DEVELOPING PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE

Is that possible? An IQ is pretty stable. Measurements at different ages don’t differ much. So the conclusion seems warranted that you can’t do too much about intelligence. The main predictor of high intelligence is highly intelligent parents. And there is little you can do about that.
Interestingly, even highly intelligent people make mistakes in judgments and conclusions. Some people have tried to list all thinking errors. They easily come to 150. If we would be able to teach people to make less thinking errors that would amount to something!  You might become successful by limiting yourself to only 120 thinking errors!

David Perell: Avoiding stupidity is easier than being brilliant. A nice saying, but not very true: avoiding stupidity is very difficult, as there are so many ways to be stupid. And the awful truth is that we all are apt to make thinking errors. Morgan Housel: Few things are as valuable as a good bullshit detector. True, but you can’t buy those at the supermarket.
We should try to minimize thinking errors. It all amounts to education. If needs be: self-education. As Nietzsche famously said: “Educate the educators! But the first have to educate themselves.”
Italian psychologist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini:  Why people keep making the same mistakes? Through inattention, distraction, lack of interest, poor preparation, genuine stupidity, timidity, bragging, emotional imbalance; ideological, racial, social or chauvinistic prejudices; and tribal or aggressive instincts.
Inattention. Because of what?
Distraction. By what?
Lack of interest. Wait for a mistake with really serious consequences.
Poor preparation. Do you have a love of failure? Or do you have bouts of sleepiness? Or are you just lazy? Not very smart.
Genuine stupidity: Only a real problem when you over-estimate yourself. You wouldn’t do that, would you?
Timidity.:Under-estimating yourself. Who taught you that?
Bragging: Really? Why would you do that? Inferiority complex? Superiority complex?
Emotional imbalance: Time to grow up.
Ideological, racial, social or chauvinistic prejudices: Apparently you are really happy with the people around you.
Tribal or aggressive instincts: If you have them, you probably would not read this blog.

Practical intelligence means minimizing bad choices. Some suggestions that may be helpful—at least are intended to be helpful.
> Looking reliable or unreliable may indicate reliability, but it often doesn’t. Reliability will never present itself as unreliability, but unreliability often presents itself as reliability. Be wary of people calling themselves reliable. Why do they want you to believe that?
> You can’t judge a book by the cover, but glancing through a few pages often will do the trick. When you can’t do that, and the cost of a book is negligible, why not buy it? The cost of buying one worthless book may be insignificant compared to the pleasure or worth of reading one good book. Just give it a try.
> Compare the advantages and disadvantages of being right or wrong. I you dream that your deceased grandmother is advising you to drive more carefully, take her seriously. If she advises you to give all your money to a cousin, don’t. If she advises you to put your money on a certain outcome in a lottery, do that, but limit yourself to an amount you can lose without that really hurting you.
> In general, balance two errors in judgment: rejecting a thought that is true vs. accepting a thought that is false.
> What is worse, missing mr. Right or marrying mr. Wrong? Most probably the second. Anyway, you can find out the second usually faster than finding the first. So don’t hurry. Avoid undue pessimism and undue optimism, but always compare the prize of being right with the cost of being wrong. What is the cost of a reasonable time of engagement first? So, don’t maximize upside benefits, minimize downside risks.
> And don’t be a stickler for being sure. 

Avoid undue generalizations. This may not be as easy as it seems. If less than one percent of bearded people is violent, but over 30% of violent people are bearded, it is very difficult to avoid prejudice. (I am bearded, but not violent.)
> Minimize hope and fear. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. In practice it is rather: Hope for the best, avoid the worst.
> Avoid end-risks, risks that may finish the game. Risks that may lose you your fortune, your freedom, your friends, your health, your life.
> Mists are ephemeral, swamps endure. First get a clear mind. Then try a first step.
> Superstitious people believe things without a shred of evidence. Skeptics don’t believe things without a shred of evidence. Avoid the company of both.
>Keep your mind open. Keep your mind open as long as you can. Life will be so much more interesting.
 

The basic recipe is to not be addicted to being sure. We rarely need to be sure. Geert Hofstede found four fundamental differences between national cultures. One of them was uncertainty avoidance. Sometimes certainty is highly desirable, but being able to stand uncertainty will help you to avoid many mistakes in work and life. It fosters practical intelligence, prudence, wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience. Experience comes from lack of wisdom. Wisdom is avoiding folly. Learn from the follies you still committed. Use wisdom when you can, courage when you must, but always learn.
It is not stupid to be stupid. It is stupid to stay stupid. It is stupid not to learn. So learn.
If you don’t learn from your mistakes, you are stupid. At least start to learn from the mistakes of others. And never assume you will be free of them.
Again: keep learning.
 

And good-luck with all of this!

TO BE IN FLOW

To be in flow means to live and work with minimal frictions, especially unnecessary frictions, to live and work with ease and grace.

How do we do that?

We have to know where we are and where we want to go. Let’s start with where we are. What creates frictions?

• Other people—some more than others.
• Disappointments.
• Irritations.
• Frustrations.
• Risks and dangers.
• Competition, especially unexpected or unfair competition.
• Unrealistic desires and ambitions.
• Unrealistic expectations
• Stagnation; blocks.
• Attacks.

This list is not exhaustive and it is not analytic: the items are not mutually exclusive.

Generally speaking, to be in flow, three things have to be in sync: where we are, what we want and what we can. Our situation, our ambition and our abilities.
Of these three, ambition - what we want - is most easily changed. Changing our situation means other place of living, other work or other people around is. Changing abilities means learning new things, which may require a lot of time and effort.
So the first question is: what can we change practically? The first option always to consider is what we can change in our mind. And do we want to change our mind?

In my own life, the main factors that hinder me to be in flow are irritations and disappointments. Disappointments are more easy to get rid of than irritations—for me. But both respond to the right kind of meditation. If meditation doesn’t suffice, some therapy is indicated. Of yourself. Don’t expect others to change. If they do, great, but no expectations!
Always, always, start with changing your mind-set. Only than go for the bigger changes. First of those is to change the people you interact with. The most difficult is family. The second is close colleagues at work. Communications and interactions can be changed—if both parties are open to that. Don’t expect too much.
There is the saying: “What is the greatest misunderstanding between men and women? Women think they can change their men, men think that their women stay the same.”
Try once, try twice, try thrice. But not more. Change you life or change your expectations. Let go of unrealistic expectations and minimize your irritations.

Kurt Lewin, a psychologist, known for his field theory, said that people have only five problems: two frustrations and three conflicts:
Wanting something positive you are blocked from attaining.
Wanting to leave something negative that you are stuck with.
Having to choose between two evils.
Having to choose between two goods.
Being with something that is positive and negative at the same time.
Pick your choice.

Martin Seligman, an other psychologist, found out what made people happy:
Find something you love and do that, preferably with people you love.
Find something that is really meaningful for you.
Find something that absorbs you, that makes you forget the time.
He called the last option the life of flow.

If we are in flow, we forget the time. And our actions become natural, even graceful.
An old French saying is that life is like a children’s shirt (une chemise d’enfant): short and messy. Make it long and clean.
What do you love? What is meaningful to you? What makes you forget the time?

Decisiveness and the killer instinct

Decisiveness is a quality that is almost always important, often essential.
Indecisiveness is more often a problem than over-decisiveness.
Over-decisiveness: deciding too fast, too early, without due consideration. Acting impulsive of even involuntary. Jumping.

Every decision is a choice, but not every choice is a decision. A decision is a choice with real-world consequences. The more important those consequences, the heavier the decision.

To marry is a decision. Sometimes it is the choice between two or even more possible partners. Almost always it is the choice between marrying or not marrying a partner or possible partner. When the woman is pregnant, that decision has more consequences, as there is a child involved - or at least a possible child.

A decision is a conscious choice. We consider the alternatives. Often one alternative is more known and the other less known. We know our present job, though we never know for sure what will happen when we continue. The possible new job is even less known. And how many possible jobs are out there?

Whatever we choose, we cut off all other possibilities, at least for now. If we choose our holiday destination, we say no to all other destinations - including staying at home. When we choose a life partner, we say no to all other possible partners we ever met, or may still meet. Saying YES to one thing, means saying NO to all other options.

To be decisive is to go in focused, rather than fritter away energy and time sitting on the fence of many possibilities.
So the power of decision is the power to say YES, but even more the power to say NO.
In addictions the power to say No is leaking.

A decision ends uncertainty. But it opens new uncertainties: about the consequences. There is almost always the possibility of collateral damage. And how can we compare those with the unknown consequences of the alternatives we didn’t take? We can only estimate, guess.

The opposite of decisiveness is lingering doubt. Decisiveness seems a virtue, doubt seems a weakness. But without doubts we act blind, instinctive - or just foolish. A good decision overcomes doubts, does not avoid doubts.

When the first spermatozoa enters the egg, all the thousands of other sperm cells are condemned to die - though sometimes a close second will make it too. To be decisive means to be able to jump, without knowing the future fully. When we take one important step, we kill off alternative histories. We kill off all alternative futures of ourselves - and we prune (sometimes considerably) the alternative futures of people around us.

So, when you are decisive, you are a killer. Only one future survives.
When you are indecisive you are also a killer, a slow, gradual killer of possibilities.
To decide properly we need to learn how to be ruthless, how to kill the unborn alternatives.

For decision we need courage.
For a good decision we need wisdom.
Courage and wisdom are two of the fundamental success factors in work and life. When we have them, we only need to pray for good-luck, the third universal success factor.

The fear of the indecisive is to get stuck, to lose options, to lose freedom. Or to lose ease and familiarity.
As Machiavelli already quoted: The Lady Fortune favors the bold.

If you read texts like this you are rather a thinker than a doer. You probably will rather decide too slow than too quick - though even usually hesitant people may sometimes blindly rush in where angels fear to tread.
So work on your wisdom and especially on your courage. Learn from your mistakes. By the way, were they really mistakes? And, more important, were they really yours?
And pray to the goddess. Preferably Athena. (Again: a choice!)

In constellation work we often find that an apology, at least a recognition is needed to the person not chosen, to ‘the road not taken.’ The more we respectfully decline and say goodbye to the roads not taken, the more we bless the road taken.

A thoughtful decison-maker is a killer, though an attentive, affable one.

LIVING WITH THE SELF

We have a self. We not only have feelings and thoughts and impressions of others - also about ourselves. How do we live with ourselves?
I found twelve ways. Most of them come in opposite flavors. And there may be more.
Check with yourself. I am not sure if they should be considered in any particular order. Anyway, here they come.

Feeding ourselves. This can be literally or metaphorical. During meetings we may be on the lookout for appreciating glances or remarks. We may be hungry for compliments, at least for acknowledgement.
The negative of this is starving ourselves. We do that when we feel that we don’t deserve positive feedback. Or when we feel it is safer to be unnoticed, invisible. Or we do that to discipline ourselves. It may make us feel special, not like most people, not like common people. Or we punish our body. It is disgusting to exist, to have a body.

When this is about attention from others, it is about presenting ourselves or hiding ourselves. The most common reason to hide is shame. ‘Sorry for existing, sorry for taking up space.’

Wishing ourselves well, hoping and dreaming. We are not only what we are, we are also what we want, desire, need, hope for. Or the reverse: what we fear, what we want to avoid, what we worry about. We are also what we expect: good or bad.

Defending ourselves. Against silent and outspoken criticism, against our inner critic. Sometimes plural: inner critics. We may even rehearse our defense in our mind before we actually may need to do so. We may defend ourselves before we are attacked. We may even defend ourselves against possible compliments by excusing ourselves before others had the opportunity to react. We may defend ourselves aggressively, attacking those who possibly might criticize us. All this may cost much energy, so we are already tired before we really might need to defend ourselves.

Pitying ourselves. Ever heard of self-pity? For the professionals reading this: the auto-psychodrama. We suffer from this especially when we are well-intended but misunderstood: an awful, but common combination. And when we act this out to receive our well-deserved pity from others, we are going to be disappointed. More reason for self-pity. There are many disappointments in life, so many reasons for self-pity. Don’t leave the train at this station! This is not the end of the line!

Doubting ourselves.  We never can be really sure of anything. Also not of ourselves. What to think about what we did? What we said? How we reacted? What we hoped for? What we were afraid of? What we decided? What we chose? "Maybe I am doubting myself too much. Maybe I should be more self-assured, like Jack, or like Minnie."

Being indifferent to ourselves. Usually while we are indifferent to about everything and everyone else. Why bother? It’s all meaningless anyway. Who cares? Life is boring.

Destroying ourselves. This is worse, much worse. It is the ultimate remedy against frustration without end. The ultimate remedy also against self-doubt, self-blame, and guilt. It is the road to suicide, sometimes the gradual one: terminal addiction.

Developing ourselves. We can also invest in ourselves. Learn things, discover things. Exercise. Grow stronger, more knowledgeable, more able. We even might grow wings.

Enjoying ourselves. Usually that is what simply happens. We may seek it and we may succeed in that. But it is often somewhat slippery. It may take quite some time before we learn what really is satisfying and making us happy.

Examining ourselves. Looking in the mirror, listening to our own voice. Weird and difficult. Almost impossible without judging. And how to judge? Difficult to do without praise or criticism. Others can help, sometimes considerably. Others can also greatly hinder our self-appraisal. How are you appraising yourself? What for, actually?

Forgetting ourselves. This is a paradoxical one. When we forget ourselves we also forget that we are forgetting ourselves. It may mean that we are in flow: forgetting the time, forgetting ourselves, absorbed in what we do in what we experience. It may also mean that we mentally died. Rebirth? How? Why?

Naked self-awareness. Also a paradoxical one. May be an incredible fullness. Or may be an incredible emptiness. Essentially, first an incredible emptiness and, if you mentally survive that, an incredible fullness. Don’t expect this. Don’t prepare for this.

SOME FALSE BELIEFS - OR MENTAL DISEASES

This title is a bit misleading. It should be called: Beliefs that I consider to be dead wrong. And that I have heard being said by - let’s call them: alternative - people

Nothing is real.
This is a favorite with people who want to seem deep to themselves and to others. Look how courageous and open-minded I am! Are you courageous and open-minded enough to follow me into this wild and open country?
If nothing is real, the person who is saying this is also not real, so who cares?
The right take is that whatever we experience, is less than what is out there. Or, when we are introspective, whatever we experience about ourselves, is less than what is in there. Our perceptions and our thoughts are limited - and they may be twisted. As there is something like fantasy. There is often unreality in our assumptions, our expectations and even in our perceptions.
Real is what makes a difference. A nice saying, rather practical, but too glib. Canopus is a real star, but does it make any difference? Not to the stock market, not to my love life. Difference to whom? In what?
Anyway, you don’t want that a brain surgeon, operating on you, believes that nothing is real. Cutting at the wrong place may make a difference. Unless life and death aren’t real either. And what about pain? Some maintain that it is also an illusion.

Nothing really matters.
What matters or not depends on whom we are talking about. And matter or not matter for what? The weather in Siberia doesn’t matter. Not to me, as I am not there and I have no family or friends there, no business interests, no plans.
X is important to A in regard to Y. If you don’t specify who and what, the question of what matters is gloriously empty. Importance or lack of importance doesn’t exist. It doesn’t grow on trees. Something may or nor be important for someone, in some respect. For survival, for example. Or health. Or success. Or happiness. Everything is important. Also an empty slogan by empty minds.

Definite causes have definite effects.
A causes B. So if we encounter B, there must have been A. Speeding leads to more road accidents. Pretty true. But there are many factors involved here. The state of the roads, the state of the speeding vehicle, the mental and physical state of the driver, the weather, the time of day or night. The presence or absence of other traffic, of people, of animals even. According to some, the positions of the planets - and the natal horoscope of the driver.
A causes B, all other conditions identical. But conditions are never identical. A causes B may be a correct and useful statement, as long as we don’t forget that is dependent on conditions. And as our knowledge is limited, we are never 100% sure. To be 100% sure in general is a mental aberration.
Sometimes we may get close. Which is good enough. But never forget: there are conditions.

Scientific facts are more important than direct experience.
Especially in the social sciences this is a widespread idea. People are amateurs when it comes to evaluate human situations and human behavior. That is true. Unfortunately, what social scientists call facts are the conclusions of research that is always partial and always on limited samples that are never completely representative. Facts that are established by research should be taken seriously, but not as gospel.

Direct experience is more important than scientific facts.
Alas, the opposite is also flimsy. Our personal experiences are valuable, our personal conclusions may be right, but not necessarily. Chances for misreading the so-called facts of experience are legio. The more experience we have, the larger the chance that we read right. But experienced people may make grave mistakes also. Clear-mindedness and especially open-mindedness are essential to increase the chance that our perceptions and evaluations are right - and useful. Only people low on uncertainty avoidance can stay open-minded.

There are parallel worlds.
There aren’t, at least no worlds that don’t interact. The assumption seems that our mind can somehow enter parallel worlds. That may be true, but that implies an interaction. If there is a truly parallel world, its existence is meaningless for this universe. There is no way to know and there is no possible interest in this empty assumption.

Time doesn’t exist.
Or, only slightly less idiotic, time is circular. Well it isn’t. There is always before and after. And there is the idea that time is relative. Okay, relative to what? Time measurement of course is relative to place and speed (speed itself is relative to places). ‘Time is the fourth dimension.’ Well it isn’t, it is no dimension at all. It is a vector.  In a dimension you can return to a place of departure, in time you can’t.
And there is of course the notion popular in stories, especially in movies, of time travel. The only time travel that exists is the kind all of us do, every moment of our life. We can’t travel to the past, we can’t travel to the future. Also not in the future. We can remember, we can visit recordings of the past. And we may visit plans and projections, scenarios, expectations. Mentally, we may both dwell in the past and in the future.
There may be some precognition. We can see the tree in the sapling. But not all saplings grow into trees. Leave time travel to SF and Ground Hog Day.  Let’s not spend more time on this.

AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL TOUR GUIDE TO OUR PLANET

What would an extraterrestrial travel guide say about our planet?

Of course, the lists below are riddled by assumptions about what extraterrestrials visitors would be like. My main assumptions are that they are more or less human and that they have lived for many thousands of years in peace. I also assume that beings who can travel through space are technologically advanced and have known age-long stability and are rather mental and calm than emotional and impulsive.

I am submitting a list of five main attractions, five experiences to avoid and five reasons for a a negative travel advice to visit this planet at all. All for the benefit of extraterrestrial visitors. Let us start with the last list.

THE FIVE MAIN REASONS FOR A NEGATIVE TRAVEL ADVICE TO PLANET EARTH

1. A nuclear world war
2. A pandemic
3. Worldwide famine
4. Mass killings; extermination and concentration camps
5. Worldwide exploitation and slaughter of animals

Only Number 5 is actual right now. For visitors it is probably not frightening (unless they seem like animals to us), but disgusting, horrifying. It could be the main reason not to visit us. Don't go there!

THE FIVE MAIN CONDITIONS OR DESTINATIONS TO AVOID WHEN VISITING EARTH

1. International wars
2. Civil wars and religious wars; widespread violence; torture chambers
3. Corrupt regimes (risky for tourists!)
4. Sexual exploitation of children
5. Sexual exploitation of adults

These first three are about risks, the last two mainly about disgust.


THE TOP FIVE ATTRACTIONS

1. Nature, esp. oceans and waterfalls; variety of climate, flora and fauna
2. Variety in peoples and cultures
3. Performance artists: dancers, acrobats, etc.
4. Musicians
5. Romance (??)

My guess is that this planet is more varied and richer than most. And wetter. And that vitality plays a much stronger role than in societies technologically so advanced that physical and emotional challenges probably are minimal. Our more vital bodies may have a particular attractiveness. (Or maybe considered gross.)And differences between male and female may be here more outspoken.

You might have alternative lists. Please share!

Good Government: A Perennial Need

A well-governed state is a country in which people are safe, prosperous and free. A country where people want to live.
An ill-governed state is a country where most people are poor, a country where many are at risk, a country in which people are stuck. It usually is an authoritarian state, where critical people refrain from expressing their opinions.
A failed state is a country where the economy is in shambles, a country without an effective government, a country in which people are subject to arbitrary authority and unforeseeable violence, a country where people flee from. There is lack of government, or rather many local and competing governments. Often a repressive or incompetent government has been overthrown by popular revolt.
Imprudent government and incompetent government in the end lead to rebellion and civil war. The worst evil is an endless civil war with no clear winner in sight. An evil that may be further compounded by racial or religious conflicts. Think of states like Somalia, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Think also of Venezuela, a state if not failed, at least imploding, decaying.

So our fundamental political challenges are:
Maintain well-governed states in shape. That effort never stops and is less certain than it has long been the fashion to believe. Plurality easily leads to majority and majority may lead to repression.
Introduce plurality in monopolistic states: difficult and risky.
Restore failed states: almost impossible. It requires competent benevolent dictatorship. That is rare. And it ultimately digs its own grave as it dulls civic society. The only alternative is the suspension of national sovereignty. Since the disrepute of protectorates under the League of Nations that hasn't been tried anymore.

Whatever the kind of government, leaders matter. Leaders of states are not just figureheads, even in democracies. After assassinations, important domestic and foreign policy changes do happen. Who is leading makes a difference.

One of the most successful states ever was Rome. It was successful for many centuries. Even its downfall took centuries. How came? What where the secrets of its success? In modern parlance: what were its critical success factors? We have an extensive analysis of those in The Discourses of Machiavelli, an analysis still relevant today.

Machiavelli writes that the two fundamental success factors in life, certainly in public life, are virtu and fortuna, quality and good-luck.
He sees as the critical competences for a well-ordered, a 'virtuous' republic, in order of importance, prudence, discipline and justice.

Prudence, or sound judgment and practical wisdom, is the ultimate quality. The main source of prudence is education. People who are well-educated (not the same as having been to school) appreciate prudent leaders.
Discipline is practical morality, embodied in law enforcement. The main source of discipline is, according to Machiavelli, religion, a religious mindset. Discipline is needed to make the necessary tough decisions in the face of crime, corruption, unrest, famine or war. Discipline is needed when sacrifices must be made.
The main aspect of what Machiavelli considers justice is a culture of equality before the law—Roman citizenship.
Every society has many differences in interests and in views. The most fundamental difference is between the few—rich and influential— and the many—poor and menial. In Rome, those were called the patricians and the plebeians. Today we may talk about the elite and the ordinary people. Aristocracy gives power to the first group, democracy to the second. In Rome, the patricians made for a long time sure that no one among them could grasp permanent power. Halfway, they allowed the rest of the people to have its own representation and power base. Of course, slaves were excluded, though some became citizens.

The opposite of 'virtue' is vice. What does Machiavelli see as the cardinal political sin? Corruption. Imprudence, indulgence and injustice are the three chief vices that corrupt a republic. Wide-spread greed ticks all three boxes.
The main breeding ground of injustice is inequality. Think of the many forms of discrimination, stereotyping, elitism. Without a common identity, differences easily become divisive. Pluralism is the hallmark of a well-ordered society. We may be all different, but we share being human. We are all people. The deepest political sin is to label and treat others as not fully human: as Jews, as blacks, as women, as backward, as scum, as alien. Or as profiteers on one side and loafers at the other side.

A well-ordered republic accepts, but manages its differences in interests and views. It institutes countervailing powers.
Even majorities need a countervailing power. "The winner takes all", especially with short-term views, is an unwise solution. Majorities should never suppress minorities. Successful democracies are inclusive, not exclusive, plural not singular. Inclusive societies are more stable—and more prosperous.
Authoritarian majority rule is as vulnerable as minority rule. It grows into dictatorship and suppression and so in injustice.
Rome handled the main conflict, between the rich and the poor, the patriciate and the plebs, explicitly in the tension between the senate with its consuls, and the tribunes of the plebs. Democracy was neither unleashed nor suppressed. The rich and powerful had to be as much disciplined as the poor and powerless. They had to obey the laws as well. Machiavelli gives strong historical examples of Roman discipline.
The separation of powers by Montesquieu: legislation, administration and judiciary, is another classical example of countervailing powers. Independent judges are the last defense in a democracy in which the differences between legislation and the administration have become blurred—or where the differences between public service and private companies have become blurred.
Countervailing powers prune all-too powerful players, either business monopolies or political monopolies. Paul Collier: "At the core of all successful societies are procedures for blocking the advancement of bad men." And in our enlightened age, bad women as well.
Wherever plurality is curtailed, society is stifling itself. Without countervailing powers, corruption spreads. Corruption is always and everywhere the mortal enemy of good government.

We need political competence: prudence, discipline and justice. If we have prudence and justice, we need law enforcement against corruption. But without prudence and without justice, law enforcement itself becomes the strong arm of corruption.
Good government doesn't bring heaven on earth, but is forever taking steps in the right direction. Lately, examples of the opposite direction abound.

Turning the tables: How revolutions do choke on themselves

What do the anti-smoke lobby, women’s lib, socialism and black emancipation have in common? That enlightenment largely is the new darkness.
They are all movements to righten glaring injustice by continuing the problem they want to solve. Turning the tables is just turning the tables. George Orwell ends Animal Farm with: The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

What is the case for female emancipation? Thousands of years of oppression. What better case is there? What stronger case is there? Still, emancipation is largely more of the same, just turned inside out.
Oppression of women is based on the idea that women are a different kind, that to know that someone is a woman is telling a thing or two. Even when there are true statistical difference, you can’t judge individuals on that. ‘Women are more emotional than men.’  Let’s assume that we know what we mean by that and that the difference is statistically significant, still there will be millions and millions of women being more businesslike than millions and millions of men. If being or not being emotional would be a meaningful difference, let’s say for a particular job, the fact that a particular candidate is male or female is highly irrelevant. Or should be. Unless we pick blindly - what only people do who are grossly incompetent and grossly indifferent.

The essence of discrimination is lack of discrimination, is to think in abstract generalities instead of concrete individuals. Likewise, many women really think that men are a different kind of people.
Does having different physical equipment mean different qualities and different preferences? Again: statistically yes - at least in many respects and not at all in many more. But individually not at all.
If being a muslim gives ten times more probability to be a suicide bomber (I am making this up), still 99,999% percent of Muslims aren’t. The evil is in generalizing in judging individuals.
The way many women talk about men is just turning the tables, historically understandable, to say the very least, but simply continuing thinking in stereotypes. Also, many black people think about white people as if they were a different kind.
There may be real differences in skin color, in gender, in money, in religion, in culture, in sexual preference, in age. But seeing individual people in such categories is not very helpful.
Black people who see white people as racist are racist. Women who see men as bigoted are bigoted. Non-smokers who see smokers as dumb and evil are dumb and evil. Poor people who see rich people as bastards, are bastards.
When revolutionaries win, they usually treat others like they have been treated. When tyranny is toppled, injustice trades places. Whoever runs Russia becomes a czar, whoever ends on top in Egypt becomes a pharaoh.

And now we have modern, enlightened people who embrace diversity and celebrate gays, bisexuals and transgenders, celebrate everyone who used to be considered outlandish, exotic, handicapped or weird. They are inclusive of outsiders and they celebrate their own broad-mindedness and open-mindedness.
The only people they reject and even despise are the narrow-minded, the petty-minded, the bigoted, the nationalists, the populists, the racists, the backward. The people that voted for Trump. The despicables.
 White is the new black. The tables have been turned. And sometimes the compliment is returned again: the backlash.
Progressives despise conservatives; conservatives despise progressives.

Any social or political movement that downgrades the unwanted, the despicables, that has contempt in its diet, is a social ill. Contempt is the great poison, humiliation is the great evil.
So, if we would eradicate these tendencies in ourselves, we would solve the problem. Without these unwanted, primitive judgments we would be clear-headed, objective, neutral. Yes, but probably also tasteless, robot-like, autistic.
So, if there is a solution, there is only a partial one.

In individual cases, we should be aware of our tendency to generalize and look through our own filters. When I was 19, I boarded a bus in Amsterdam-West with six or seven black man in it and felt somewhat threatened. I was shocked by my own discrimination. Why was this? Was I a bigot myself?
Coming back to it several times in the next month, I suddenly found the explanation: I couldn’t read their faces, they looked all the same to me. But once you are in Surinam, where black people are in the majority, this apparent sameness dissolves in a few days and you see and sense the individual differences like at home.
When I first landed in Tokyo, I saw a mass of Japanese that all looked the same - though I noticed the difference between young and old and between male and female. After a week or so, I saw them like I see Dutch people: in their individual differences. Some businesslike, some artistic; some expressive, some reserved.
My guess is that when you would be among a tribe or among a rather isolated rural area anywhere in the world, it may take you a few days or a few weeks extra to sense the individual differences.

Prejudice is natural. When we hear that some stranger at a party has been just released from years in prison or in a mental institution, that strongly influences the way we see that person. That is unavoidable. Bur we should see our first impressions as a starting point, not an end point.
We look differently to obviously very poor people and to obviously very rich people. Especially when our own financial position is not too bad, but vulnerable.
We look differently to very famous people. And fame rubs off—a little. “Yesterday I bumped into Brad Pitt! And he smiled at me!”
We walk with prejudice and we meet prejudice. Some of us meet a lot of it.
There is painfully little we can do about that. But we can do something about our own prejudice: consider our first impressions simply as our first impressions.

If we would like to improve society, naturally we dislike those who are opposed to these improvements. We want to overcome their objections, their resistance. We see our opponents as backwards—or as arrogant. We want change, if necessary: revolution. But revolutions most of the time end in chaos—or in more of the same: upturned tables that are indistinguishable from the old ones. Sometimes marginally better, sometimes clearly worse.
What remains is to study and understand how really successful improvements have come about, how some new countries really have taken off, how some revolutions really have been beneficial. There is reason for optimism, but at least as much reason for pessimism.
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Beware of pigheaded do-gooders. Don’t be one yourself.

(Disclaimer: This writer declares that he has nothing against doing good—and nothing against pigs. He even doesn’t eat them.)

The need for an enlightened populism

Where democracy ends, fascism begins. So we should stop forerunners in their tracks. Populism is the main forerunner.
There are always different interests and different views that need to be balanced. What makes democracy work is not the rule of the majority, but the the recognition and acceptance of plurality. Even economically, inclusive societies do better than exclusive ones. In a democracy it is never the winner takes all. 

Many people have been getting a more open-minded view of cultural and national and religious differences. We consider that modern, liberal, enlightened. We may even glorify differences and we overly respect those groups that have been treated or are treated disrespectfully. That makes us feel we belong to the right kind of people.

But other people, tired of economic, political and religious tensions between different groups in a country long for a less diverse society. One dominant religion, one dominant culture, one dominant tribe. They may remember fondly the past. But the past has never been that nice. The French revolutionaries around 1790, who almost invented nationalism, were shocked to discover that more than 80% of the French didn't consider themselves French and even didn't speak French, at least not what the people in Paris considered to be French. Today, the Parisian people consider the small-town and the rural French as the true French, la France profonde, not yet urban and international. Assumptions, the world is full 0f them. And the more brittle our assumptions, the more we seem to believe in them.

Obsession with the past is a recipe for stagnation and exasperation. Any type of obsession: both glorifying the past and blaming the past. If it wasn't for colonialism and slavery, black people would still live in peace in Africa, without artificial, 'unnatural' borders. But only the most uncrossable borders are natural. Borders are never simple and always are shifting and permeable. That is what border areas should be.

The injustices of the past father the slippery monster of grievances. Rightful grievances should be met. But here is a snag. Two snags actually. Unfortunately, both are huge.
One snag is that grievances often are fostered. They feed indignation and so identity. Such grievances can never be met. It's never enough. People may have become addicted to the poison of grievance. Grievances start with facts, but they may grow into mental infections. We can bend over backwards and the grievances still may stay. How many excuses and compensations were needed to resolve old wrongs, like true Germans having to live outside Germany?
The other snag is even more pernicious. Modern, liberal people who are inclusive, open-minded, internationalist, look with disdain to more traditional, exclusive and nationalist people, consider them backward bigots—and so exclude them. Inclusive people exclude exclusive people.
That's the rub. A progressive, developing, modernizing democracy creates its own nemesis.

We should accept and embrace differences; we should especially accept and embrace everyone who historically was excluded. And so we exclude the ones that are not modern, not international, not inclusive. They are the losers, the 'deplorables.'  They hopefully will dissolve and die out while enlightenment advances.
So they despise, even hate, the people of goodwill, the know-it-alls, the yups, the expats, the graduated, the well-to-do, the well-employed, the modern: the … (expletives deleted) elite.

This frustration becomes pot-boiling when from the outside a new proletariat comes in: hard-working people willing to do odd-jobs, work for a pittance—and usually bringing a few new loafers alongside. Insiders who are stagnant look badly at outsiders who are on the way up.

And then come people who offer a way out. Populist politicians sell a double hamburger of a lie. They promise back to the good old days. Well, they weren't that good at all— and you can't go back to them.
As Carl Rogers once remarked, nobody is shouting out load to large crowds that the sun will rise again tomorrow. The more unfounded the message, the more the volume is turned up. Who needs arguments?

Populism is the bastard child of progress and progressivism: an unrecognized offspring. But one: this bastard has a power, no matter how backward or even ugly you may think it is: numbers. And two: people susceptible to populism are real people with real lives under real conditions. Whatever we may think of their thoughts, they have them for a reason. For a couple of reasons, usually.

Reactionary nationalism is dangerous, but people are nationalist for a reason. Understanding the reasons, even acknowledging those reasons is necessary. There is no other way to get your reasons for modernity and internationalism acknowledged with them. Why would people listen to people who don't listen to them?

Populist voters  deserve better leaders than the ones they have got. Or not? Anyway, we all would be better off by better populist leaders. Less unreliable, less egocentric, less crazy.
Where can we find a better alternative? Social-democrats would be the best bet, at least in Europe, but they seem to have forgotten their raison d'être. To take care of common people with simple interests and simple outlooks is not very sexy for politicians. And they have been bowing to the prevailing winds of neo-liberalists and neoconservatives who sincerely think they own the place. Well, they don't. At least not anywhere near to the extent they are assuming that.

To cater to common people may seem not to be very sexy for politicians, but in the face of the inexorable dwindling of simple work, it is one of the deepest human and political challenges for the century that just began. The new proletariat is not necessarily poor and ill and dirty; it often has plenty of leisure and usually some money to spend on that. The options for wasting your life have grown considerably. Drugs have been diversifying from alcohol. The US is going the way of Russia: life expectancy is decreasing. Twenty years ago that would have been unthinkable.

Don't leave an enormous segment of the population to the Pied Pipers of populism. From populism may come fascism. From fascism dictatorship. From dictatorship the degrading and fragmentation of society or the horrors of war and civil war.
After coming thus far we shouldn't stop progress. We have to eye populists coolly and their constituencies warmly, at least with understanding. We have to understand their views.  We have to recognize their interests. And we have to communicate that understanding and that recognition in the most practical and down-to-earth way possible. If they don't listen to us, we should start listening to them.

The tragedy of populism

To understand the present rise of populism in Western democratic societies we need to understand five global trends, that have been slowly building up over two centuries and are accelerating:

1. The ever expanding role of technology diminishes the need for simple work.
2. More and more people concentrate in ever larger cities.
3. The international mobility of people is still increasing.
4. The international mobility of business and money is still increasing.
5. Developing countries are finally catching up, including the giants China and India.

Urbanization and  internationalization create a network of megacities with growing interaction between them, while the integration with the rest of the countries they are in lags behind. Metropolises like London, Frankfurt, New York, Shanghai and Tokyo are increasingly part of one international network.

Less visible, but more fundamental: ever more people are unemployed. In the US only a quarter of all non-working adults are in the unemployment statistics. The others don’t try anymore. The dropouts from the workforce are an ever growing poor leisure class. With growing passivity goes growing drug abuse, including pain killers and antidepressants. Read for example 'Our miserable 21st century' by Nicholas N. Eberstadt in Commentary, Feb. 15, 2017 explaining why Trump shouldn't have been a surprise.

These work force dropouts are no longer necessary. Above they are supplanted by technology, sideways their work is supplanted by laborers in the developing countries, and at the bottom of the labor market they are supplanted by immigrants, either legal or illegal who are willing to do the work they feel is below them. The only economic function of the work force dropouts is consuming. There will be always simple and honorable jobs, but not in sufficient numbers.

UK farmers are worrying: who has to help with the harvest if Brexit becomes a reality? In Finland, the annual harvest of swamp berries is done by Vietnamese flown in. Till the Vietnamese can earn the same money in their own country. In the Netherlands the unemployed refuse to do menial jobs in horticulture, they stopped doing the heaviest work in factories already forty years ago. The difference between them and foreign people who are willing is simple: what for many immigrants is up, for them is down. And down is unpalatable when the general development is still up.

Those left behind in the this international and technological dynamic are not conservative, they are reactionary: progress is threatening, they want the conditions of yesterday to be restored.
They are the ones who elect the populists: unreliable and sometimes unsavory characters that can’t solve their problems. They will rather worsen them. The disappointed people will be in for more disappointment.
They will not see the dynamics in society, they will see conspiracies by the rich and the smart.  By the elite, a concept once more en vogue. (Excuse the elitist expression.)
Like with most problems, there is no solution without starting to acknowledge the problems and their underlying dynamics. Who should acknowledge and understand the problems? Primarily the well-employed and well-earning. Out of compassion; out of enlightened self-interest.

One of the few ideas around that will,  if not solve, at least lessen the problem is a simple basic income for everybody, no strings attached. The hard working will cry wolf, but populism and fascism are an immensely worse perspective. But what will that do to immigration?
The outflow of failed states is threatening the whole international system. This is already putting pressure on national sovereignty. That pressure will only increase. We are in for more multinational institutions, not less. But that is anathema to the populists. Catch 22?

THE REMAINING RISK OF NUCLEAR WARFARE

Since the break-up of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, general anxiety about nuclear war has lessened, and rightly so. Though the risk of a nuclear wolrd war between yje Unites States and the Russian Federation is much less, other risks have grown.
Three 'nuclear wapen states' have not signed the non-proliferaion treaty and ome has not even acknowledged it has them. Those states are Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel. Two of those are uneasy neighbors with a history of conflict: India and Pakistan. North Korea considers South Korea and the USA its enemies.

According to Brecher & Wilkenfeld the moment that had the largest probability of unleashing a nuclear world war was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. They estimated that probability as around 25%. They saw the primary conflict at the end of the 80s as the Israel-Arab tensions. By the way, SIPRI estimates that today Israel has around 80 nuclear weapons. In the whole world we are over 10,000.

Reading a couple of recent analyses, it seems to me that the three major dangers are:
Use of nuclear weapons by North-Korea against South Korea and the USA.
A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan
A nuclear exchange between the USA and the Russian Federation.

The first seems the least unlikely, but will be by far the smallest. The second will be larger, but even less likely and the third is very unlikely, but may be incomparably larger.

And what about terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon? It will be horrible, but most  milited and unlikely to set off a nuclear war, though it seems nort impossible in the second scenario. And if Islamists would set off a nuclear bomb in or near Israel, that would certainly set off a chain reaction. (Excuse the wording.)

What is probably the most unmanageable factor in creating havoc? Psychopaths, like the pilot flying the passenger plane into a mountain. But nowhere can a bomb be launched by a single individual. Smuggling a device into a city requires fewer people, but seems still a far cry from a lone wolf set-up.

The general consensus among the specialists is that the chance on a nuclear war today is definitively larger than during the Cold War, though most probably not as world-wide as it was envisaged then.

But one large bomb on Israel will destroy so much, that no restraint can be expected in the response. Or one nuclear missile on Seoul or a large Indian city will not go unanswered, if only because you don't know if more are coming.

The UK, France and China have also nuclear weapons, but the chances of them unleashing a nuclear war seem slim.

How to manage this risk? The challenge boils down to: how to avoid the first nuclear explosion?
Read my chapter 10 in 'People Make the World' for a more general analysis.

Referendums, populism and deliberative polling

Democracy is good. Churchill in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947: It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government — except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
And before that on 8 December 1944:  The ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament— he is the foundation of democracy. This man or woman should do this without fear and without any intimidation or victimization.

Democracy is good. The ultimate in democracy are referendums. So referendums are the ultimate good.
Are they?
In theory yes, in practice no. Everything under the sun has its conditions. Conditions to exist, and conditions to exist well. If I look at the Brexit-referendum and before that the Ukraine-referendum in the Netherlands, I see a fundamental weakness and a fundamental error.

The fundamental weakness was the lack of a sturdy, disciplined public debate. When that is not in parliament, where is it? In the newspapers, on radio and television, on the internet. The problem is that very few media are geared to non-partisan debate. Most media are either partisan or commercial and so geared to sales and not to debate. And how to make a debate so lively and so interesting that it is followed and echoed in homes and public places?

Somehow, politicians consider referendums not sexy, like elections or parliamentary debate. Also interesting how abstract and far were the arguments for against how lively and near were the arguments against.

The only solution I know that directly addresses this problem is the 'deliberative polling' (google that!), in a sense the return of ancient Athenian democracy. Representatives are drawn by lot, like in a jury. They get full access to interest groups and to expert opinion. And the deliberations are public. Anyway, talk shows are not enough, especially when politicians are lukewarm for a fight outside parliament.

The fundamental error is to submit foreign policy issues to a referendum. Imagine asking the workers in a factory to vote on sales strategy. They should vote on production matters, if anything. In referendums, people shouldn't vote on foreign issues but on domestic issues.
No one in his right mind would ever suggest to have the Home Office absorb the Foreign Office. Though once I heard a human resources manger advocate that sales should be under human resources, because both were about people.
Don't treat external matters as internal matters.

Referendums try to involve citizens in politics, as citizens have distanced themselves form politics in recent years - or rather: recent decades. Confidence in politics, politicians and political parties has diminished. But going to the ballot box on referendum day is attracting smaller crowds, not larger crowds. We can't blame people for that. We let them vote on complex issues, without committed champions with a compelling story on both sides of the issues.

When we want more direct democracy, we need not less, but better populism, as the Belgian David Van Reybrouck argues convincingly in, among others, Tegen Verkiezingen (against elections). It starts with preparing referendums better: stronger debate, about domestic issues.

Referendums are no escape for lazy politicians. They heat up politics. They should.

Prudence

Machiavelli, wondering about the difference between successful and failing republics, tried to find out what were the key success factors. He found two: Virtú and Fortuna, virtue and fortune. Virtue we might call today merits and fortune we would call luck or good-luck.
Whatever our qualities, our merits, our competence, we also need good-luck to be successful. At the very least we need not to have bad-luck. Some people maintain that good-luck can be fostered, even managed. I agree, up to a point. Robert Heinlein said: One man’s magic is another man’s engineering. So what others call luck, may be the result of effort.
We never have everything in hand, though our mental attitude and mental capacity may diminish the influence of randomness and improve our chances to get lucky. All this means that the more qualities we have, the less the role of luck. What qualities do we need?

In his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, Machiavelli analyses virtue. The main ingredient is prudence, also called practical wisdom, the power of common sense, practical and sound judgment.The second is discipline and the third is justice. Prudence, discipline and justice explain the phenomenal rise of Rome during several centuries. And growing imprudence, indulgence and injustice have brought its slow downfall. Interestingly, Machiavelli considers religion to be the most important determinant of discipline.

Discipline is out of fashion, self-indulgence is the fashion and so indignation with the indulgence of others: undisciplined indignation. Justice is still a powerful concept, though difficult to implement when discipline is weak and self-discipline seems almost a lost art. My guess is that indulgence is directly proportional to drug and alcohol consumption. This is not to mean that discipline and self-discipline can be increased by forcing down drugs and alcohol consumption. It is rather the other way round: more discipline and self-discipline will lead to less consumption.

But what about that key concept of Machiavelli - and for that matter Aristotle: prudence? According to the thesaurus, prudence is a quality that allows people to choose the sensible course. Prudent belongs to the same family as careful, meticulous, scrupulous, circumspect, cautious, discreet, and wary. Prudent implies the exercise of both caution and circumspection, suggesting careful management in economic and practical matters. We may subsume economic matters under practical matters. Therefore, prudence is also called practical wisdom.

Chaim Herzog, one of the pioneers of Israel, wrote about the wisdom of his father, the chief rabbi of Israel. Everybody sought him for his advice. Elsewhere he tells that his mother had to run the house and the family, because his father was no good in practical matters. What other matters are there?

A practical orientation does not conflict with an interest in the world of the mind. William James, who was more open-minded than any modern psychologist about religious, spiritual and parapsychological matters, was also the father of pragmatism. Nothing is as practical as a good theory, said Kurt Lewin, also one of my favorite authors. Which means, by the way, that impractical theories are bad theories.

Even in a supposedly practical field like management impracticality abounds. I remember reading the report of a well-known management consultancy firm. They found that the communication between the directors and between the directors and their underlings was unsatisfactory. So they proposed a 'communication development program,' that - surprise, surprise - they could offer. It seems practical, but it isn't. Communication is unsatisfactory for a reason. Or for many reasons. Maybe people were afraid of a coming merger; maybe people were afraid of each other; maybe the market or the technology had changed and they were lagging behind; maybe one of the directors was sleeping with the secretary of one of the other directors; maybe the directors were too old, too inexperienced, too stubborn or not smart enough. Maybe people belonged too different lodges or service clubs. Whatever the case, improving bad communication without finding out the reasons is as sensible as widening the doors of a shop that attracts not enough customers from the passers-by.

I think prudence always start with facing the facts, checking if these are the facts that need to be faced, if they are all the relevant facts. What are the practicalities? What is desirable, what is possible? What is the objective, what are the criteria, what are the options?

Can we teach prudence? Probably, but it won't be easy. Because imprudence is rooted in personal characteristics and limitations. People are surprisingly fact-resistant and not always solution-oriented. They even may prefer awful conditions they are used too; disasters that may strike others more than themselves; they may indulge in apocalyptic perspectives, they may be set on self-destruct.
The main condition is reality-orientation: seeing fantasies for what they are. A second condition is the ability to face uncertainty. A third condition is simply pride in good work, in right decisions, in solving problems - or better: avoid problems.

Politically, imprudence seems on the rise. It is often called populism. Poor people, they don't know what is in stock for them.

Self-defeating processes and sentimentality

About ten years ago I was in Porto, an old, historic city at the Douro, in the North of Portugal. It was evening and I was enjoying an excellent port at the riverside, with excellent bread and excellent cheese. Everything was calm and I enjoyed the evening.
A month ago I was back for a congress. Again I was at the riverside, now at lunchtime, before an open window on the first floor.
I hardly recognized the place. Between huge masts tourist passed in funiculars, about twice a minute. Each five or ten minutes a helicopter passed over the river, first East and a few minutes later West. This is going on from earling morning to evening. At the quay an endless stream of visitors strolled between restaurants offering Indian food, American food, Italian food. And yes, also Portuguese food. Street vendors everywhere and small shops selling the same souvenirs in gaudy colors.
Tourism had come to Porto.

So we take a plane to an other country to walk between other tourists in a place that has become a backdrop to tourists. At a beautiful coast so many hotels are built that the coast becomes a backdrop to high-rise hotels and the silence is ripped by motor yachts and other tourist pleasures.

in Porto, a local doctor told me that all European funds for regional development in Portugal were to stimulate tourism. Portugal has been earmarked a tourist destination for North-Europeans.
I had seen the results also almost ten years ago already at the Algarve, where the beach was parceled out to huge restaurants with large terraces, so you could enjoy the beach without touching the sand. Local people were waiters and waitresses and everybody spoke English and German.

Is that bad? There is certainly a good side to it. Porto is certainly more wealthy than ten years ago. Many Mercedeses, many good restaurants, more people living the good life, enjoying the new dynamism. Life has become so good than they can make tourist trips themselves.

Amsterdam is groaning under the ever-increasing loads of tourists. The almost proverbial Japanese tourists of thirty years ago are today swamped by the Chinese. And a reputation for freely available soft drugs has attracted hordes of youngsters. It is going the way of Venice where locals are leaving, children can play on the streets only after night fall and the Italian restaurants are run by Chinese owners. One Venetian lady told that a tourist asked her at what hour the city closed. Venice as Disneyland. Paris as Disneyland. Amsterdam as Disneyland. And now Porto as Disneyland.

I can’t see this is going to stop. Unless for awful reasons like a pandemic or slightly less awful: a serious and persistent global economic crisis.
In all of history, almost all people have subsisted,  pretty much tied to the place where they lived. No wonder that such an experience in the collective unconsciousness of mankind leads to over-eating and over-traveling today.
The only solution on the short term may be to make attractive destinations less attractive by making them more expensive: fewer cheap hotels, fewer cheap eateries. The owners of such establishments, and the owners of mass tourism services will cry wolf. And mass tourism will simply change its destinations. There are places enough in the world that will welcome them.

Today, plans are underway to deregulate the Dutch coast so that hotels and apartment flats can be built at nice spots - making them much less nice.

All these process have been described and analyzed at a global level. The article that started it all, The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin is already 50 years old. Limits to Growth has become a household word. Still, system dynamics is a largely underrated and underfunded discipline.

By the way, the food and the drink and the company in that restaurant in Porto last month were excellent. For the locals all the buzz was a sign of social and economic progress. But I miss that simple food and drink of a decade ago. Lost worlds live only on in sentiment.

DON’T SWITCH OFF THE LOUDSPEAKER IN YOUR HOTEL ROOM!

A tourist in Myanmar has been sentenced to three months hard labor because he had switched off the loudspeaker in his room which prevented him from sleeping. It was a Buddhist prayer and he was sentenced because he had offended the Buddhist religion. How stupid and how outrageous can institutions be? Avoid Myanmar.

Fanaticism to the point of idiocy seems to be on the rise everywhere in the world, including religions that seemed broad-minded before, like Hinduism and Buddhism.
A few years ago, in India a very scholarly book on Hinduism has been taken out of the bookshops because it offended Hinduism. The writer, by he way, was more critical of other scholars than of Hinduism. My guess is that she didn’t take some Hindu scholars too seriously.

About Islamic sensitivities nobody needs to be reminded. Remember the cartoon where freshly-dead jihadists ate informed that heaven has run out of virgins. Till a few years ago the going rate was 40 virgins, meanwhile it has gone up till 72 virgins. What is the rate for girls who blew themselves up?
Scholars have argued that the original text most probably read: ‘plenty of green grapes.’ A transcription error of just one dot the wrong place, intentionally or not, could have shifted the meaning. The text about grapes would also fit, because grapes are mentioned just before too, while the virgins (‘green’ girls) fall out of the blue. Sorry for mixing up my color metaphors.

David Greer, writing about the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution once called fanatics the disease germs in the body politic. Religious fanatics are often worse than political fanatics, because common sense is even more repugnant to them.

What could explain this rising fanaticism?

Increasing exposure everywhere to an international world of finance, economics and technology diminishes local identities and local culture and that international world is clearly “Western”. Television does that, the internet and social media even more. If that is true, we are witnessing a backlash of threatened local cultures that cling to religion as an antidote to what might be an inferiority complex.

At the same time there is a backlash against liberalism, democracy, rationality and the acceptance of pluralism, even in Western countries. Part of  this may be due to a cycle of about 55 years in which progressivism and conservatism, right-wing and left-wing ideas change places. But only a part, I guess.

Unbridled capitalism bred socialism in its different forms. Narrow-minded socialism bred a return to neoliberalism and neoconservatism that spawned a world-wide financial system that is leaving behind so many disaffected that we get Occupy movements and worldwide blackening of multinationals.

The heydays of neoliberalists (read: neocapitalists) are over, though they still may assume they have the run of things.

Alternating waves are healthy - if they grow less and less extreme. But they also may grow more and more extreme.

Meanwhile, be careful in you holiday planning. Especially if you look like a Westerner.

Core issue analysis

We have many things to do and to think of. So we invented to-do lists. Most lists are too long and have the habit of growing at least as quickly as we shorten them. So we invented something else: priorities. The scary thing about setting priorities is setting posteriorities: postponing or rather deleting things from our to-do list. When we don’t dare to let go of anything, we get a firm grasp on nothing. We have to choose, to commit ourselves to one line of action instead of another, to deal with one problem and leave another alone. We know in our private lives people who are afraid to commit (usually men who are not yet ready for … eh … commitment). They all have something they do not wish or dare to let go, like freedom (e.g. to  engage in noncommittal relationships and activities). Even if we have the courage to choose, we need the wisdom to choose well. And even good choices can turn out wrong. As Harry Truman said: “A schoolboy’s hindsight is better than a president’s foresight.” We need good-luck as well.

But how do we acquire the necessary wisdom? The biggest danger of many priority lists is that the most important items may have been forgotten or overlooked. We overestimate acute and urgent issues, and we underestimate gradual developments that may eventually be decisive.
Of course we want to find out which issues should get the highest priority.  Let’s take this one step further. What is the most critical issue in your life and work right now? Imagine to focus on one issue and one issue only, rather than diluting your attention over multiple issues, however important each may  be. The assumption that every organization, community, group, and perhaps every individual as well, faces at any time one single overriding challenge – the core issue - is attractive and probably also true.

Arnold Toynbee, the historian,  has developed this proposition about the evolution of civilizations, following the ideas of Henri Bergson. Toynbee says that civilizations advance when they respond successfully to their dominant current challenge. Then a new, more or less stable situation comes about that will gradually present a new challenge. Civilizations stagnate when they have spent so much energy on solving their challenge, the tour de force, that they lack the stamina to deal with or even recognize new challenges arriving at its doorstep. Civilizations collapse when they fail to respond effectively to their greatest challenges.

Core issue analysis is the methodical identification of the prime actual challenge facing an organization, community or individual. Core issue transformation means to tackle and solve this problem and so to advance fundamentally as a person, a group or an organization. When we solve our key problem, we transform ourselves. The opposite occurs as well. When we leave the essential problem unattended because it is too difficult or we refuse to acknowledge it, we fill our days with matters of secondary or even tertiary importance. When we don’t solve our key problem, our energy level goes down. Sooner or later this leads to demoralization and lethargy of the organization – for example to rampant sick-leave that has nothing to do with the objective work conditions and everything to do with a bad work climate and lack of spirit. Even though it is not written down or formally admitted, everyone knows or feels that they are just fumbling around what is really relevant. 
I suspect that each core issue involves a dilemma, a paradox that needs to be resolved. Whenever we pursue a simplistic, one-dimensional goal, we are either rambling on a path to nowhere or marching into a dead-end street. If we solely focus on one criterion, we lose sight of everything else. When analyzing management positions, I discovered that each time the primary responsibility of a position was to reconcile a conflicting set of demands and criteria. With the project leaders of an engineering firm, it was about resolving the tension between satisfying the customer and all what that meant, and controlling the costs and all what that entailed. Satisfying clients is easy at high cost.  Saving costs is even easier. It just leads to dissatisfied customers – and discontented personnel. In such a position, core issue analysis is about finding a way to make customers happier while reducing costs.
Hypes arise from one-sided, ‘self-evident’ truths. They are proclaimed by the-sun-is-always-shining philosophers and like-minded managers: quality awareness, customer orientation, motivation, cost-effectiveness, shareholder value.

• "It is about saving costs." 
• "Our people must become more flexible." 
• “Customer-friendliness, that’s what it all amounts to." 

All these goals are ‘motherhood statements’: nobody objects to hem. Such hypes are third-rate imitations of core issues. On a personal level such motherhood statements are: it’s all about love, understanding, awareness, peace, or what have you.

A core issue is probably always emotive. We tend to avoid it, we ridicule it, we passively worry about it, we are paralyzed by it, we suppress it. Many people have a gut feeling about what really matters. A gut feeling or an intuition often is an awareness displacement. Whatever is really important while we are not aware of it, seeps into our consciousness through feelings and hunches.  That is all right, yet hunches are hard to communicate and go awry when we become entangled in emotional or energetic problems.
If you want to find out the core issue, start with looking in the dark - if you can. To what is the least attention given? About what people avoid speaking? If an organization is continually busy with internal matters, chances are that the core issue is an external one.  If an organization solely occupies itself with the market and with clients, chances are that the core issue is an internal one. Where is your attention going? To your children, to money, to your next diploma, to your reputation, to your health? Chances are that’s not where your core issue is.
More roundabout ways to find the core issue are:

• Look for problems that are really persistent or recurrent.
• Look for flip-flops in your life, going from one extreme to another.
• Look for gradual developments that may be not too serious right now, but seem unstoppable.

A good issue-analysis leads to an ‘eureka!’, when the half felt, vaguely suspected becomes focused, transparent and analyzable. When we get to the root of the matter, rational thinking and intuition come together. When you find out what your core issue is, the world stops for a moment. It’s like being hit on the head.
When your survival is at stake, the strategic core issue is the decisive factor for your survival – or demise. In a crisis, core issues are often dual: one on the short term and one on the long term. When your survival is not immediately threatened, when you stay outside the danger zone, the core issues are invariably linked to our raison d’être, to our mission in life, to our ability to be successful in that and to the external changes that affect both.
Is a core issue found or chosen? To what extent is it objective? The more the core issue is a matter of survival, the more objective it is. The farther we are from the danger zone, the more our perception of what your life means and where it is heading to, will determine the core issue.  A core issue is essential as well as existential: what you are here for, what your mission is, where, how, for whom. Theoretically, the core issue is difficult to define, yet in practice, finding it, releases a particularly certainty. Finding the core-issue and dealing with it are not mere intellectual  processes. They electrify.
Find your real priority and dare to concentrate on the most essential point of it. Success in that is much more than solving a problem, defusing a threat or grasping an opportunity. Solving a core issue transforms people and situations.  You become more energetic, skilled, effective or efficient. Usually all of those. A popular idea is that personal transformation is the consequence of a shift in awareness. That is self-evident. However, not every increase in awareness will transform you. Transformation does not result from growing more conscious, perceptive in general, but rather from a growing awareness of your factual situation as you really stand in your actual environment. That includes real other people and their real motives.
The relief of ‘Eureka!’ doesn’t mean that everything is or will be easy. Crucial decisions have to surmount excruciating doubts. An action that intends to solve all your problems at the same time, meet all criteria, is a proposal by the incompetent to the weak.  Solutions with only advantages do exist – in never-never land. "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
Hitting the nail on the head: it separates the men from the boys, the women from the girls. The deepest analysis leads to the most powerful conclusion. The deepest decision has the widest consequences.  A pithy conclusion is no absolute, eternal truth, but the strongest answer to the most daunting challenge you can find right here and now. The core issue is in a classic sense the crux, the essence, the focus. In biblical terms: the narrow gate. Not the wide one that leads astray.

When we solve a problem we prepare the ground for the next problem. First you are poor. That create problems. Then you grow rich. That creates other problems. First you can’t give money to your children. Then you can. Different problems. First you are alone: problem. Then you are together: other problem. Every response to a challenge leads to a new challenge. To what does that ultimately lead: to the ultimate challenge: dying gloriously. The first personal challenge is to be born well. That is now water under the bridge.

By the way, when I introduced core issue analysis to a group of Dutch management consultants ten years ago we spent two evenings to find the political core issue of the Netherlands as a society. We found it: Immigrants and Immigration. Ten years later, it seems to have been a pretty powerful diagnosis.

Religion, politics and psychopaths-2

Psychopaths, people without empathy and without conscience, gravitate towards positions of power: the military, the police, top management, top finance, top legal people. If they are smart enough, they go for careers. Of course not all CEOs or military are psychopaths, only a few. But more than among gardeners or shopkeepers.
At the lower end we find them among petty bureaucrats, among soldiers, among criminals. How many soldiers in wars act like psychopaths? Estimates vary between 2% and 5%. But the longer a war lasts, the higher the percentage becomes.

OK. As I wrote in my previous blog, the only fundamental approach is to discourage the making of new psychopaths. But how?

Psychopath parents are the surest way to produce new psychopaths. The golden rule is to consistently humiliate children. Quite openly, by being harsh and cruel, treating them like little monsters that have to be broken. Or more insidiously, by mocking them as an inferior breed. Or mechanically, like dumb robots that still have to be programmed.
In the second half of the 19th century, belief in the “survival of the fittest” saw rapidly diminishing standards in taking care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Discipline and harshness in education became almost the norm. It may be that the horrors of totalitarian regimes have been unleashed because some critical mass in psychopaths in positions of power was reached. In cultures already tending to hardness, the psychopaths took over: Russia, Japan, Germany. Small differences can produce large consequences.
In the biographies of many leading Nazis, we find a harsh education, especially a cruel or harsh and indifferent father. The Nazis emptied the prisons to recruit the guards for the concentration camps. SS-officers were trained very harshly. The trainees got each a dog to train. For many months that was their only companion and many got a sentimental bond with their dog. At the graduation ceremony, they got their officer’s pistol and the first thing they had to do was to shoot their dog. “To become hard.”

How can we prevent psychopaths from taking over powerful institutions? Grossman, in his book On Killing, says that the only protection sheep can find against wolves is from what he calls ‘sheep dogs.’ Those who can be firm, even hard and violent, but still remain humane and conscientious.
The main development of civilization is in eliminating humiliation. The antidote to humiliation is not love, but respect. Against psychopaths we can’t come with love or flowers or peace. We need to establish clear boundaries and containment procedures.
Even in love and tenderness there may be easily belittling. Overprotection is also disrespectful. Eliminating humiliation in education, in work organization, in public offices, even in police and justice. Even in war. Wherever possible.
Can humiliation be avoided in boot camps? Maybe it can’t, but maybe it can. Anyway, it is not just a tool for discipline. It may foster indiscipline in the end.

Society is people living together. Culture is how people live together. Civilization is how humanely people live together. Our society is full of rituals, though our behavior is less prescribed than in more traditional societies. Humanization rituals make people more decent, taking one another more into consideration, into account.
An example remaining dehumanization are the rituals in what Ervin Goffman called total institutions: hospitals, asylums, prisons. Many rituals practiced in these institutions are defacement rituals that strip people of their personality. The strongest examples of such defacement rituals have been in concentration camps, where all personal distinctions were removed and people were treated as animals or things. Inmates were regarded as useless or reprehensible, as objects of contempt, derision or experiment. The essence of many camp rituals lay in declaring inmates to be non-people, non-humans, reducing them to naked, frightened, trembling rabbits. As Goffman showed, benevolent institutions such as hospitals and mental wards also employ defacement rituals.
By contrast, rituals that stress people’s humanity and personal dignity enhance self-respect and self-confidence. All rituals that stress acceptance and inclusion of the participants and recipients in society are humanization rituals. Rituals that treat people as nonhumans, barbarians, animals, robots or things, or just not there, are dehumanization rituals, apart from the intention or awareness of the people who engage in such rituals.
Boss-subordinate relationships in a factory are prone to dehumanization. Production schedules have to be met. Breakdowns occur, waste problems and quality problems arise, as does friction between groups and within groups. Competition, irritation, jealousy, distrust, and disappointment are present in the work environment. Rituals may reinforce such problems, contain them or counteract them. Work rituals define the culture of a company. Companies with the most positive corporate culture are often the most successful.
Dehumanization rituals are common between organizations and their clients  when organizations don’t depend directly on their clients for their survival, like most public agencies. The treatment given to clients at many counters is almost the prototypical defacement ritual. We all know how it feels to be treated as a number. And many of us know the bureaucratic crucifixion when someone happens to have a request or suffer circumstances that do not fit standard operating procedures and threatens the convenience of bureaucrats.
What is the easiest way to humiliate people? To make them wait. Many bureaucratic rituals are to keep people waiting. Clerks make civilians wait, bosses make subordinates wait and subordinates avenge themselves by making bosses wait. The anonymous sphinx of modern bureaucracies is indeed a dehumanizing machine.
It may console us to learn that firms that define their business as service are the most successful. Just as horses respond favorably to a treatment geared to horses, and car engines respond favorably to maintenance schemes that are geared to car engines, so also people respond favorably to treatment geared to people.
Morality is about treating people as human beings. Humanization rituals are the preventive maintenance of society.
Much of what goes under the name of alienation is a response to dehumanization. 

The first step toward a more civilized world is to fight dehumanizing rituals and foster humanizing rituals. Thanking someone for a service rendered is a humanizing ritual, as is the custom of replying promptly to requests. Barring someone from expressing an opinion in a meeting is dehumanizing, as is withholding of information about the purpose of our work.
The most sensitive areas in society as to human and inhuman rituals are total institutions; the least sensitive areas are market institutions where people can always go somewhere else. Employment functions more as a total institution when unemployment is high, more as a market institution when employment is high.
    The first defenses against the arrogance of powerful institutions are more freedom and more humane procedures: liberalization and humanization respectively. Under liberal conditions, humane policies pay off, when applied with some intelligence and some patience.

    Unrestrained psychopaths like to make people suffer, to destroy their homes, their families, their lives. Why are people cruel? Why do they abuse, rape and kill and maim others?       
Engaging in cruelty, torture and terror overcompensates feelings of worthlessness - a stronger form of the inferiority complex - by means of an all-powerful, sadistic manipulation of other people, by threat of prolonged suffering and ultimately destruction.
    Brutes laugh when something comical happens with the body of a victim, when the head or neck snaps weirdly, or when a man stumbles over his own entrails. These marionettes are cute: they are droll and they squeak. Brutes make fun of them. They can do as they please. They are out of bounds. They are the boys with the boots and the whip. But an unconscious feeling of worthlessness remains and is drowned by a further descent into inhumanity.
    Brutes see their descent into barbarism and sadism as courageous, hard, superior, only for the strong. Others are sleepers, dreamers, sentimental squeakers; they are timid, afraid, soft and vulnerable.
    When Himmler visited an extermination camp, he told his SS-men how proud he was of them. This was a great moment in German history. People could say about them that they had become hard. They did not falter because of revulsion and abhorrence; they had hardened.
Such people view themselves as superhuman, and ordinary folks as subhuman, children of a lesser God. In the world of a brute, humanity is no more; only strong supermen and weak subhuman rabbits. This mind-set is evident in many butchers, but even more in their bosses: the Hitlers, the Himmlers and the Eichmanns.
    Distant bosses may have the same dynamic as acting brutes, but more intellectual. They are more fanatical or more cynical, indulging in the cold and dry satisfaction of unleashing a man-destroying machine. Fanatics make themselves hard, unyielding servants of their higher purpose. Preaching fanatics are hot and acting fanatics are cold, but their henchmen are hot again.
Religious fanaticism is even more dangerous than political fanaticism.

What conditions turn people into brutes? Ultimately, none. Some people remain decent when everyone around them indulges in cruelty. The mind is its own place, and there is no condition that triggers inhuman behavior in the absence of a corrupted mind. Still, many influences may ease a corruption of the mind.
    A brute is someone whose feelings of self-esteem and dignity, of being loved, accepted or respected, have been destroyed, and whose feelings of rage have been bottled up. Self-pity and aggression are universal responses to frustration. Deeply frustrated souls tend to become either aggressors or victims.
    Usually, such frustrations begin to bottle up early in childhood.    The main breeding ground for brutes is deep and constant humiliation and intimidation from an early day on. Continuous inhuman treatment sows the seeds of inhuman response. Whenever people in authority (parents, teachers, bosses or priests) treat people as small and insignificant or as despicable, they create losers. Or brutes.

(See for a more extensive analysis chapters 2 and 3 of my Humanity, Civilization, Politics; http://www.onlineoriginals.com/)

Religion, Politics and Psychopaths - 1

Are suicide attacks to end in the foreseeable future?
More than a century ago, we also had decades of assassinations and bomb explosions. People doing that were not called terrorists, but anarchists. They were more politically inspired than religiously. How did this this spate of anarchist bombings and shootings end?

By the First World War. A new World War may do the same. Not a perspective to look forward to. A remedy far worse than the present ill - and nobody can guarantee that this remedy will work.

The Second World War had its own unimaginable terrorism in the wanton killing, enslaving and raping of civilians, in the industrial scale of forced prostitution, in large-scale torture and cannibalism - and in persecuting and eradicating whole categories of people and whole peoples like the Jews.

And now we have religious terrorism, largely Islamic. Pitirim Sorokin already pointed out that civil wars are more cruel than regular wars and that religious wars are the most cruel of all. Why?

Religion is about the more-than-human, transcending our ordinary day-to-day existence. Religion is a booster. It makes broad-minded people more broad-minded, it makes narrow-minded people more narrow-minded. It attracts people of good-will, noble, spiritual.

It also attracts psychopaths.

The inhuman finds a natural hiding place in the superhuman.

In Europe, Christianity was at its zenith when the only place for smart and decent people was the monastery. Because the crude people had taken over. When slowly cities started to develop and competent people could flourish in commerce and administration, the average level of entrants in the religious life diminished. Till slowly the petty-minded again became dominant there.
The Islamic culture at its heyday was much more civilized than the Christian culture. The Crusades were mainly an invasion of barbarians into a reasonably developed society. And those barbarians were incredibly cruel. One priest wrote home that God rejoiced in heaven, because the blood of men, women and children flowed till the ankles of the victorious knights.

When an enlightened society is religious, the religion is enlightened and adds to its enlightenment. When a dark, crude society is religious, the religion adds to its cruelty and darkness.

Should Islamic people and Islamic institutions distance themselves explicitly from Islamic terrorism? I think they should. Maybe they should do even more: seek the terrorists out. Because it is their religion that is poisoned. Also: Islamic terrorists kill more Muslims than non-Muslims.
It is like communists who had the deepest revulsion not for the capitalists, but for the socialists who got it wrong. False friends and supposedly false friends are more dangerous than enemies. especially when outsiders hardly see the difference. That is why Erdogan is more bent on destroying the Gülenists than the secularists. Or the Kurds. History is boringly repetitious, almost anywhere, almost anytime.

Blowing yourself up and kill as many people as possible is the ultimate manifestation of making a difference, of overpowering others. It is a reaction to impotence, deep frustration, personal insignificance. Religion gives an extra glow. And it over-shouts the fear of death even psychopaths still have lurking somewhere.

There is one thing unrelated to religion, that facilitates people to go on a killing spree: recent well-publicized killing sprees. Unfortunately, me-too and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Expect more of all this for quite some time to come. Unless some nuclear blasts destroy millions of lives. This time most probably in Asia.

The dark mind poison that manifests itself in suicide bomb attacks and other mass killings, and spread itself through them, won't go away because we desperately want it. And certainly it won't go away by sending good vibes of love and noble spirituality. Pumping up hope is just delaying despair. That may even grow in the meantime.

Cui bono? Who benefits? As always: the psychopaths. Fortunately, they all die. Unfortunately, few of them by suicide. We have to defuse them, starve them or kill them. without becoming psychopaths ourselves. There is no way to do that outside political and military machinery. Two worlds that contain their own psychopaths. So it takes a generous supply of prudence - and good-luck - to apply that machinery effectively.  Machiavelli hs wrestled with this problem extensively. I will come back to that in a next blog.
The only fundamental approach is to discourage the making of new psychopaths. That long-time perspective may be food for one more blog.

The root of the matter

What would you do in the next situations?

1. You have solved this problem already two times, but it comes back a third time.
2. Doing one thing doesn't help, doing the opposite doesn't help. Doing something in-between doesn't help either,
3. You have done something and it didn't work. The next time it doesn't. What now?
4. You don't know what to do. Everybody has different suggestions.
5. You are tired and disappointed with your success.
6. You have read it two times. You read it a third time. And you still don't get it.
7. You can't choose between two attractive options.
8. You can't choose between two unattractive options.
9. You are about to solve a problem, but somehow the last step escapes you.
10. You seem to run around in circles.

In all these cases minus one, you have to take one step behind and find the essence of the situation, the core, the key, the marrow, the basis, the center. Don't you find it? Take one step more behind. To find the core you have to raise your point of view. Didn't you know you are your own drone?

How do you know you found the essence? Because everything becomes suddenly clear. Because you see the whole field from a different perspective. Gestalt psychologists call this field restructuring. In system dynamics the golden rule when you are stuck is: Widen the system.
The essence of every situation opens the story of the situation. Discovering the essence is understanding the system, understanding the story, the story of the system, the system of the story.
System dynamics is the discipline to understand the story of a system. And what is the understanding of the system of a story: getting the plot right.
The central art of communication is communicating the plot. What leads to what? And why and how? And we don't find linear cause-and-effect relationships. Several causes usually lead to several effects. And effects may feed back in the causes. There is no simple cause-and-effect, there is something called causal texture.

This brings me to the one exception: situation 6. In this case, don't find the core, don't go for understanding; find a better text. And if the text is a manual? The only manual? Find a knowledgeable person.
Many texts are difficult or impossible to understand. Why?

• Some people write about things they themselves don't understand properly.
• Or they don't care about their writing, because they don't care about their readers.
• Or they want to hide that they don't want you to understand.

During the Second World War, Churchill had a discussion with Roosevelt and his aide, Harry Hopkins. Suddenly, Churchill turned to Hopkins and told him they were going to offer him a fine British title and they knew already which title he would get. Hopkins was embarrassed. The title Churchill had in mind, he told Hopkins, was Lord Root-of-the Matter. Now that is a compliment for you.
Anyway, go for it. The Root of the Matter. Everything else is a waste of time, a waste of energy, a waste of brain space.