Relationships in First and Second Life

It seems that a good fraction of the books I see at Borders deal with either the management of one self or the management of one's relationships to other people.

By "management of" I mean "controlling or influencing or changing the behavior of."

I realize that I've been a perpetual student, probably having taken 200 or more college courses in one thing or another, and yet, I'm trying to think of one lecture at anytime in school, at any age, talking about how to think about and manage my own personal relationships. I'm not recalling any.

This seems curious. Like knowing how to swim, or how to fall without getting hurt, or basic first aid, or basic hygiene, these seem skills everyone needs, a lot, in important, life-changing ways. With the exception of hygiene, and "don't fight in school", all of these are similarly neglected.

In fact, when I think about the named relationships we all know about, there are personal relationships (friend, lover, spouse) blood relationships (mother of, son of, brother of), and power relationships (boss of, coworker, team-mate of , dominant, submissive, superior, inferior), and it sort of stops there. I'm sure I'm missing many and maybe only revealing my ignorance and illiteracy here.

This is not a very rich or robust vocabulary for such an important subject and doesn't facilitate difficult conversations about facets of relationships that could be improved and how to do that.

So, I'm wondering how the virtual reality world Second Life might help us deal with this sort of conversation.

One thing I did learn to do in a recent class, SI689, is at least ask the question: in what way is Second Life "better than being there?" The goal should not be to get up to even with real life, but to tremendously exceed it in some factor or facet.

Let me give just one example. In Second Life (SL) I manage an animated character on the screen, which I come to think of as "me", my avatar -- just as I manage one person and physical body here in real life. I move it, dress it, walk places with it, fly places with it, etc. The flying is "better than real life", as is teleporting almost instantaneously to other locations.

But those are only improvements on real life, not quantum leaps. (The term is absolutely wrong, since that would be the smallest step possible, but you know what I mean: a huge leap.)

So here's more of a quantum leap: One thing I could do in Second Life is to run two different avatars, simultaneously. There is no equivalent in first life. SL doesn't make this easy, although it could.

In fact, lets say that we effectively get two keyboards/joysticks/input-devices: one for my left hand to run one avatar, and one for my right hand to run the other avatar. Let's say I do this a lot, so that, after a while, the motion of my marionette/puppet avatars is automatic and I don't need to think about it, it just "happens" the same way moving my hand happens now.

What exactly would be the effect on "me" to do this, now having two different bodies simultaneously? And more interestingly, how would these two characters "relate" to each other? Say there were times of day when just one or the other of them was active on-line,
to develop a personality and seamless fluency in movement. Each one would develop a certain "personality" as has been discussed elsewhere in the literature.

With some very fancy eye-wear, perhaps the left brain would control one of these dominantly, and the right brain the other. Or at least the mix of dominance would be different. And, again unlike real life, (mostly), one could be, let's say, female and one male. That alters the chemistry and confuses the issue, so for the moment say they are both the same sex as "you" and same gender as "you". (Sex being physiological and gender being behavioral).

Now, here's the key question -- how would or could these two avatars "relate" to each other?
And what could we learn by experimenting with that?

Once, my college apartment mate was looking for a roommate, before selecting me, and he told me he had one main criterion -- if there were two of this person, would they get along with each other? Some people we could think of would fail that test, insisting on being dominant in everything. Some people would be unable to work for themselves as a boss. Interesting.

I'll ponder more about this, and try it out, and report back what I find.

Before I leave it, one last thought on a related subject. Consider learning to play the piano, correctly, with two hands. At one stage of development, each hand has to practice separately.

At a more advanced stage, each hand is playing "at the same time" but it is really coordinated parallel play, the head multiplexing between a fast check left hand, right hand, left hand, right hand.

At a more advanced stage, the hands effectively disappear, and the head is more involved playing, say, two voices -- where the voices may be at one point on separate hands, but could cross over or interweave between fingers on each hand. It is the voices that have life and expression, not the fingers or hands at that point, which are still present but sort of in the background in some way, distant from consciousness.

It makes me wonder if human relationships could be the same way -- initially two consciousnesses, each confined to one body, but ultimately two voices, in some way each
occupying both bodies or spirits. Identities close, then merge, then refactor differently into voices not notes.

This merging and acting with one heart, on spirit, one mind is a key concept to successful sports teams, military teams, work teams, etc.

What words would we use to describe the relationship of the hands at each stage of development? Dominant? Partner?

You see what I mean about the lack of an adequate vocabulary to capture a relationship and describe it to someone else who will know immediately and unambiguously what you mean.

If we can't describe relationships or in some way measure them, even subjectively, how can we possibly take seriously an effort to "improve" them? How would we know if something is "working" or not?

It is an interesting experiment, in Second Life or in real life with just sock puppets -- if this is "you" and this is "the other person", add dialog and show me what a typical discussion over some conflict goes like now, versus how you wish it would go.

Playing both roles simultaneously makes this a more interesting experience, it seems to me.

On things you have to believe to see

Why do people disagree about what they see?

If they disagree does it mean that at least one of them is wrong?

The short answer is that even very competent trained observers are often wrong about what they see, and, in many cases, even if they perform flawlessly, it turns out they are wrong.

And, very importantly, these differences in perception, combined with a lack of understanding of the causes of them, have led to many arguments, battles, and probably entire literal wars.

And, has been so well captured in Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, totally new paradigms are often strongly ridiculed and not "seen", let alone "obvious" to the vast majority of competent scholars early in the lifetime of the idea.

And, from long experience with the insidious impact of unconscious bias, even among very highly trained researchers, the standard in medicine is a "double blind" study, to get around the well known tendency to see what we expect to see, or to see what we want to see - or not to see things that would be very painful if seen. In The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould
describes extensive case studies of how things scientists were sure were true about humans have proven to be patently false.

Human vision is a very tricky thing, swayed by peer-group pressure, swayed by biases from fears and desires and prior experience and conditioning, subject to numerous kinds of reproducible errors at best. Yet, it is good enough for us to get by, mostly.

I do not share the view of those who swing the pendulum to the far side, and therefore claim that
"nothing can be known" or that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's, "because it's all relative and subjective" anyway. Even Einstein, so often misquoted, showed that with the corrections and adjustments he proposed, the seemingly conflicting views of two observers could be in fact perfectly reconciled.

We do not know and cannot see "everything", and at the same time, we do know and can see "something" -- the truth is in that inconvenient middle ground.

Some improvements can be made by multiple observers working together. Again there are traps and pitfalls, such as "Group Think", or tyranny of the majority, and suppression of minority or inconvenient views, but the truth is neither pure white nor pure black.

Because humans heavily use their visual processing circuitry to do "thinking", and attempt to "see" things meaning "understand them", the failure modes of this circuitry are of interest to us all. Further, humans tend to put strong judgmental values on top of what they perceive as "true" or "obvious" - so social action often follows from such broken vision.

Furthermore, groups of humans tend to influence each-other's perceptions in invisible ways, so that the entire collection of them, starting perhaps with one undecided state, can break into "camps" each seeing something different more and more as time evolves. Differences from other "camps" are viewed as some kind of enemy action, further suppressing rational discussion. Once very widely held, these mistaken views latch in and lock down, and b ecome shared norms and prejudices, filtering further information gathering to only support themselves and there becoming self-supporting, and, in fact, attacking efforts to dislodge the majority error.

Most of this, it turns out, is really a function of perception, and is as true of robots trying to "see" something as it is of humans.

What do we make then of a person who "see things" in a way different from our own? Or a person who sees entire things we don't even see at all, and don't believe are there? Are they to be considered "crazy" or "heretics"?

The human visual system has both feedback and feed-forward, and learns over time. As a consequence, things that we really need to see, we can often learn to see easily. A botanist, glancing at a plant, or a professional IT person, glancing at software, can often see a huge amount that a layperson cannot see at all, even when instructed where to look. We don't have to train our eyes, they figure out we need to see stuff and show it to us dynamically better with time.

But this system in humans is linked into the pleasure seeking and pain avoiding systems as well. Some views or perceptions are essentially certain to lead to painful memories, or to actions that will produce pain and have produced pain in the past, and our visual systems happily and automatically reshuffle neurons so that the painful perceptions and conflict is reduced. Often, the systems reduce pain to zero by making certain perceptions simply impossible for us to see any more. If we're not testing for this, we can easily miss the effect.

So, for example, if a person feels extremely insecure and vulnerable, their perceptual system may figure out that most complexity or harshness causes intolerable pain, and may decide, on its own, to shut off perception of complexity or threats. The person has been moved, by their visual system, into a very simplified world where nothing is complex and everything is safe, despite what others see. At the extreme, we classify such people as "mentally ill", but most of the intermediate states -- inability to cope with complexity -- simply turn into types of "political" viewpoints where simplistic, black and white views of the world are desperately clung to and become self-righteously self-reinforcing by blocking out all contrary information and often blocking out all those who disagree with the conclusions as being "enemies".

There are many counter-measures we can take, such as pooling notes, or all agreeing that we should be polite to those who disagree with us or espouse contrary opinions, and hear them out. The trend these days in the USA seems to be to shout them down, not to hear them out, however.

On a personal or team or department or national level, providing a forum for different "sides" and hearing out each other, where possible can avoid many errors we would later regret. This too, the essence of civilized discourse, is out of vogue in the US, where even allowing the impression of uncertainty is considered a sign of "weakness" and inappropriate in a "leader".

The literature of high-reliability systems is clear that suppression of dissenting opinions is a fast path to disaster, but this result is not widely understood, even if known.

I think it is probably correct, although not necessarily "safe" to say, that at least half of what each of us believes to be "obviously true" is, in fact, not true. The problem is, we don't know which half. And, most adults are not very happy to have one of their errors pointed out to them.

Trained and practiced collaboration in a psychologically safe environment can get around most of these problems, but is hard to do and not taught in school. Most "meetings" of "committees" at work are not best characterized as a sincere and loving search for the truth amid seemingly conflicting interests and viewpoints.

Despite the dismal track record, it is still possible to actually get consultation to work, if properly facilitated, and always worth it.

Many of the current catastrophes in the news could have been avoided entirely if widespread consultation was the norm. People would not have bought into ridiculous mortgages, for example, if they had consulted with the community first.

Why and how we have ended up at a point where asking for advice from our own people's experts, whatever people those are, is no longer "cool" is a topic for another day. Part of it is certainly tied up with a definition of "male behavior" that approves driving around for an hour lost instead of stopping to ask directions, and larger scale analogs to that activity on a departmental, corporate, state, or national level.

The title of this post, "On things you have to believe to see", is a reference to a phenomenon in machine-vision known as "model-based perception" -- which is in turn modeled after how humans perceive their visual and audio stream of data that floods their brain.

There is always way more information than can be processed by the fastest processor, much of it ambiguous or supporting conflicting interpretations, and much of the important part being of lower volume than the noise.

In response to that machines (and humans) simplify life by holding an internal mental model of the world until they can hold it no longer, and filtering the fire-hose of data down to that which resolves along the axes of that simplistic model, discarding everything else.

The good news is that, if the model is correct, or nearly correct, this approach discards the noise and keeps the signal, making life good.

The bad news is that the very same stream of data could support hundreds of thousands of interpretations equally well, and the one we have may not be even close to the best interpretation of the data.

However, any model at least lets us operate and make decisions quickly, and get feedback if we are wrong -- and in the real world, that approach usually works far better than the "paralysis of analysis" and attempting to understand everything all the time.

As thousands of studies have shown, we will tend to see what we are looking for, and tend to suppress contrary information. A radiologist, asked to look at an X-ray of a chest, will see different things if asked "Is this a tumor?" than if asked "what do you see here?" Which one is the better question "depends."

Another thing that is fatal to animals and humans, aside from inability to operate quickly, is inability to hold a course of action -- ie, dithering, or continually second-guessing an opinion. Our brains automatically try to avoid that, once we have formed a perhaps arbitrary decision, by selectively showing us data that support that decision, and selectively masking out or hiding data that contradict it. The result is, even if we are wrong, at least we are self-consistent for a while.

Confidently taking the wrong exit off the expressway is probably safer than continually changing lanes as one tries to decide if this is the right exit or not. The problem in most cases will become obvious later, and be sorted out then.

Is it a good thing that we are blind to and oblivious of our own frailty of perception and judgment? Probably, in many cases, we can at least operate at all if we act as if we knew what we were doing.

The downside is that misconceptions, errors, bias, prejudice, and hatred can all become self-fulfilling features of our lives all due to inability to perceive correctly what is going on around us, as well as due to the harsh way we often treat those whose views are contrary to our own, or foreign, or incomprehensible to us, or "clearly wrong."

This mishmash of human emotions, behaviors, perceptions, and prejudices, and norms regarding them is part of the culture that has to be over-ridden in order to establish a "lean", Toyota-Production System type high-reliability operation. To get high quality, reliable product out the back door, we need to have a psychologically safe, humble, listening culture at the front, where it's safe to say "I don't know" or "Can anyone help me?" or safe to say "Er, excuse me Doctor, I realize you are sure of your own viewpoint, but aren't we doing the LEFT arm today?"

We override such civilized culture only at high risk of taking the wrong exit, the wrong arm, or the wrong war needlessly.

My TPS report

It may be that TPS was great for Japan in 1950, but that it's actually easier for the US to simply leapfrog that and move directly to the following stage.

So, yes, it may have taken Tibetan monks 30 years of hard labor to achieve certain states, but if we can get there in 5 minutes using a biofeedback device, lets do that.

This is important. At the rate global situations are evolving, from the economy to climate change to antibiotic-resistant organisms, we don't have 50 years to spend on this step. Like GM looking at a 6-week model conversion time, we also need to break the concept that "this is as fast as it could possibly be" and realize there is probably a 1-minute die-change model we are just not yet seeing because our disbelief is blinding us.

But, how do we search for it effectively?

A technique from physics can be helpful here. We may not know exactly what the object is we are seeking, but we may still be able to say some things about it , such as it is "smaller than a breadbox, whatever it is." Or maybe "It is red, whatever it is." This can help cut down the search space, as in the game "Twenty Questions." With enough such clues, we can often zero in on the right ballpark and from there complete the search by inspection of all the remaining choices.

Almost certainly, for example, no one person can comprehend the answer to this question, so we can be reasonably confident that a team-approach to searching would be at least helpful, if not indispensable. I'll assume for now that it takes a synthesized N-person brain to solve this problem, and we are to the solution as termites in a nest to concepts of air conditioning - we can do it collectively even though we couldn't describe it in words if we tried. There are lots of things like that, from catching a ball to knowing when to go at a 4-way stop sign intersection.

We need a team of people who have seen enough breakthroughs and factor-of-100 improvements that they believe these things can happen, even if they are totally not obvious at the start, and even if everyone else is stuck in "This is the best it's possible to do" mentality. We can overcome each other's residual disbelief and use the multiple-coals-burn-bright power to stay enthusiastic for this uphill search.

If we don't look for such solutions, it decreases the odds we'll find them. So, we should be looking, at least part time, unless that totally distracts us from our day jobs. At least some people should be actively working on this question at least some of the time.

I volunteer to "lead" the effort, ie, keep it going and shop it around and keep track on a wiki or something of what fragments of wisdom we've been able to assemble so far on the space-frame, kind of like reassembling fragments of an exploded aircraft, one at a time, until we can see what shape they are making and understand at last what has happened and is happening on Earth.

But the "team approach" is pretty well given. TPS is all about massively parallel algorithms with emergent solutions. We just need to figure out really easy steps at each level that, when deployed and acted on, result in the emergent solution behavior we want. That's one aspect let's lock down for now.

A second aspect I would suggest we start with as our "seed" is that we're looking for a recursive, symmetric solution if there is one. Life is a massively nested hierarchy of worlds of detail, each forming the context for even more detailed worlds, and each forming just one detail of much larger-scope worlds. The shape is basically a fractal, or at least that complex -- again, something very easy to write a generating function for, and astoundingly complex in outcome.

So rather than assuming that the primitive parts of the world are separate entities that can be considered and studied in isolation from each other, let's go to the other extreme and check out the space of things that are inseparably tangled into each other and form each other's content and context.

In other words, this is almost the exact complement to what Science has studied to date: those things that are easy to separate from context, bring into the lab, and study in isolation while changing variables one at a time.

We will focus instead on the parts of Life on Earth that doesn't have that property of separability - We want only the part that "goes away" when the live frog is dissected and the parts analyzed on the lab bench, looking for why it moves and acts the way it does.

Very little search has been done there, and yet the essence of a "system" as opposed to a heap or list or collection of parts is that they work together as one, seamlessly. It would help if our language could handle such concepts easily and correctly, making it easy to do correct computations with such primitives, and hard or impossible to do wrong computations with them.

So, rather than search the end of the spectrum where self-energy dominates and interactions occasionally occur, I'd like to start at the other end where interactions dominate and self-energy terms are almost negligible. This is the kind of world that exists at the center of galaxies in Cosmology, for example -- hugely energetic worlds of almost unimaginable power.

Aside for the mathematically inclined: the reason there is so much power is that the equations are non-linear and involve "complex numbers", as opposed to real numbers. The inner product of two vectors in real space is limited to a maximum value of the product of each vector's magnitude, and generally smaller by a "cosine theta" term, where theta is the angle between them. But in general, in complex space, cosine is not bounded by plus or minus one and is part of a complex exponential that is unbounded. The inner product of any two things in the general case turns out to be unbounded and depends only on the relationship between the two things, not really on the size of either one alone. Here's an example.

This is the kind of synergy we are looking for and need to be able to see and capture and model and get to from here. It should be something we can represent in our working model, because if we can't, the model will not help us to find it and we'll miss exactly what we needed to find because our cynical approach to life has blinded us to looking the correct direction.

So, we have so far
1) Team approach
2) inseparable system components operating deep into synergy space
3) pieces "connected" by feedback loops and entrainment / phase-lock loops, not by rigid "connections." The actual arrangement of pieces in 3-D space is almost irrelevant. All that matters is that they are caught up in a dance they are all committed to deeply where each of them is responding in real time and almost uninhibitedly to each of the others.

So, isn't this trying to solve "world hunger"? Isn't this impossibly hard to do and we should pick an easier problem? Not really. That logic is deeply flawed and is one of the greatest dis-services to mankind ever foisted on us.

Here's why. If I try to model the behavior of one molecule, with quantum mechanics, I can do it. Modeling the behavior of 100 molecules is getting hard. 10,000 molecules require a supercomputer. The behavior of a million molecules is out of sight. But .... it comes back around back to easy. Because, say the molecule is "H2O" . Now look at a trillion molecules interacting, also called "water". Suddenly, whoa, strange loop, we are back to easy again.

Now a guy with his butt-crack showing can put in "plumbing" and make this "water" stuff come out our "faucet" thing into our "glass" thingie where we can "drink it." The complexity all vanished into itself, dissolved in place, leaving a rotated and different easy problem in its place. A team of Nobel prize winning scientists with a room of Cray supercomputers can't go there, but the dude with the pipe wrench can. This is the space we need to head for. Forget the Powerpoint and words and equations.

That's what I'm talking about with this interaction-end approach. The reason it seems hard is that we're still trying to use isolated-actor thinking and we need to let go of that and switch from "molecules" to "water" thinking, and then, all the complexity will fall away. This harder harder, off the board harder, and then suddenly easy again transition occurs multiple times as we increase scale - once each cycle in fact. So, yes we need to work where problems are "easy", but the domain of "easy" problems is comprised of multiple, independent, disconnected patches in scale space. We need to let go of the "easy- ground floor" world, enter the elevator or subway, skip the stuff in the middle, and re-emerge at the next "easy-floor 2" world and check out the view from there. Some whole new worlds of "cherry picking" will be ours for the taking.

This is getting way too long, so I'll add one more item and call this a day.

A fourth item to add to the list of things I would like to start with is called symmetry.

The best of all possible worlds would be if the key operations and processes we need to manage have the property that they are scale-invariant. By this I mean that, once we learn a way to look at them, the exact same approach works for whatever scale we are operating at.

So, first we should look for some kind of properties that are equally true of atoms, of water, of a whole planet, of galaxies, etc.

What kind of properties might those be? That's a pretty big range of stuff.

The properties I have in mind aren't the usual physical properties, but are more in the nature of "control" aspects. Regardless of the scale of life, or Life, or LIFE, there are some core feedback loops that are going to be there in any healthy adaptive living system of any scale.

For now, I only really care about living systems. Let's start with that assumption, and skip the dead stuff.

Healthy living systems, of any size, or scale, need to have at least two working feedback loops. I can think of no exceptions, but put this on the table for comment. This will be true of cells, of organs, or organisms, of people, of corporations, of governments, of religions, of movements, whatever it is that is alive or acts like it is alive or acts like it has a life of its own.

One loop is internal. The sensors of the "external world" have to be routed through some pathway to a goal-seeking unit and back to some kind of action-taking units (muscles) in a closed loop so that the living thing can sense the world and respond to it and tell that it has responded. In a corporation or army or nation, the head has to listen to the eyes and senses, and the muscles have to listen to the head, or we can just discard the solution as unstable and long-term unworkable and certainly sub-optimal and unhealthy in an obvious way. We lose no important solutions by discarding those that are so obviously broken and dysfunctional.

The second loop is external. In a tightly coupled world, everything that"I" do will have some kind of corresponding resulting action, on what those around me do. It is a phase-locked dance of a kind. A corporation that is healthy will have a tight coupling with suppliers and customers both. A human that is healthy will have tight coupling with many other people, but at least one other person minimum. In fact, there will also be couplings down the body and up to the larger social unit in a healthy individual.

The strongest correlation in public health, after "smoking causes cancer" is "social disconnection produces bad biomedical outcomes across the board." I will assert without going into detail right here that our whole concept of "an individual" is so deeply flawed that we should simply discard it for this discussion. In the tightly-coupled, feedback-loop dense, phase-locked world of synergy, there is really no such thing as "an individual" any more. Well, there is but there isn't but there is. There is an emergent whole living thing, and that is what we are crafting, and the zero-order terms of "individuals" pretty much drop out of the equations in the steady dynamic state. Outstanding performance is not a property of "outstanding individuals" any more, or even related to "individuals". Life is not describable as "events" so much as by stable dynamic feedback process loops that are self-aware, self-policing, and self-repairing, and mutually supporting.

So, where are we? We're looking for a model of successful corporate structure, which has to include as well all scales, so a model that also works for the embedded humans, as well as for the embedding nations and governments, all at the same time, in a healthy interaction, at a level of "health" that is several orders of magnitude more powerful than Business School even imagines.

We're looking for a model where healthy interaction, mutual support, and synergy dominate the landscape, as opposed to occasionally being spotted briefly somewhere.

We want to know how such a thing would behave, and if we can gain insight from studying that special case, whether we have a clue how to get there from here or not at this time.

So we want multiple people to review how a system, healthy across all scales, would behave and what this world would look like to the embedded humans, as well as to embedded CEO's as well as to embedded Kings over empires of such humans and corporation matrices. The solution should be fully symmetric, so healthy economies and healthy physiologies of the humans are synonymous, not competing trade-offs.

No one could "schedule" or "plan" the interactions, yet we know that the overlapping feedback loops have to be mutually reinforcing and the system has to be dynamically stable. It is likely that some small set of "easy" behaviors of each embedded human, when so multiplied recursively, could generate that overall system behavior.

Maybe more than one such set of generating behaviors exists. At this point, it would be comforting to find just one, any one solution that generates the desired emergent result. We can put that on the table, all stand in the circle, and look at it together until we go "aha!" and see what the magic is.

The solutions we seek need to be crafted and measured and managed in "feedback control phase space", not in the Newtonian separate actor and silo world we have used before to try to conceptualize and control complexity and outcomes. The primitive building blocks are stable, self-sustaining feedback loops, arranged in fractal hierarchies extending out of sight both above and below our level, made tractable by being recursive and symmetric in terms of generating functions.

The "figure" needs to become "ground", we need to stop seeing "parts" and start looking at the "whole" that is still there when the parts are ignored. We need to look at the white space between the boxes on the org chart, or even more so, at the nature of the piece of paper on which the org chart is written. It's as likely, more likely, that the problems we've had with productivity are due to the nature of the paper and concept that different parts are written on "different / disconnected" pieces of paper as to the shape of the org chart or which human we select to put into the "top" position on it.

We will not solve this by modeling ten trillion molecules. We need to let go of that, take the elevator up a few floors, change to "water" conceptualization and lenses in our glasses, and start again fresh from there.

Forget for a moment "what is" and consider "what if". What if every person and every corporation and every government were all interconnected and acting as one living thing? What if the actions were not fragmented or inconsistent or in conflict, but were coordinated and coherent and mutually reinforcing and supportive? What if actions were not forced to be a certain way, but just naturally followed from realizing how interconnected we all were, on every level?

Could that work? Sure. How could it not work in fact?!

The problem before us is not that there is no "final state" we can seek together .. the problem is the stuff in the middle, it's how to get there from here.

And the solution, like the elevator or subway, is that there is no "way", no "direction" that gets us there -- we need to sort of dissolve in place and refocus our energy into a different way of being, and we don't really need to let go of property lines or borders or wealth or values -- the ones that matter will survive that process just fine and the others didn't really matter after all.

It's not a question of "which individual" will be the "boss" or "king" or "on top" of the org-chart of the world, because there is no "top" any more and all of us are connected to all the wealth of the planet so strongly that none of it needs to shift from where it is by force. It will shift, but not because someone or some army forces it to. It will shift because it will simply be obvious to the "owner" that moving it here instead of there will improve things for everyone.

When I consider this solution, I immediately see a high-intensity broadcast jamming signal blocking the concept: a short-circuiting concept of "the Borg", and various other short-circuit images from "socialism" to "communism" to other isms. All those computations are wrong and I am not suggesting any of them. All of those still have a locus-of-control at a human individual level, where it will surely go wrong and be corrupted and destroy part of the world in a misguided effort to bolster another part. Those who protect hard-won wealth and values are wise to be wary of such "solutions" that destroy instead of preserving and growing wealth and prosperity and health at all levels simultaneously.

But any solution that tries to argue which level is most important has missed the boat, missed the message here. This is not about person A versus person B, or about nation A versus nation B, or corporation A versus corporation B, or silo A versus silo B.

This is about removing the "versus" part.

This is about replacing the "or" with "and".

This is about reuniting the macro and micro economies, and the macro health of the nation to micro health of individuals and families and communities, and to the hyper-macro health of the global biosphere and planet and climate.

That's the question, how to get to the final state when so much energy is currently being invested in trying to defend the status quo state against the perceived threats on all sides and fronts.

For that question we need to explore not what a "state" is, but what "transitions" between states tend to look like, and could possibly look like. Like GM's Freemont plant, almost nothing has to change between a terrible state and a fantastic state. We are in reality 99.95% of the way to where we need to be.

It's getting that last 0.05% now that's the focus of the next step. Everyone is terrified they will "lose" something and feels they are so close to the pit, so nearly underwater, that even small losses or increases in load appear life-threatening, probably with good cause.

So, classical transitions in X-Y space aren't the answer. Those are locked down with guards at every gate and sensors monitoring the slightest change.

It's transitions in feedback control phase space that are needed, to move a few "poles"of the equation around and produce dynamic stability, so that people can sense that "it's OK again" and realize the threat is decreasing, not increasing and be correct in that perception.

That's where the next steps need to happen. Everything else is noise or maintenance.

Clergy take on US Mortgage Mess

Martha Graybow, from Reuters, looks at what the US Clergy think about the mortgage mess in today's Washington Post. I agree wholeheartedly that there are "spiritual solutions to economic problems" but don't see them mentioned in that article.

One characteristic of spiritual solutions is that they tend to look at the bigger picture, in all three dimensions of space, time, and social scale. Like great health care, the solutions are proactive, preventing the car crash in the first place, not miraculously repairing the damage and deaths following it.

The solutions involve what seems to be a lost art these days - understanding the actual causes of outcomes, and the consequences of our own actions, and then, gasp, altering our behavior so we don't get into trouble next time.

The USA has made the news lately for the poor state of health here, and I'm not talking about insurance but simply the physical health of people. The upper quarter of white American males, for example, are less healthy than the bottom quarter of white males in England.

Why? Compare the strategies. England, with universal care, tries to prevent health problems and helps people eat well and stay fit and not do dumb things. The USA tries to have the most astoundingly heroic rescue and repair service so we can smoke, drink, and do dumb things, and then not have to face the consequences, sometimes. Of course, the culture of abandon of self-control is spread widely, and the access to repair-services is restricted, which makes for many sick poor people. What's less recognized is that even the rich end up worse. No doctor can make you better after a heart attack and transplant than you would have been if you'd stayed fit in the first place, either physically or psychologically.

With airplanes with those T-shaped tails, with the small wings ("elevators") up high on the tail, there is a design issue. If the plane descents at the wrong angle, turbulence ("stalling") from the body of the plane surrounds the tail, which loses the ability to change the angle of the plane. If you get into this condition, typically, the plane will descend into the ground before the airport. Not good.

Pilots have a question: "What do you do when you get into this condition?" and the answer is "Don't get into that condition."

And here is the difference between a novice learning lessons too late, and professionals. Professionals figure out what it takes so they don't end up in that condition, and what kind of training they need to do that, and build it into the training program so they can, in fact, "not do that." Social wisdom from other people's experience is built into everyone's training or retraining. That works, going forwards. It doesn't fix the past, of course.

So, when we look at an equivalent question to the mortgage mess, such as "What would it take to get young people not to drive too fast on icy roads?" the answer that comes to mind is "It would take a miracle."

Precisely.

It would take maturity, training, a social ethic of responsibility, a social ethic of competence, and an ability to overcome the impulse to rush and damn the consequences. All of these things are possible for people, and some people can do all of those.

The "miracle" isn't that the people wake up one day and are suddenly good drivers, but that they have the social support system that, over a long period of time, gives them the internal capacity to master skills, to survive the short-term costs of responsibility, to overcome temptation and the short-run impulses to cheat, etc.

What's "miraculous" is that this "bounce-shot" works, when you can't sink the pool ball in the pocket directly. If you try to do this activity on your own, you'll generally fail. It's hard, and it involves persistence and local costs for some distant future benefit, and you'll run out of steam regardless how well intentioned the start is.

This "steam" to keep on going is crucial. We aren't taught about this in school, sadly, despite the fact that everyone knows about it and I believe it would stand up to rigorous experimental designs and tests.

Where does this "steam" come from? What gives young people the ability to say "No!" to drugs or speeding or ill-advised sex, or the ability to stay in school, or the ability to say "No!" to a dangerous mortgage, or the ability to rise above ego and consult with others and avoid putting their foot in that mortgage bear-trap in the first place?

Some kind of larger scale, persistent social structure is needed to hold this learning and navigational advice, and some kind of practice and habit is required to develop the strength to "obey" or "submit" to that outside higher authority when the inside impulses all want to go the old way.

For pilots, professional organizations and ethics may be enough, although federal standards help somewhat. Great pilots are far above what standards require, because they use outside social support to keep themselves in line.

For most of us in daily life, we need some kind of equivalent. Organized religion has historically served this role, when it doesn't get lost in itself and lose its own way.

So, while the government's "abstinence only" method of birth control is demonstrably broken and ineffective, the reason is not that abstinence may be a good practice for teens (and others), but that it is simply not possible for fragmented individuals, on their own strength, to carry out that practice and survive temptation.

In between the chaos of everyone repeating every mistake over and over, and the rigidity of dead dogma controlling every aspect of everyone's lives is a sweet spot that can provide make good pilots or drivers of us all.

These kind of problems are not healed by prayer after the crash, but by organized activity long before the crash designed to prevent it from ever happening.

Like Mr. Rodney Dangerfield, prevention "don't get no respect." It works, it can work, it has worked, it will work - but it's an organized social activity, not something an individual does for or to themselves.

In the mix of making it happen are deeper spiritual issues of identity, motivation, purpose, awareness, externally-based stability and power, and "steam".

God, we all could use more "steam." We just wish it was free.

It's not free, but it is affordable. It's something we can do for each other that requires no huge government program and, in fact, would probably choke and die if the government tried to run it.

At this point, most people look, sigh, and turn sadly away saying "They'll never do that."

I'd like to see what would happen if the 3 hours a day of TV indoctrination encouraged social responsibility with eyes open, instead of discouraging it and encouraging blind yielding to whatever impulse the advertisers or politicians can create in us at that second.

I think the change would indeed justify the term "spiritual" sufficiently to use that word even in an academic sense. Actually, I think the reconnection to the larger "us" goes deeper, but even if it only went this deep, it would be worth investigating.

And I'm confident that, like discovering the planets, if we charted out all the known effects and watched behaviors, we'd see patterns of unexplained variation that would cause us to look even deeper for something else going on.

It's a fascinating question. Meanwhile, short term, there are solutions to our problems but we refuse to accept them, wanting, I don't know, something more glamorous or short-term.

Being able to say "yes" to saying "no" is enough of a miracle to pray for daily.

We're still trying to build some sort of moral-Rambo model, where we have internal strength that doesn't require external support -- a GPS that works without satellites. And, sure, there are inertial navigation units that weigh 200 pounds we could carry around with us, even though they drift over time. That's a stupid solution when there are satellites in place already, so the GPS in our phone can be so tiny we don't notice the weight.

Same with wisdom. Satellites and a receiver is a better model.

Is this hard to do? Well, yes and no. Is it hard to use structural and civil engineering principles and computer-assisted design to make graceful bridges that don't fall down? Yes, but it is doable and we'd be pretty stupid not to have some group of people that learn it and do it for us.

Is it harder to make social structures that don't fall down, don't become corrupt, give us daily strength to persist our lessons and still have dynamic ability to adjust to changing times? Probably not that much harder.

We've just never tackled the problem that way, because even pondering questions of what determines our behavior or allows corruption to creep in raises emotions and resistance.

Still, it seems an obvious way to go. We just need to keep on asking "Why" one more time, and saying, ok, how can we tackle this problem in social engineering even with resistance and opposition and those who prefer these subjects not be studied?

This is nothing new. T.S. Eliot, in Choruses from the Rock (1934) says

There are those who would build the Temple,
And those who prefer that the Temple should not be built.
In the days of Nehemiah the Prophet
There was no exception to the general rule.

and

In the vacant places
We will build with new bricks
There are hands and machines
and clay for new brick
and lime for new mortar
where the bricks are fallen
We will build with new stone
Where the beams are rotten
We will build with new timbers
Where the word is unspoken
We will build with new speech.

and

If men do not build
How shall they live?

That's the "new bricks" metaphor this weblog site is named for. It's a good idea.

photo credit: I35W bridge collapse photo from Poppyseed Bandits

New life forms from Synthetic DNA - Washington Post

The Washington Post today deals with "Synthetic DNA on the brink of Creating New Life Forms." Talk about children playing with matches... Rick Weiss begins " It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube..." I'd add - it has also been 50 years since Jay Forrester's classic piece on "unintended consequences."

Here was my reply:

wade2 wrote:

Bio-error indeed. Maybe error-gance is the bigger threat, and very real. Our social approach to low-odds of very-high-risk accidents, as Carl Sagan pointed out re return of samples from Mars, is completely overwhelmed by our normal intuition. At Los Alamos, the first atomic bomb was tested when only a minority of the scientists on the project (something like 6 of 14) thought it would detonate the earth's crust and explode the entire planet. No one was sure, so they tested it. Hmm.

Good books like "Lethal Arrogance" by Dumas and "Normal Accidents" by Perrow detail hundreds of examples of our tendency to run it till it breaks, and then, only then, stop to think.
The tools to even begin to think about the way coupled feedback-loops get their job done, such as System Dynamics, have languished for 50 years. MIT's John Sterman, in "Business Dynamics - Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World" , details the lack of correct intuition, even for the MIT community, brighter than most. PhD's don't generally help, and most of us have less to work with.

So, at best we can model and simulate, which has been done at the Santa Fe Institute for the last few decades, with "artificial life" - virtual life and virtual DNA, genetic algorithms breeding and evolving, to see what happens. http://www.santafe.edu/ describes the work of many Nobel Prize winners.

In short (1) the little buggers are far smarter than we are and (2) parasitism evolves almost instantly in every case. The lesson of the movie Jurassic Park is a mild taste of the tenet "Life will find a way."

If the rest of our human affairs were measured and mature and stable, this would be a risky business. Having unstable tyrants convinced they must "master" this technology and use it to attack others, or defend from attack (exact same research), leads to the Russian model of stockpiling hundreds of tons of Anthrax or worse, in delusions that bio-warfare would be controllable or could be "won".

There are good odds the viruses and fungi and insects will win, not so good for humans.

Life is built with interactions with emergent properties on multiple levels, and we tend to think of "machines" at one level with only one function. But genes don't work like machines, they work like cooperative swarms.

Bio-warfare research has a "life of its own" that should already put us on alert that it is way easier to create things that "might as well be alive" than we think. Since we cannot stop it, we are committed to trying to get ahead of it and get the reins back, which means we should pour billions into understanding the world that the Santa Fe Institute has pioneered - massive interactions, how they go good, and how they go bad.

It becomes clear very quickly that, with complex systems, by the time you realize you "shouldn't have done that" it's too late. Experience is something that comes just after we need it.
For very high-stakes mistakes, that's too late. If we keep gambling with the whole planet on the table, sooner or later we'll lose one turn.

One is all it takes.

12/17/2007 6:07:22 AM
=========

Actually, all the research on high-reliability systems like nuclear power plant control rooms show that the maturity of the social system is what makes or breaks the technology-based system. Psychologically safe environments are needed for people to raise their hand, without fear of reprisal, and question what the heck is going on.

What we have instead is a whole culture used to using fear as a workplace and political context to "get things done", as described by Harvard Professor Amy Edmondson.

The Shuttle Columbia (picture at left) exploded because of an "o-ring" problem, that all the project engineers knew about, and had in fact gone in that day to tell the boss to tell the White House that it was too cold to launch safely. They all lost their nerve under workplace pressure to "deliver" so the Pres could talk to an orbiting teacher during the State of the Union address. She did, in fact, leave a message for us (picture at left) of what happens when we don't listen -- but, I guess we're still not learning that lesson.

Further reading

The classic paper in this field is Jay Forrester's congressional testimony:
"The Counterintutive Behavior of Social Systems",
https://mail.jhsph.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://web.mit.edu/sdg/www/D-4468-2.Counterintuitive.pdf

Quoting the abstract:

Society becomes frustrated as repeated attacks on deficiencies in social systems lead only to worse symptoms. Legislation is debated and passed with great hope, but many programs prove to be ineffective. Results are often far short of expectations Because dynamic behavior of social systems is not understood, government programs often cause exactly the reverse of desired results.

Another quote from the Washington Post article is this:

"We're heading into an era where people will be writing DNA programs like the early days of computer programming, but who will own these programs?" asked Drew Endy, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

How true that is. I've been programming computers for over 40 years, and agree that the programs they write will be exactly like the "single-threaded" programs that mess up our airline reservations and everything else. In fact, a look inside some place like a hospital reveals the workings of the multiple legacy computer systems cobbled together in absence of any fundamental theory at all of how many interacting things should be structured in order to be reliable. Thirty years of research in computer science on "distributed operating systems" and how to build reliability in has had close to zero impact on the quick and dirty, cut-corners-now-and-we'll-debug-it-later model that vendors find locally profitable, but that always breaks down, producing, ta da!, more profitable rework. As a business model it's very popular; as a way of getting reliability, we all have seen the results. This is the culture we expect to "program" our genes? I'm not rushing to sign up.

The article quotes someone on the "unprecedented degree of control of creation" that the DNA technology gives us. Right. This is about the degree of "control" that a Labrador Retriever on your lap in the car at rush-hour has -- yes, it can turn the steering-wheel, but I wouldn't use the term "control" for what happens next. If you think our economy and business development and health care system are "under control", then maybe you would think genes could be "controlled" the same way - and they can, with about the same results.

Sadly, control requires maturity and depth of understanding, instead of simply strong muscles and a short attention span. I wish it were our strong suit as a nation, but see little evidence that it is, or even that it is valued or desired as a long-term goal.

We have instead young children playing with the cool gun they found in daddy's nightstand.

Oops.

======= Some after-thoughts:

Unlike the video games and computers this generation grew up with, life does not always have an "undo" button.

The core task of a civilization is to capture the wisdom we finally learn too late, and get it into a form that modifies the behavior of the next generation so those same lessons don't have to be learned all over again.

The hardest part of that task is that the next generation typically doesn't want to take advice from old people about situations the village elders seem way too concerned about - like, not going into debt over your head, you know, crazy stuff like that.

George Santayana said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I'd modify that slightly and add "Those who cannot learn from near-misses will someday not miss."

Each time we don't learn this, as a society, the costs go up. The biggest unknown in "the Drake Equation" about odds of there being other intelligent life in the galaxy that we could detect with radio is how long a civilization survives after it has gotten to the point where it has that much technology. The complete absence of any detectable signals from 100 trillion worlds "out there" suggests this is a pretty small number of years -- maybe under 200 years.

At the rate we're going, we're heading towards adding one more point to that data set.

Learning how to learn from our mistakes and our own past seems to be as important a problem as global warming, but actually more urgent, because time is running out a little faster on the 400,000 ways, besides global warming, that we can end human life on the planet.

Humans are remarkably inventive, and if every weapon and sharp object on the planet vanished, they'd find ways to attack each other with stones. Instead of tackling each symptom like global warming or genocide or terrorism, it would seem wiser to track further upstream and find the root-cause problem for why people are driven to fight, and fix that.

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

More further reading:

On High Reliablity organizations, which are sobering. They try really really hard to not have accidents, and still don't succeed from time to time:

http://www.highreliability.org/

I'm sure the US military tries very hard to keep nuclear weapons under control. Even that intense level of attention isn't enough to do the job 100% of the time, illustrating John Gall's law that "complex systems simply find complex ways of failing."

"Honey, I lost the nuclear weapons"

The US National Institutes of Medicine on how much the social relations of the front-line teams matter when your job is to get reliability in hospital care:

Crossing the Quality Chasm and other links

=========================
Photo credits :
Oops (car) by estherase
US Space Shuttle by Andrew Coulter Enright

Gentlemen first

Columnist Ruth Marcus, in today's Washington Post, discusses power politics these days in the Capital, and reactions to the female gender. It's rather revealing about beliefs about the nature of power and how to judge it. Here's an excerpt:

In case you missed it, the vice president [Cheney] made those comments in an interview with the Politico. "Most striking were his virtually taunting remarks of two men he described as friends from his own days in the House: Democratic Reps. John Dingell (Mich.) and John P. Murtha (Pa.)," wrote my former Post colleagues Mike Allen, Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris.

Cheney, they wrote, "scoffed at the idea of two men who spent years accruing power showing so much deference to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the big spending and energy debates of the year." The House's senior Democrats "march to the tune of Nancy Pelosi to an extent I had not seen, frankly, with any previous speaker," Cheney said. "I'm trying to think how to say all of this in a gentlemanly fashion, but [in] the Congress I served in, that wouldn't have happened."

Asked if these men had lost their spines, he responded, "They are not carrying the big sticks I would have expected."

Gentlemanly, indeed. Once, Murthas and Dingells were Big Men on the Hill, swinging the Big Sticks of committee chairmen, Cheney is saying. Now they are, if not nancy boys, Nancy's Boys. Somehow, Newt Gingrich took on the committee chairs when he was speaker, and no one questioned their, um, equipment.

I guess there are people who believe the only kind of power that others understand is brute force and immediate, but I certainly don't believe that's the only kind of power that there is.

In many health and public health settings, persistent chronic pressure has more impact than acute events. Chronic slow low-key pressure can come in under the radar, in fact, of those scanning the skies for acute attacks.

Asian martial arts schools have been teaching for thousands of years the art of "fighting without fighting", as portrayed somewhat humorously by Bruce Li in "Enter the Dragon". The art of winning invisibly features prominently in "The Art of War" by Sun Tsu, written 2000 years ago, and still valid today.

I noted also today that, after several years of kicking the Chinese in the shins and demanding they hurry up and let the dollar fall, and make it fall faster, now that it's falling, the treasury secretary is asking China to increase investments in the US so the dollar won't fall so fast.

Long term thinking about consequences can be helpful sometimes.

There's no question that, in the short run, rock beats water -- but in the long run, water beats rock. In the short range, electromagnetic forces dominate and gravity seems to not exist, but in the long term, on larger scales, gravity dominates everything else. The last shall be first.

A small constant force, working persistently over a long time, can deliver far more power than a huge but very short force.

And, if you are talking about managing growth, not demolition, long-term shaping forces are at least as powerful as acute events.

The best strategies will be based, as I've said before, on taking all the different scales of space and time into account. The US is losing its position in the world primarily because it has been so busy with short-term events that it has neglected to have any consistent long-term strategy, aside from "have a big stick."

Well, we have the largest stick in the world, more nuclear weapons than anyone by far, the biggest and fastest army, and, frankly, so what? It doesn't seem to buy much. Meanwhile, the rest of the social infrastructure we neglected, including the education and health of our children, is crumbling and demanding an increasing amount of attention.

This is a really expensive and frightening way to rediscover what other wise people already knew.

There's an old feminist joke:

Question: How can we be sure that Santa Claus is a man?
Answer: He does something huge once a year and thinks he's a saint.

There's insight here. It's worth reflecting on that.

Of course, the USA is a relatively young country, still feeling its oats, and still convinced that its elders are total morons. It still has the sense it doesn't need to worry about all that stuff they did, because that's old fashioned and it has "Technology."

I'm hoping at some point it will grow up enough and be enough of a man to be able to say "Oops, I was wrong." That's another measure of strength, and that other thingie: "maturity."

The end of unity in the USA?

"It was the best of times It was the worst of times." Charles Dicken's description captures the rapidly shifting ground in the USA today regarding the "united" part of "United States". All biological species tend to fly apart, as do all flocks of birds or schools of fish. Species that survive need a strong force that continually pulls them back towards the center of mass of the group.

For humans, research has shown that you can generate a face that will be considered "beautiful" by finding the center of every feature across all races and combining them - giving a result like Catherine Zeta-Jones that seems familiar to everyone and yet a little exotic to all in a pleasant way.

Similarly, the behavior of a flying flock of birds can be generated in a computer with just a few simple rules, one of which is "Move towards the center of the flock", and another being "Don't run into the bird next to you." (If you have Java enabled, there is a cool animated interactive flock simulator that you can experiment with here.)

So it is startling to me to see a collapse of this principle in the central governing body of the US, the US Congress, or in the government of the states of Michigan and California. Congress is playing with fire and a current extension it granted itself on its homework until this Friday, Dec. 14th. (It was due October 1st, and I wrote earlier about the pending US Government shutdown here. )


The mood is described in a New York Times article today : Muscle Flexing in Senate: G.O.P. Defends Strategy, which I excerpt here:

WASHINGTON —...

[...it] was more than a little telling when Mr. McConnell laid down his mark in the current budget fight on Tuesday, informing the Capitol Hill press corps that he was ready to offer Democrats a deal ...the Republicans should get virtually everything they want.

Mr. McConnell and his fellow Republicans are playing such tight defense, blocking nearly every bill proposed by the slim Democratic majority that they are increasingly able to dictate what they want...

It also explains why so little is getting done in Congress right now.

But there are also risks. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll found that the stagnation in Congress has made an impression. Just 21 percent of Americans say they have a favorable view of Congress and 64 percent disapprove. And the two parties have been unyielding, calculating that voters will blame the other side.

“I am not seeing much common ground, meeting in the center,” said Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, a Republican who is seeking a third term. “And if we don’t find that, the Senate will fail in its governing responsibilities.

“The thing that’s important to remember is that the Senate was structured to govern from the center, to find the common sense. There is little sense about this place right now.”

Democrats say the Republican stance, especially on spending, is reckless and aimed at shutting down the government.

By the calculation of Mr. McConnell and other Republicans, voters will reward them for stopping the Democrats from doing all sorts of things that the Republicans view as foolish.

Aides to the Republican leadership said they hoped to supplement that message with an agenda that they plan to lay out early next year and that they said would show clear differences with the Democrats.

In the meantime, Mr. McConnell and the Republicans, with Mr. Bush’s support, effectively have a stranglehold on the Senate. That has in turn created bitterness between Democrats in the Senate and House, where Democrats have a larger majority and more leverage.

Mr. Reid met Tuesday afternoon with Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California as the Democrats continued to struggle to formulate an “omnibus” spending package that would bundle 11 appropriations bills and avoid a shutdown of government agencies.

So, it seems clear that the strategy of focusing on differences and amplifying them instead of seeking common ground has managed to stop operation of the Congress almost entirely. And it seems clear that the Republicans don't deny that, and are delighted with that result, figuring voters, or maybe corporate supporters, will be thankful and reward them for preventing any motion in the direction the elected Democratic majority wants to go now.

This also seems to be an unprecedented focus on winning everything possible today, regardless of whatever hard feelings or long term damage to working relationships it may cause the future.

It also seems to be an embodiment of the assumption that the way to get maximum long-term benefits is to keep on fighting intense battles for maximum short-term benefits. The belief being apparently that winning every battle will surely win the war.

The fallacy in that logic was a subject here recently. Only certain kinds of things have the property that short-term and long-term values are the same. The Japanese seem to be at one end of the spectrum, focusing on long-term gain, and the US seems to be at the other end, focusing on short-term gain.

Why is that?

One obvious reason may be a simple lack of education in the country that short-term and long-term results may go in opposite directions. This doesn't seem to explain how the US at one point 200 years ago "knew" that, and has increasingly been "forgetting" it.

It is not just the Congress, of course, that shares this misconception. Most US businesses seem to be in the grip of the myth of "EVA" - Economic Value Added, trying desperately to maximize short-term profits, and not understanding why that strategy isn't helping long-term prosperity.

But the article a few days ago by Stanley Fish in the New York Times, advocating a Machiavellian government, ready to cheat and lie at any time to gain its way, seems part and parcel of this approach. Again, there is an obsession with "pragmatism" that seems to me just a code-word for short-term victory and a lack of contemplation of the long-term impact of everyone following such a strategy.

But it goes both ways, and has a feedback loop, and closes in on itself and latches. If, in fact, you assume that the other side in any disagreement is bargaining in bad faith and has no intention of living up to its word or keep its promises, then why should you accept any promise of future benefit at the cost of an immediate loss?

The whole concept of "horse-trading" as it was called assumes that a man's word is good for something. It assumes that people care about their social reputation for honesty, because that is the currency needed to keep the system running. No lawyer will be around to enforce the back-room verbal deals that have to be made, so they must rely on the core value of honor, even among thieves.

So it may be that abandoning all pretense of caring about honest-dealing, as Mr. Fish advocates, and as many other apparently go along with, has the result of destroying the entire basis on which compromises necessary to keep the country from fracturing are based.

Certainly, a flock of birds simulated in a computer, if the instructions are changed to fly away from instead of towards the center, will immediately break apart.

What I think the Republican strategists are missing is that it will not split into two flocks, because there is momentum and a long term impact to deal with. If every person on the Republican side has come around to believing in and advocating emphasis on divisiveness and differences, yes, the flock will split into two -- and then the Republican portion will explode into a million separate pieces.

Because, at that point, why should any Republican trust any other Republican to deliver on promises that are made? Even "loyalty" is based on the concept that present suffering will be rewarded later. If that promise is worthless, why should anyone be loyal?

It's like the old joke of a man who asks a Boy Scout if he would trip an old lady for a million dollars, and the Scout considers and says "Yes." Then the man asks him if he would do it for one dollar, and the Scout replies "What do you take me for?"

And the man answers: "I already know what you are. I'm just trying to find your price."

I'm not on a personal vendetta here against Republicans, and I'm trying to be neutral but scientific. I simply can't see how a strategy of developing strong muscles and momentum pushing us apart instead of pulling us together and overcoming differences can possibly work.

By my calculations and logic if the Republicans "win" that battle, they lose the war.

Maybe I missed something. The hot-lines are open, and anonymous comments are welcome and won't be removed unless they involve personal attacks, inappropriate language, or advertising. I really am curious what the thinking is here of how this is going to play out.

Maybe the thinking is that cooperation is not required, only obedience; and obedience can be obtained by the swift and merciless execution of raw power, punishing those who disobey and break ranks of loyalty. This is "theory X" of corporate power, writ large.

And, there are two things wrong with that strategy.

One is that life is too complex these days to be understood from any one point of view, regardless how strongly enforced. More precisely, the stronger the single view is enforced and dissent suppressed, the more blind that leadership becomes to anything outside their limited experience. People may be brought into line, but Life will not. Global warming cannot be bullied into compliance. Gravity will continue to work. New infectious viruses will not care what you think. Life goes on. Domination of the whole world is simply not possible.

Similarly, the efforts to achieve "control" by continually simplifying the world until it becomes manageable is the myth that has brought many large corporations down. It won't simplify just because you wish it would, and you only end up with a simple model that has no connection to reality, producing results that refuse to stay in line. As any biologist knows, simplification of an ecosystem is the pathway to death. Diversity is power, when it comes to survival. Well, diversity with a continual distributed, voluntary restoring force towards the middle.

The second thing wrong with that strategy is that the most serious risk to stable control is not external, but internal.

No person, or group of people, has some sort of absolute reference frame. As soon as you break off input from outside, the internal world is free to start rotating and twisting, which will be entirely invisible from inside. The rubber sheet of the world stretches and shrinks, and the people embedded in that world stretch and shrink with it, unaware of these changes because it still looks "right" to them. But "right" has become disconnected to the larger world, and starts drifting, both overall, and then breaking apart into separate pools of "right" that differ with each other.

This may be quite visible to those outside that world, but will be invisible and denied to those inside its clutches.

I am not sure, but from the examples I can see I think that pathway leads to a collapse of morale, motivation, and to complete fatigue and depression as well. Certainly this is true, overall, to people who become fragmented from society. Fragmentation is followed very quickly with increasing isolation, depression, deterioration of health on all fronts, and perhaps violence against the world, which seems to be going wrong, or against oneself, possibly suicide.

It's the larger scale version of what our cells do in our body if they are removed from the body -- a process called "apoptosis" kicks in, and the cells commit suicide.

We seem to rely on some connection and alignment with the outside world, through all sorts of invisible pathways that we can only dimly sense, indirectly.

It makes sense. Life on Earth has evolved for billions of years, developing immune systems and the ability to police itself and restore health. If some part breaks off and starts growing on its own, which we'd call cancer, generally the body moves in and destroys it or by cutting it off from nutrition, kills it off. Life is way bigger than any one person, or group of people, and if they go head-to-head with Life, I think Life generally wins. It has about a billion years more practice and experience at this sort of thing.

Our bodies aren't built with a single Rambo-cell using super-human powers to command and direct all the other cells to do what they need to for the body to work. The idea is absurd. No cell could possibly understand, let alone keep track of all the required activities that need to go on for life to continue, let alone manage them centrally.

Past a certain size, either the body manages itself, or it dies. It cannot be "run" from some command post. It's not a question of raw power of the bullying type -- if the King cell had a super-death-ray that could kill any cell that disobeyed, it wouldn't help. It simply can't be run from the top.

That's not how very large aggregates of living things work. There are no successful examples based on the Rambo model. Those simply violate the underlying physics and math of Life. All attempts at centrally planned economies have failed, for the same underlying reason -- it can't be done.

There's just too much to plan, and the best a central authority can do is "prioritize" and work on a few "top things", and that requires building a mental context to get mental arms around a problem, and you can only do a few of those context shifts a day, if that. But reality has thousands of new "top things" that have to be dealt with each day, every day, or they will crash and burn and damage the overall system. Just picture trying to centrally manage how to feed 8 million New Yorkers every day, and what would happen if the Government, any government, tried to "manage" that process and "plan" it. Let alone a government that specialized in paralysis and stopping all planning operations dead in their tracks. So in a month or two we'll restart the food? That's not a plan. Now multiply that by a billion.

For that matter, imagine how much you'd get done if you had to spend your day regulating your own digestion and metabolism on a second by second basis.

That's the task. No one can "manage" that centrally. The more it's managed the worse it gets.

Oh, it does need management and structure, but the control system required is distributed and emergent, a system thing, not central and designed by mere humans.

And that requires all the parts to work together, above their diverse functions, in an overarching unity that recognizes a common bond and a common support system.

That's the model Life uses. It's the only model we know that works. I think we should pay more attention to understanding it and aligning our selves with it, or at least with the principles involved in developing healthy strength and a prospering, functioning body.

So, who's right? Well, everyone's partly right, as usual. A monolithic central planning government, trying to run everything will not work. An absence of any control structure will not work. We need to evolve the same kind of emergent yet distributed control that our bodies have, simultaneously globally aware, operating as with a single spirit, and still locally active, specializing in a billion local issues. We need both "freedom" and "law and order".

That is not, however, the end point of unfettered competition and "freedom" of every part to do its own thing on its own schedule. The parts still have to submit to the whole -- but the whole is not run by any single part. I think they had that idea 200 years ago when the US was formed.

And, curiously, if the shouting and screaming and pushing and name-calling would take a break, I think everyone actually agrees with the goal, just not how to get there.

Maybe it needs a better and more vivid simulation and animation to get more widely understood. There is no solution where one person, or one small group, or one religion, or culture, or political part, or corporation, or one nation-state "runs" everything and everyone.

This jockeying to be "in charge" and to be that "one" is based on a total misunderstanding of what is possible anymore in a small but fractally-complex world.

A different kind of overarching common spirit and unity is where we need to go. We are so close,with instant world-wide communication, and it is the best of times. But we are so much in apoplectic panic about loss of control and the risks of not being "number one" that it is the worst of times.

I agree that humans, or cells, or corporations, or nations left to their own devices and free-will will behave badly. I also believe that, as our human bodies discovered, it is still possible to constrain that free-will without killing it, if some level of submission to the whole is accepted.

It's not a loss - it's a gain. It's giving up a false hope of something we could never have for a real plan for getting something we could all use, and a world economy and political and military system that isn't as unstable and prone to collapse or self-destruction as this one.

I should state that my thinking here is guided by my own limited understanding of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, and I recommend reading up on it directly for any readers who are not familiar with it. But, I am not the spokesman for the Baha'is, so I'll simply close with their own statement on the subject:

If the Baha'i experience can contribute in whatever measure to reinforcing hope in the unity of the human race, we are happy to offer it as a model for study.
From: The Promise of World Peace, a statement of the Baha'i Universal House of Justice, October, 1985.

Wade


Here's the Dicken's quote in context:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
English novelist (1812 - 1870)

Photo credit: "fighting fan" by K0P (on flickr)

With a little help from our friends

- "With a little help from our friends"

ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2007) - Spending just 10 minutes talking to another person can help improve your memory and your performance on tests, according to a University of Michigan study to be published in the February 2008 issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

"In our study, socializing was just as effective as more traditional kinds of mental exercise in boosting memory and intellectual performance," said Oscar Ybarra, a psychologist at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR) and a lead author of the study with ISR psychologist Eugene Burnstein and psychologist Piotr Winkielman from the University of California, San Diego

.

Quoted in the Healing Through Unity newsletter.

"Healing Through Unity" is published for the purpose of sharing thoughts, comments and experiences on how the teachings of the Baha'i Faith are being applied to physical and spiritual health. Other than the quoted Holy Writings, the material in this newsletter represents the thoughts and opinions of the writers and has no authority. None of the material published in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for the advice of a physician.

You are free to copy articles, provided you indicate the source of the article. There are 6 issues per year. The newsletter is produced in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

*******************************
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
*******************************
Distribution of this newsletter is free by email. To subscribe to the newsletter, and receive it by email before it's posted on the web,
- send an email to newsletter-request@healingthroughunity.org with the word "Subscribe" in the subject line
- or just click on that link on the webpage, and it should be done automatically.

**************
WEB SITE
**************
You can visit our Web site, obtain back issues, subscribe/unsubscribe, and download the Healing Through Unity Course at: http://www.healthingthroughunity.org "Healing Through Unity" is published for the purpose of sharing thoughts, comments and experiences on how the teachings of the Baha'i Faith are being applied to physical and spiritual health. Other than the quoted Holy Writings, the material in this newsletter represents the thoughts and opinions of the writers and has no authority. None of the material published in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for the advice of a physician.

You are free to copy articles, provided you indicate the source of the article. There are 6 issues per year. The newsletter is produced in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

My second response to Mr. Fish's dislike of principles

"... The permanence and stability achieved by any association, group or nation is a result of -- and dependent upon -- the soundness and worth of the principles upon which it bases the running of its affairs and the direction of its activities. The guiding principles of the Baha'is are: honesty, love, charity and trustworthiness; the setting of the common good above private interest; and the practice of godliness, virtue and moderation..."
(Universal House of Justice, from a letter dated 18 December 1982, quoted in the compilation, "Crisis and Victory," p. 45-46)

Sleeping with the Fish

Stanley Fish says we should get rid of honest leaders and replace them with ones who can "get the job done." I totally disagree. If it was just some guy on the bus saying that, I might ignore it - but Mr. Fish is an Opinion writer for the New York Times. He is speaking what many people are thinking, and even if my voice shakes, I must try to respond.

He speaks his mind in his column "Think Again" in his most current post "Integrity of Craft: The Leadership Question" (Dec 9, 2007).

And, to be fair, the ideas he proposes are mostly those of the famous historical contemporary of Christopher Colulmbus, an advisor to Western kings and author of "The Prince" , namely, Machiavelli. I link to the Wikipedia introduction because that article seems accessible and balanced and has good links to further reading. Quoting from it:

Machiavelli's best known work is The Prince, in which he describes the arts by which a Prince (a ruler) can retain control of his realm...

A careless reading of The Prince could easily lead one to believe that its central argument is "the ends justify the means" - ... that any evil action can be justified if it is done for a good purpose. This is a limited interpretation, however, because Machiavelli placed a number of restrictions on evil actions. Machiavelli does not dispense entirely with morality nor advocate wholesale selfishness or degeneracy. Instead he clearly lays out his definition of, for example, the criteria for acceptable cruel actions (it must be swift, effective, and short-lived). ...

While Machiavelli emphasized the need for morality, the sole motivation of the prince ought to be the use of good and evil solely as instrumental means rather than ends in themselves. A wise prince is one who properly exercises this proper balance. Pragmatism is a guiding thread through which Machiavelli bases his philosophy. The Prince should be read strictly as a guidebook on getting to and preserving power.... the ideal society is not the aim.

In fact, Machiavelli emphasizes the need for the exercise of brute power where necessary and rewards, patron-clientalism etc. to preserve the status quo. Machiavelli's assumption, that human nature is fundamentally flawed, is also reflected in the need for brute force to attain practical ends.

Reasoning from that, Fish concludes that:

Don’t blame [Katie] Couric for these softballs. They were devised, CBS News says, in response to prospective voters who are saying things like, “Our president has to be a person of integrity,” “morals, strong morals” and “character is everything.”

I beg to differ. Integrity — the quality of standing up for the same values in every situation no matter whom you’re speaking to — is probably not a qualification for navigating the treacherous and ever-shifting waters of domestic and international diplomacy. Morals strongly held may preclude the flexibility and compromise so essential to political negotiation. And if character were really everything, candidates would be judged by their relationships with family and friends (Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton might not fare too well if that were the measure) rather than by their ability first to recognize, and then to deal with, the many problems facing the nation....

“the question of who is the better man,” Hobbes says, “has no place in the condition of mere nature” — and everything to do with his political skills. ...

Is he good at the job? — does he have the aptitude? — is a more pertinent question than is he good?

So, although I disagree totally with Machiavelli, Hobbs, and Fish on this key point, I thank them for laying out the question so clearly.

I am always quick to point out in this weblog that things that look one way at one level look quite different at a different level, and we need to be careful and do a good search before we reach our conclusions. What looks "obvious" locally may not be obvious, or even correct, when viewed globally.

So, this is a fair question. Is it true that leadership does not require honesty and integrity?

Fish summarizes his argument (that I find captures the seductive Kool-Aid of this error):

Integrity — the quality of standing up for the same values in every situation no matter whom you’re speaking to — is probably not a qualification for navigating the treacherous and ever-shifting waters of domestic and international diplomacy. Morals strongly held may preclude the flexibility and compromise so essential to political negotiation. And if character were really everything, candidates would be judged by their relationships with family and friends (Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton might not fare too well if that were the measure) rather than by their ability first to recognize, and then to deal with, the many problems facing the nation.

So, what's wrong with that argument? Isn't Fish just being "practical" as opposed to some sort of idealistic "boy scout" approach?

Well, first, Machiavelli truly didn't care about improving the world. His work is indeed a guide to those who taste power, like the taste, and want more, regardless what the long-term consequences are of their reign of power.

And, to be fair, 500 years ago who was monarch and how they ruled did not have much impact on global warming or the fate of all mankind. Things were simpler. Mistakes were less important. At the end of a king's reign, the world was pretty much the same as it was at the start, and it was largely a question of who got to be king for that period.

So, yes, Machiavelli is probably right on the issue that, in the short run, people who abruptly cheat and lie and steal have an advantage over those who are honest or worse, who are gullible and made no provision that their leader was lying to them and simply out to consolidate his own power.

But, that is only part of the picture, and we need the rest to see what's happening. How does this strategy play out in the long run?

First, the expectations of a leader are a strong shaping force on everyone being led. This is the whole core of management's "Theory X" (people are bad) versus "Theory Y" (People are good). In fact, research shows, you get a self-fulfilling prophecy either way at least in the corporate world. If employees or coworkers or students are treated as if they are evil and stupid, they will justify your expectations - but, paradoxically, if they are treated as if they are good and competent, they will also justify your expectations.

That's what leadership is about, within the organization - setting a tone for how everyone else should behave. And research shows that it is a very powerful tone indeed, at least within the corporate world. We need to look at how strategies play out at different scales and try to sort out what is noise or accident of perspective, and what is the underlying reality. So, what happens in the corporate world is relevant to thinking about the nation-state world. In fact, as huge global corporations get to the size of small countries, or larger, the two worlds merge.

So, what corporate model do we like? Enron?

Well, again the question gets down to : Is it ok if the CEO is a crook, so long as they are very effective crooks and making money for us while they're getting rich themselves? Obviously some people think so, and have no difficulty investing in, say, Tobacco companies and other Merchants of Death, so long as there is short-term profit in it. After all, they may reason, "God is dead, Hell doesn't exist, it's OK to kill millions of people a year for profit as long as no blood actually gets on my hands, and besides, look, we're getting away with it, you idiots!"

I guess they do reason that way, in fact.

But this "getting away with it" part needs some further thought.

The merchants of sub-prime mortgages also thought they were "getting away with it" and, to some extent, they may in fact have ripped off several hundred billion dollars and stashed it safely offshore and left the mess were all in now for everyone else to clean up.

As I said above, the consequences of these actions are getting larger and larger. This isn't arguing over who rules some mud huts and peasant farmers in a 40 square mile kingdom anymore. This latest rip-off threatens to bring down the entire world economy, and the ripples and after-shocks are still reverberating, with daily news that "the worst is yet to come."

So, here's a news flash. Sometimes the consequences of our actions are delayed.

In fact, I was having a rant about that in the car yesterday with my wife as partially willing audience. It seemed to me (still does) that many policies, like say the Federal Reserve's management of interest rates, are based on what's visible today, not on what's been already set in motion that hasn't yet come home to roost.

Like gasoline prices. Suddenly, as it becomes clear Christmas shopping isn't going to be a joy to investors, the price of gasoline falls a quarter a gallon, despite tighter world supplies. Well, it's a little late for that. That should have been 4 months ago. This is like driving a car by not starting to slow down for a turn until you get even with the road you want to turn onto, and then hitting the brakes and turning the steering wheel -- you're going to overshoot and end up in the adjacent yard, at best.

Because some things take a while to have effect, we learn the hard way from experience that we need to have some "lead time". Things have delayed effects. We know that, sort of, even if we mostly keep forgetting it and learning it again the hard way. The time to work on that term-paper is 3 weeks before it's due, not the night before it's due. But that's "hard" to do, for humans, and mostly the lights are on all night, again, every term, every paper, as we repeat the same mistake over and over again.

On a national level, the US seems to have nurtured many foreign leaders with the mental model that crooks are ok if they're our crooks -- Sadaam Hussein, Noriega, Osama Bin Laden come to mind to name a few. Then after we've funded and supported them and they turn out to, well, be thieves and terrorists, we turn around and spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to undo that choice, and make another just as bad, based on this Machiavellian model of life.

Morality aside, it seems to be a very inefficient process that keeps breaking down. And it's a very expensive process, in dollars and lives, or entire cultures and civilizations.

But morality is largely the present reminder of lessons we learned once long ago, and will learn again in the future if we don't listen now. Morality is a way of trying to protect ourselves, not from the bad other people in the world, as Fish describes, but from ourselves and our tendency to take the easy road, the tempting short-term gain that we will regret in the morning.

So, back to the core question. Is it possible to be both honest and strong? Are we stuck forever having to pick between honest wimps and dishonest strong men for our leaders?

As I said, clues to the answer to this may be in the corporate sector, not the history books. Large corporations are larger than small countries now, with larger budgets and way more power.

So, forget the nation-state level for a moment and ask the same question about or corporations. Is our only choice for CEOs Rambo-style crooks with big whips, or honest wimps who won't be able to hold the center in place?

Here's the issue: This is another one of those scale-sensitive thingies that look different depending on how far back you stand. It's like the cornstarch vat that is a solid if you run fast and a liquid if you move slowly. We need to pull out tools that work when both ends are true.

In the short run, a person who suddenly cheats may have a huge advantage over one who doesn't. This much is obvious. And often they are not "caught", much to our frustration.

But, the devastation doesn't need anyone outside to catch it to work, because it is self-working. Once you pull out the safety pins, it starts picking up speed downhill on its own. Believing that cheating works, what will they do? Well, they'll do it again, of course. And again. And again. It will become a lifestyle, and they'll shift around their rationalizations to adjust to it.

And, like a cancer, it will start growing in size. First some small cheat. Then if that works, a larger one. If that works, a larger one, and so on.

In fact, this describes a pathway known in game theory as "The gambler's ruin." Abandoning internal self-control, the person will start cheating more and more, on more things, in more ways, each time shifting their attitude a little more to make this behavior seem more justified, always seeking new evidence to support their conclusion that "everyone does this", etc.

But, God aside, the rest of the world is not dumb. People see. People know. Things start to show more and more, to be more and more brazen and self-justifying. Things one thought had been successfully covered up come back to light. People who have been cheated, annoyingly, get upset and start comparing notes.

But, again, the destruction doesn't come from without. It comes from within.

Increasingly convinced that "everyone does it", the cheat will now start to expect that every person they meet is similarly motivated and trying to rip them off while keeping a smiling face. Life becomes increasingly filled with enemies everywhere, on all sides. No one can be trusted. Everyone is plotting your destruction.

And, God forbid you succeed at cheating and acquire a lot of wealth. The more wealth you squirrel away, the more it will attract people who want to take it away from you. You end up only associating with crooks-like-you, now being persuaded that "everyone does it."

In fact, almost every large-scale con man I can recall, when finally caught, says something like "Everyone does this. Why are you picking on me?" Their world, in fact becomes a living Hell, filled only with people out to destroy them.

I've discussed my "vertical loop" model of any cybernetic being. This is the fundamental requirement of being adaptive and surviving in a changing world.

This loop is broken by distrust and paranoia, believing that every person who disagrees with you is trying to "bring you down", labeling them "enemies" and dismissing their comments and advice as mere efforts to destroy you or make you look bad. The upwards pathway breaks down, and news of reality can no longer reach the top.

Now things start to pick up speed downward. Detached from reality, it still becomes clear that "things aren't working." Orders are given but the results aren't what were expected. Clearly, this is due to enemies within, as opposed to being mistaken about the situation. Enemies are purged, reducing dissent, increasing distance from reality.

Things start to spiral downward, out of control despite, or in fact precisely because of the misguided efforts to achieve control and reduce dissent. In the corporate world, this is about where the CEO takes the $100,000,000 in stock options and quits. Stupid company. Totally unmanageable. Filled with crooks and idiots. Good riddance.

So, back yet again to the core question. Is it possible to be both honest and strong? Are we stuck forever having to pick between honest wimps and dishonest strong men for our leaders?

The question comes down to this: define "strong."

Is "strong" being able to rip-off your friends and potential allies whether they aren't looking or are? Is that "strong"?

Or is "strong" being able to get past the temptation to take a short-term gain and the attached long-term loss, and instead select the short-term loss with the long-lasting, long-term gain?

I know MBA's in this country are into short-term gain and damn the consequences. I've seen them, I've got the degree, I've taught them. I used to run the Cornell Go club, where "Go" is a board game with white and black pieces, called "men" that form "armies" and try to take over the whole board. This game was required knowledge of all the Samurai warriors in Japan, long ago, as it requires learning the trade offs between short term material gain and long-term positional gain.

I could always beat MBA's who predictably always went for the short-term highly-visible material gain, (taking pieces) as opposed to the long-term positional advantage of getting some advance army in the right place that will matter later on -- when it will be too late to move there.

So, they'd win a piece, win a few pieces, win a piece, etc. as I put out bait and led them down the garden path. Then, as the game came to a close, they'd lose everything and be amazed. How did things change "so suddenly?" was their response. Well, nothing changed suddenly. They were making those trade offs, maximizing the present at the expense of the future, when, Oh my God, time passed. Suddenly, who could have predicted it, it turned into the future that they had been busy gutting in order to have a better life that was now in the past. They had done such a good job of undermining and selling out their own future that it was trivial to wipe them out, once it arrived.

In my mind, "strong" would mean understanding that some present pain and self-control is needed to reach a desired future state, and being able to discuss this honestly and bring about agreement by the crowd that this hard, up-hill trade-off is what we are all willing to do, and then doing it. Strong like Samurai Warriors, less concerned about instant gratification and more concerned about where this will all turn out.

Not "strong" like a warrior who can win every battle, and still manage to lose the war.

But, it is true that this kind of "strong" I advocate isn't entirely a property of a person - it's an emergent property of the whole system. Individuals are weak in all sorts of ways, and always will be. I've reflected on that before. You can't select a leader, put them in an isolated office, and walk away. It's more a leadership-facilitated-group-strength that is the goal, with the "leader" at the center of the group, strong enough to be humble and overcome the usual temptations and sources of blindness, the usual ways that power leads to corruption and corruption leads to global collapse.

This isn't a blind boy scout model, it's a fully-eyes open model knowing full well what humans are capable of, on both the upside and downside, and knowing full well and never forgetting for a minute that "I am weak but we are strong" -- that is, able to seek advice, able to hear advice, able to accept advice even if it is locally unpleasant.

It seems to me precisely that a person of integrity and honesty is the empty canvas on which such group power can be sketched and fleshed out and emerge, over time. Some one who sincerely believes this is about "us" not about "me", but isn't so silly as to think everyone shares that view.

There is no reason on earth that I can see
that "we" cannot always be made stronger than "me".

Any strategy that is based on activities that break bonds between people, instead of building them, seems like ultimately a losing strategy, when faced with some other opponent who has figured out how to build social bonds.

There is no way that any selfish guy we put in power will remain "our" selfish guy. By definition, we just selected someone who doesn't believe in "us". On some corporate or nation-state scale, we'll just replay the Saddam Hussein theme song over and over again -" put them into power, boost them up, hey what the hell they're turning on us, send in the army and try to undo what we just did, by, oh, I know, putting a different crook into power, boosting them up, hey what the hell, etc. etc etc."

Hello?

To quote the movie "Evolution" I think we have found that "Kakaw Kakaw" doesn't work.

Mr. Fish, I believe, is all wet.

And unable to see the water.

A few more "victories" like the last few, and we'll lose the entire game, like my MBA's.

I, personally, would prefer a leader, at any level, who was perfectly honest about what they wanted and delivered on that promise, and who could deliver because the honesty gave them a group emergent power of trust that wasn't possible to the proud-to-be-a-crook alternative. I'd prefer someone who was human, knew they were weak, and made up for it by drawing out and drawing on the power of the rest of us on a daily basis.

I'd prefer someone who could listen over someone who was so busy talking they couldn't hear me, or someone so proud of their perfection that they can't take advice.

No single person can lead any large organization any more - corporate or nation-state or cultural. They've become too big, too complex, too confusing, too interactive. We need leaders who know how to consult more than ones who think they have wisdom cornered, because whatever they know today, even if it's right, won't still be true tomorrow.

The whole beast has to be adaptive, and that means cybernetic, and that means a vertical loop, and that means honest listening at the top. I can't understand how any other model of governance could be stable over time in a rapidly changing world where humans are frail and subject to temptations, but the stakes are high and mistakes are increasingly costly.

I agree entirely with Fish that a leader has to be practical and pragmatic - I just disagree as to what reality they have to be practical regarding.

In the world I see, we desperately need to rebuild social bonds and overcome fragmentation. We need more transparency and honesty. We need to invest in long-term relationships, not gut them.

The power to lead is not invested in any man or woman -- it's invested in all of us working as one.

I don't know who those leaders will be, but I feel confident that they will not be guided by Machiavelli. If Machiavelli is the best we can do, we should just close the shop.