all is the MAGA movement is based on the freedom to lie. The MAGAverse is shameless with regard to lying. Their lies are broad sweeping audacious narratives of an America that doesn’t exist. The federal response to hurricanes, eating dogs and cats, even the truth about some ‘open border’ all border on insane audacious lies about reality. And non-Americans (the real enemy, not some nebulous ‘enemy within’) take note and step in and amplify. Is it election interference? Sure. But while Russia, Iran, and China generate about 20% to 30% of the political content and comments on social media, they also amplify the crazy domestic created disinformation. Yeah. The largest purveyors of disinformation are homegrown (could these actually be ‘the enemy within’?). All of this creates a firehose of information until people become overwhelmed by the task of trying to figure out what is real and simply tune out. Facts help define reality and are pretty stubborn against those who deny, and defy, reality. While this may seem unnecessary to state, but facts provide affirmation for what we see with our own eyes. What I mean by that is the alternative reality folk relentlessly state, not just suggest, that reality is something different than what reality is. They bludgeon us with an alternative reality to ultimately get us to either (a) question what we see as reality or (b) just give up and believe the alternative reality is reality. The lies become reality. Yeah. While “misinformation” is simply false information, which we all spread innocently and correct with accurate information, “disinformation” is a deliberate lie to convince people of things that are not true. MAGA insists on the right to lie and consider any fact-checking “censorship.” “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” George Orwell, 1984 A unified, well-functioning, democratic society depends on shared understanding of factual reality, but men who embrace fascist techniques (which is really only tactical fascism) seek to consolidate power and serve authoritarian interests. Thanks to MAGA’s false claims of, well, almost everything, and their denigration of political, scientific, judicial and media institutions shatters trust and America is being dividing into a false us and them. Inevitably that shattered trust in government, and divided citizenry, will make it harder for America to solve its problems because solutions, and ideas, are not easily transferable amongst peoples (and that is how ideas spread). Yeah. The real impact happens when effective ideas spread. That said. Trump avoids any real give and take with regard to his alternative universe so his false world can’t be challenged by reality. He obviously wants to make sure people (voters) cannot base their decisions about the country’s future on facts. His insistence on the right to lie, cloaked in a rotten subversion of freedom of speech, is a continued refusal to deal with reality. He, and MAGA elite, foster a dissatisfaction that stems from a perception that societal changes, cultural shifts, economic issues, or demographic change, have eroded what once made their country “great.” A misguided nostalgia becomes a lens through which present grievances are projected onto an idealized past, whether or not it has any fucking bearing on reality itself. This whole MAGA thing is fucked up. Dangerously so. It’s a deplorable narrative. America DOES belong to Americans. Americans who are not enemies, but rather neighbors. Americans who know their neighbors may believe different things, pray differently and do different things, but we still look out for each other and go to all our kid’s activities and say “good morning” when you see them in the morning. I just don’t see the [...]
The post the America is for Americans and Americans only narrative first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
reach for the nearest platitude 20 Oct 2024 9:54 PM (last year)
==== “In a desperately awkward situation we reach for the nearest platitude. “ Michael Lipsey === “Platitude: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true.” H. L. Mencken === “It is becoming clear that the old platitudes can no longer be maintained, and that if we wish to improve our morals, we must first improve our knowledge.” Havelock Ellis === I imagine we have all been in a situation which demands you to say something. Empty spaces almost demand you to step forward with a word or two and, well, say something. Unfortunately, that ‘something’ often shifts toward ‘anything’ and not all empty spaces are created equal. What I mean by that is the worst empty spaces are those awkward situations where you begin scrambling for any word(s) to fill up that space, i.e., “say anything” which leads to some awkwardness. Which leads me to awkward. Awkward, bungling, inept and even ungainly are all words which refer to actions lacking in skill or grace or even to the faulty results of such actions. Yeah. We just become mentally clumsy in these situations. ‘Clumsy’ meaning a halting or imprecise action and having a propensity for making mistakes with all the impending uncomfortable results that coincide with your clumsiness. That said. Let’s just say awkward is proportionately less bad than pure mental clumsiness and emotionally it is tied more to a state of mind, being unnerved, than clumsy <which is tied more to physical>. From there we bring in inept which suggests you never find the right word and ungainly which suggests a lack of grace which reflects many of us as we scramble for a word or phrase (source: Hayakawa). Which leads me to scrambling. Scrambling leads to all the above adjectives/descriptors. Because when we scramble most of us do it out loud; rambling along until we find some safe space. Sure. Some people do it silently <hoping like hell some words arrive before the appropriate time passes>, but most people just punt by, well, offering the ‘nearest platitude.’ And maybe it is within the scrambling itself that we separate the amateurs from the professionals – the inept-inclined from the skilled-inclined. Or as the U.S. Navy SEALs say, the people who can “get comfortable being uncomfortable.” The problem is awkward situations make amateurs of many of us and caught off guard we, well, get into our own head. What I mean by that is dig around for “the phrase that pays,” i.e., something to deploy against the quiet space demanding you to say something. == “You’re told that you’re in your head too much, a phrase that’s often deployed against the quiet and cerebral. Or maybe there’s another word for such people: thinkers.” Susan Cain ==== All the while you struggle to stay focused on what needs to be accomplished … struggling because awkward situations make you feel uncomfortable and you are desperately seeking to get out of the discomfort zone and into the comfort zone. Yeah. I just said that. I point it out because some asshat is going to come along and say something trite like “remember, it’s a good thing to feel uncomfortable … it means you’re moving forward and exploring new territory.” Yeah. Well. Let me point out that not all uncomfortable is created equal and not all exploration is meaningful. Awkward situations are often situations of survival. And if that sounds dramatic I meant it to. In business, more often than not, success is a battle of attrition – survive and advance. Die and done. And while survival in an awkward situation is always a tricky thing in business … all that scrambling around in your head <thinking as it is sometime called> is compounded by a belief you need to … well … not die. Which leads me back to platitudes. Most platitudes are played simply for survival. They sound stupid <sometimes>. They sound hollow intellectually <often>. They sound meaningless <because more often than not they are>. They sound like you had nothing better to offer <which is true> Uhm. They also permit you to play another day. Even the best of the best get caught with no words in an awkward situation. And even the best of the best will offer a platitude in an awkward situation. Look. The business world seems slightly more unforgiving today than it has been in the past. Far too often being caught in an awkward situation and not offering the right words, or simply offering a platitude, brands you as someone who “cannot think on their feet.” What bullshit. Certainly … if you are consistently inept in an awkward situation … you are inept. Certainly … if you are consistently ungainly in an awkward situation … you lack grace. Certainly … if you are consistently clumsy in an awkward situation … you are clumsy. But no one has the right words all the time in every awkward situation. And there are worse things than offering a platitude when scrambling for something to say like, for example, making shit up. But making shit up is a thought for another day. Today? Suffice it to say it never hurts to have a platitude handy for an awkward situation when you just cannot think of anything, or the right thing, to say. Ponder. === “My body is a parlor trick called survival.” Jayy Dodd ===
The post reach for the nearest platitude first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
Trump economic ju jitsu 17 Oct 2024 11:37 PM (last year)
== “People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.” Søren Kierkegaard == Denial is a river in Egypt. Denial is also Trump’s superpower. He denies reality. Shamelessly denies what everyone can see. And in doing so he, well, lies all the time. About everything. It’s his ju jitsu act. And while I am going to talk economics, let me first point out that in this whole Trump ju jitsu shitfest, journalists are Trump’s best friend. Seriously. Why? Trump insanity gets normalized by journalists. Trump gets a free pass for his ignorance, lack of reality and non-seriousness. Journalists turn themselves into pretzels making his insanity normal sounding and his nonseriousness, and ignorance, sound serious and insightful. While Trump narrates a reality ju jitsu, anyone supporting him constantly performs narrative ju jitsu to make him sound sane (or even good for America). Which leads me to the economic jiu jitsu. It seems like the most common ju jitsu is that the Trump economy was great. And while many of the things that I’m about to say with regard to the economy will vary on an individual basis, the average community will be reflective of the facts and reality. Let’s set aside the pandemic period for now. The economy during the Trump administration was basically the same as during the Obama administration. And I’m even being a little generous there in that GDP growth was often a little bit lower, wages didn’t increase as much, and all of those things got compounded by some fairly negative aspects. I would also be a remiss if I didn’t point out because of all Trump and his administration’s blowhard hyperbole, we all seem to overlook that generally speaking inflation was exactly the same as it currently is under the Biden administration and it was about the same as the Obama administration. Also, just as during the Obama administration, prices were generally about 20% higher than the Bush administration years, the prices during the Trump administration years were about 20% higher than during the Obama years. Yeah. Cost of living increases – all the time. Remember, this is non-pandemic comparisons. So let’s move to unemployment. The reality is anything under 5% is basically full employment and reflects some healthy natural employment churn. That said. It is absolutely reflective of unemployment lower than 5% that employment will increase among minority groups. As jobs increase employers need employees and oftentimes they will broaden their scope of their search. Minorities benefit there. This is also true because labor participation was basically the same between Trump and Obama years (and Biden years) so the employee pie was about the same. But my point would be is, generally speaking, the Trump Administration economic years were not spectacular; just relatively good – at least from a vanity metric standpoint. I mention the vanity metric point because all of this this overlooks how the Trump Administration made the economy work. “Trump shows he has no desire to be transformational or even to shape the future, he favors only transactional relationships dealing on the basis of cost–benefit calculations as to how each deal works in America’s perceived economic or political interests.” This is important because you can make an economy look good in the present and, yet, be doing little to build an economic structure for the future (as a note: the Obama administration never got enough credit for that). Anyway. The Trump administration used a complex jujitsu system wherein they would layer a depth and breadth of tariffs on all countries, not just China, including our allies, and then they turned around to subsidize many of the American industries to help them compensate for having to pay those tariffs. That warped methodology had two consequences. First consequence was it ballooned the debt and the deficit without a corresponding economic growth. What I mean by that is that we spend a lot of money simply to overcome a horrible policy and not to spur growth. The second consequence was while the Trump Administration always argued that the heavy tariffs would encourage an America first manufacturing boom, it didn’t occur. And while there were many reasons, I will just focus on this particular part of the policy in that there was no incentive for American companies to invest in building out because they were receiving government subsidies to maintain the status quo and reap the profits. If that sounds as stupid a policy as it sounds; it is. So, there was no particularly great economic growth, there wasn’t any particular business expansion, and while most Americans were relatively comfortable because we maintained the financial status quo, American lives certainly weren’t progressing. Which leads me to the pandemic and its effect on the economy. We all lived through that time. It was horrible for people, but many large institutions made a shitload of money. Regardless, the pandemic shook the entire economic etch of sketch. Let me digress a moment because I feel a need to ask a question here because currently the American economy, its business growth, it’s household income growth, and the basic solid fundamentals of the economy is the envy of the world. Throughout the pandemic the American economy maintained a solid footing significantly better than any country in the world and while inflation increased significantly it didn’t increase to the level of any other country in the world. So, by any measurement whatever the Biden administration was doing was working. The pandemic, economically, for people was a painful time and I imagine it’s difficult when in pain to envision that it could actually be worse, but it could have been, i.e., scan the world’s countries. Which leads me to my question: does anybody really believe that Trump and his clown car administration would have managed the pandemic economy either during the pandemic or coming out of the pandemic better than we did? Seriously. Does anyone not believe he would actually try the same crazy shit [...]
The post Trump economic ju jitsu first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
the need for men 15 Oct 2024 11:26 PM (last year)
== “Oh, you need me.” == On the horrible Bill Maher show he recently had on a horrible guest who espoused the idea of democrats demonizing men and the “male crisis.” First. I find it rich that some right wing nutjob is harping on the fragility of men. Whatever happened to self-reliance and “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps?” Second. A pernicious aspect of this whole male crisis narrative is how they strawman the argument with “toxic masculinity.” What I mean by that is the Right falsely suggests that all men, and masculinity, is broad stroked as ‘toxic’ by “the Left.’ Its nuts, absurd, and creates a false narrative. As a man myself let me be clear, you can be masculine without being toxic. Toxic simply means being a dick. You can be masculine without being a dick. To be clear, as a man myself, all men will be dicks on occasion, but to be toxic you have to be a dick consistently and almost all the time. Selectively being a dick is just being a guy. Which leads me to what exactly is this “male crisis” we are speaking of. A lot of men are losing their positions as breadwinners or just losing out on having dominant positions in society. That doesn’t necessarily have to do with men, it just may be a reflection of progress. So before I get to men, specifically, let’s talk progress from a macro perspective. In a complex society where there is progress there will always be some who benefit more than others. Those who may have been marginalized in the past will find opportunities in the wave of progress to get ahead and those who have benefited in the past will no longer have as easy an access to the benefits. Its not exactly a zero-sum game, but it may feel like it. Its actually just asymmetry which is a characteristic of complexity. Society, and economies, are rarely characterized by one similar progress characteristic. There will always be at least one component, or one industry, which will be underperforming versus others. That’s how it works. In this particular case, some men may be underperforming in this wave of progress, or may just feel like they are underperforming, and this creates a multitude of issues – which is being labeled a “crisis” (an absurdity in and of itself). Which leads me to the male issue. I cannot remember who the social philosopher was, but someone suggested the core issue is “need.” In order to find meaning, all humans, including men, need to feel two things: they are contributing and their contributions are needed in some way. Simplistically, we humans need to feel needed in some form or fashion. The “needed” creates a sense of connection to other people and the community and the larger society. In its most feminine framing this is ‘nurturing,’ but in the male crisis that is a toxic word (because it is mainly associated with women for some reason). We should note social anthropologist Margaret Mead once said “every known human society has rested on the learned nurturing behavior of men. This behavior being learned is rather fragile and can disappear quickly in circumstances that no longer teach it effectively.” Being needed and nurturing have a symbiotic relationship and it is silly to not discuss the fact men are nurturing beings and at the core of masculinity is giving more than you get, i.e., contribution. And maybe within all that is an actual, real, issue. Maybe we are not signaling strongly enough to young men how much they are needed for a healthy family, healthy community, healthy society and that their contributions matter. While I may, personally, think its slightly absurd that we need to do this, or coddle male egos this way, it may be extremely fair that we need to vocalize, just a bit more and a bit more loudly, how much men are needed for a healthy economy and healthy community and healthy society. Maybe we need to be just a bit more specific that it’s not just that we need people, but we need men. Ponder.
The post the need for men first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.
rise above restriction 8 Sep 2024 9:30 PM (last year)
== “We actually contain a built-in ability to rise above restriction, incapacity, or limitation and, as a result of this ability, possess a vital adaptive spirit that we have not yet fully accessed.” Joseph Chilton Pearce == I have written about limitations as well as rules and breaking a rule before, but today this is just about potential and game theory (in a weird way). Game theory revolves around competition and objectives. Restrictions are less structured in that they are simply the things life offers up as suggestions of what is possible, not possible, safe, and unsafe (among other things). I tend to believe most people eye restrictions with a wary view. We are wary because restrictions suggest a lack of capacity to go farther than the restriction. That suggestion goes against the grain of how we feel about personal potential. We humans DO have a built-in ability to rise above limitations – given the right context that is. Which leads me to suggest restrictions are rational things in an irrational world. When restrictions are applied from a societal norm and community way, they actually encourage irrational consistencies. What I mean by that is if a restriction is rational simply by rising above a restriction is deemed irrational. To be fair. The rational consistencies within society demands that we review the idea of what is prescribed, the enforcement of those restrictions, and the rewards of rising above. Part of this rational assessment demands seeking some consistent demonstration of inferiority (below restriction outcomes) through some measurement. We also assess, subjectively, the cost to potential due to lack of deviation from the compulsory restrictions. But underneath it all, the part that chafes the most, is that most societal restrictions are crafted to mold people into what the existing system (power) machine needs. Yeah. Typically, the larger system is built to produce specific behavioral actions which can be measured so the restrictions can be held accountable (to the needs of the system, not human potential). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out then in an outcome of this is a version of pacification of people. The objectives, and mindsets, of community life and society is permeated by restriction measurement ultimately becoming the logic of society. Which leads me to individual potential and society. It was Margaret Thatcher who said “there is no such thing as society.” The Thatcher/Reagan era was almost the penultimate individual above all moment in history. That said. Thatcher stood for a particularly brutal version of individualism where there was no society just individuals competing. It was a warped view of progress where great things weren’t achieved collectively, but rather by looking within, grinding through life via will power and hard work to improve your own life (indifferent to everyone else attempting to do the same). It becomes a world of individuals, not a world of We. This is a form of restriction in and of itself and it has become the logic of society where individuals are society; not communities. This begets a society existing of relentless individualizing where the collective good, and progress, is renegotiated in a zero-sum fashion. To be clear. While society is, and always has been, a version of encouraging self reliance, society is not, in and of itself, of the individual, but the connection of individuals. In fact, extreme individualism crafts a restriction enhancing unhealthy reductionism of potential. Which leads me to social capital. Social capital is maybe the opposite of individualism (maybe not exactly). I would also suggest social capital is organic game theory. What I mean by that is social capital reflects the extent to which social networks embody norms of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation that facilitate collective action in the pursuit of shared goals. That pursuit of shared goals is where game theory comes in. people, naturally, like to win and, in particular, like to attain goals (shared or not). Social capital demands a willingness to cooperate with others; this includes a willingness to cooperate with strangers and without any clear potential for direct and indirect reciprocity. The goal, in this case, is some individualized vision of potential attained. But even social capital has boundaries it’s just that the restrictions, in this case, are a bit more vague and a lot more expansive than a reductionist individualistic view. That said. I have always found it a bit interesting that E.F. Schumacher wrote “Small is Beautiful: economics if people mattered” smack dab in the middle of the Reagan/Thatcher era. He posited all human activity is a striving after something thought of as good and, therefore, the question at hand becomes ‘good for whom?’ Unless that person has sorted out and coordinated his manifold urges, impulses, and desires, his strivings are likely to be confused, contradictory, self-defeating, and possibly highly destructive.” The restriction of individualism is that it inhibits the mobilization of a collective for a collective good. It is within a goal of collective good where any one individual may not achieve the highest material rewards and yet may achieve their highest potential. Therein lies individualism’s greatest lie – that material success is tied to potential. That narrative actually restricts potential, but also what we, people as humans, truly understand about life. The greatest potential in life is not found in the restriction of individualism, but rather rising above its restriction through collective action. Which permits me to circle back to the beginning – most people are wary of restrictions; particularly ones that suggest radical individualism. Humans are multidimensional constructs who thrive on irrational consistencies. Humans thrive in the connectivity with other humans. Radical individualism, even “self reliance,” inhibits connectivity. It does so because it restricts what one gives in a cooperative context. The individualism tugs people to hold back something, even just a bit, for their own good. It, well, restricts potential. It may not seem rational to give up something for yourself to get more back (at some point), but, irrationally, that’s the way the most [...]
The post rise above restriction first appeared on Enlightened Conflict.