status and attention

People confuse status with social standing. You can have dustmen who play high status (head high, never ask permission) and CEOs and lords who play low status (ask permission, apologise). Status is a just a way of playing a role- and the easiest way to fix the style in your mind is to ask what level of permission does the role play assume? Roughly speaking, the cluster of behaviours that seem to go with never asking permission means you are playing high status; what seems to go with asking permission is low status play.

People may instinctively like the idea of playing 'high status' (which is the way to think about it, rather than 'being' high status) yet not everyone does? Why?

Because we play the status level that gets us the most attention. The most meaning both quantity and quality. Playing low status may guarantee far more attention in many situations. On the other hand, a bit of lordly isolation may be a low price to pay for some damn good boot licking...

what's the point of jealousy?

Negative emotions exist for reason, like pain. When someone has the rare condition of not feeling pain they usually injure themselves all the time. Pain is the body's fairly dim but effective way of shouting at us: "Hey, fix this can't you?" Negative emotions have always seemed highly pointless to me, but then, they too have a necessary role. If you feel one- envy, jealousy, rage, then this is an emotional message that something is out of kilter. This was well known in the past but such knowledge easily transforms, through mass teaching, into merely a 'ban' on such thoughts. People pretend to themselves they don't have them. Or flagellate themselves for being evil. In fact, of course, we all have negative emotions. The Buddhist response- to simply observe the emotion and let it pass is only half the story. The other half is to realise what the appearance of that emotion means to your overall balance. Feeling envious? Let it pass and then examine whether your daily activity is aligned with your more general or higher goals. It is said that a weak man desires to hear only the failings of a strong man. Wishing others ill is another sign suggesting an internal reorganisation is required. Negative emotions are unpleasant for a good reason- there are there to help us shift our everyday operating procedure, nothing more.

gamify or painify

If you have something to do which isn't that enticing- such as a tough exercise routine- it pays to gamify it with fun and rewards. But if it can't be gamified you can painify it. This means you can play tough guy as you 'tough it out' and go through the pain barrier(s) with flying colours. Feels good afterwards. Both strategies work.

hear me on the radio

I appeared on monocle radio last year talking about the Nile. I'm at the end of the show so you can fast forward if you like using the handy button at the bottom of the screen...

 http://monocle.com/radio/shows/the-monocle-weekly/208/

progress and freedom

'Progress without the promise of freedom is no blessing.'

Peter Drucker

agile minds not factfarting number jugglers

In this week's New Scientist there is a plea for 'agile minds' rather than yet more science graduates to solve the so called 'STEM crisis'. Michael Brooks, curator of the Waterloo Global Science Initiative Learning 2030 summit (wgsi.org) states that the surprising thing is that theoretical physicists and even the CEO of Lockheed said that more science graduates is not the answer. While it is true that low level positions can be filled by numerate graduates- there is actually not a problem here. Wages haven't risen in this area for a good reason- there isn't a real shortage here. The probem is higher up. The conventional science graduate seems to lack organisational, communication and management skills. So a gap opens up where the real creative work needs to be done. Brooks suggests a big change in the way people are recruited into university is required. What is required are people who can think creatively, broadly and communicate clearly. In other words- they need people skilled in polymathics- multiple mastery.

Is friendmaking a good strategy?

The first rule of strategy is that there should be unity of command. As Napoleon said, “better a bad general than two good ones.” You cannot have two plans- there can only one.  Therefore, if strategy means acting according to a preconceived plan rather than the ad hoc optimising of what works and minimising of what doesn’t, then a single commander and a highly effective chain of command is required. In effect, a tyranny.

Yet equally effective (especially in a world where air and sea can be crossed with relative ease) is having friends and allies. But the ability to make friends is not usually compatible with being a tyrant. Big men are usually lonely men. One substitute for friend-making ability is sharing a common powerful ideology- Stalin didn’t like Mao but he helped him a great deal.

To change the focus a little, you can observe the tension between tyranny and friend making at something as ordinary as a dinner party. Sometimes a brilliant guest will hold the floor and everyone is mesmerised. Then one tricky customer will start gathering the scattered resistance to such an attention getting performance. The great speaker will be isolated- he had an audience but no friends. Gradually the tricky customer will coordinate a sort of passive resistance, even mockery of the great man, who finally, beaten, wonders again like a wounded Napoleon at the idiocy of lesser men…