A Little is Not a Lot.

03 Tuesday Sep 2019

Posted by petersironwood in America, politics, psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

cheating, communication, cooperation, Design, lies, politics, POTUS, Putin, quantity, science, truth

“A little’s not a lot.

A swing may be a miss.

You must remember this:

A kiss is not a kiss

Without the bliss.

A single sword does not

Make Camelot.

Offers don’t make bought.

A day does not make old.

All that glitters is not gold.

Ads do not make sold

Without the goods,

A tree is not a woods.

A giant sea of coulds

Does not imply a single spoon of shoulds.”

@truthtable, 2019.

———————————

I just reheated a lukewarm half cup of French Roast coffee. I zapped it in the microwave for 18 seconds. That seemed about right, and it turned out very close to perfect. If I’d put it in for 17 seconds or 19 seconds, I would have been equally satisfied.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Do you think 1 second would have worked equally well? My “microwave,” despite the name, does not let me control the time to a microsecond, or even a millisecond. Do you think a millisecond would have been sufficient heating time? What do you think would happen if I put it in for 18 minutes or 18 hours instead of 18 seconds?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I’ve been watching the US Open on TV. There have been some amazing matches! Like the folks on TV, I can hit a serve. I can volley. I can hit topspin or slice. I can hit backhand, forehand, swinging volley, and overhead. I can aim the ball toward the empty court, or hit behind a player racing to cover the empty court. Yet, I don’t think any of my readers, however much or however little you know about tennis, would ever confuse my play with any of the contestants in the US Open! Why? I mean, is there really much difference between my forehand and Rafa Nadal’s forehand? Sure, he puts more topspin on and hits it with more speed. Why should that make a difference?

On a completely different topic, let’s consider nutrition for a moment. Do you think water is good for you? Yes or no? Without any access to fresh water, people die. How long it takes to die of dehydration will depend on health, activity, ambient temperature and other factors. As a general rule, three days without water will kill you, but it could be much shorter or slightly longer. But you won’t die in a millisecond. And you won’t survive for a year. It’s obvious; right? So water is good for you!

Photo by Adrienn on Pexels.com

But wait. You can also kill yourself by drinking too much water. It takes about 6 liters of water to kill a 165 pound person. Of course, it depends slightly on the person and the situation. But you will not die from 6 teaspoons and you will certainly not survive drinking 60 liters in an hour.

You can certainly drown in water. People do it ever year. In 2015, it is estimated that over 300,000 people died from drowning! It seems to me that water must be bad for you! Yet, you cannot live without it.

What about exercise? Good or bad? If you never exercise, that is certainly bad for you (which is why I wrote Fit in Bits). If you run as fast as you can for as long as you can, you will injure or kill yourself (as did the very first marathoner). Again, it depends on your health and the situation. Some people can survive a 50 mile race. Others will have a fatal heart attack sprinting 100 yards.

How can life be so contradictory?

Life is not contradictory.

But neither is it composed of a set of perfect dichotomies.

We like to impose dichotomies because it makes thinking and decision making quicker and less painful. In some limited circumstances, this strategy is appropriate. It’s fine to try to avoid cutting yourself. Under most circumstances, you don’t really have to say to yourself, “Hmm. It’s Tuesday, September 3rd. I wonder how much I should cut myself today?” No, any cut means a chance of infection and will take some of your biological resources to heal and recover from the blood loss.

greyscale photo of person taking blood pressure

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Nonetheless, there is a difference between nicking yourself while shaving and being beheaded. There is a difference between stubbing your toe and being stoned to death by an angry crowd.

I must confess to feeling a bit foolish pointing these things out, because I imagine everyone reading this is well aware that “some” does not equal “all” and that in many circumstances, how much and under what circumstances make a huge difference. If you want to give a pint of blood some day so that others may live, good for you! You’ll be doing it lying down and in the presence of medical personnel who will minimize the chances of infection to near zero. But you can’t give six pints of blood in one day. And, it is not advisable to “do it yourself” by slashing your wrist, collecting a pint of blood and then putting on a bandaid before transporting the blood to a blood bank.

Again — isn’t this all obvious? Well, I would have thought so.

Yet, over and over, when I talk to supporters of the current US President and mention that he has told over 12,000 lies since taking office, people almost always say, “So what? Everyone lies.”

???

I am a dinner guest for the first time at the house of an acquaintance and they serve overdone salmon with way too much salt for my taste. I might say it’s “good” or that I “like it.” Depending on the situation, and how much they press me, I might also mention that I also eat sushi so I’m okay with having it less done. I might or might not mention that I’m never add table salt to my food.

Photo by Dana Tentis on Pexels.com

If they say, “I like it…but I think I might have put too much salt in. What do you think?” At that point, since they are asking for honest feedback, I am going to tell them that I agree with them and that it tastes very salty.” Generally, I like to give people feedback that is honest, unambiguous, and offers a positive suggestion for how to improve. In the case of cooking, it makes a lot more sense to mention my preferences before the meal whether I’m at a restaurant or at someone’s home. Now, if I am nonetheless served over-salted, over-cooked food, I have a basis for being more frank than if I hit them with new requirements after it’s too late (at least this time) to do much about it.

Giving feedback that is honest, direct, and offers an actionable suggestion is a good heuristic to use in the design of user interfaces as well. An error message that says, “Illegal syntax!” is fairly useless in and of itself as is “Stack overflow!” Error messages such as these are written from the developer’s viewpoint. They may serve as useful error messages during debugging. They are useless for the typical user.

All humans are created equal. But not all lies are equally evil. And many many lies are not the same as a few lies. If you still think that publicly telling 12,000 lies that are told by a person who is supposed to be leading the country — lies that are told for the liar’s own short term benefit — if that ocean of lies is the same as a teaspoon of a lie told to encourage a child, or spare someone else’s feelings, then, please re-read this post from the beginning.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Human language enables us to communicate over time and space. It is a wonderful thing. Without language, we would basically be living lives not very different from those of primates in a zoo. Human language allows us to work together harmoniously; to specialize in particular skills; to build roads and buildings; to discover things about nature and ourselves; to invent and to improve. Human language can be used for no other purpose than to attempt to con people.

There are even cases, where being “conned” is understood and acceptable. If you see a play or a movie or read fiction, you suspend your disbelief. At one level, you imagine that what you are seeing is actually happening. That makes the story and the experience more compelling. But you know that it’s a move, play, or novel. The same fiction, if it is touted as a documentary, is a lie.

It is fun to see a competent magician perform. Their patter is meant to distract you, to misdirect your attention. It is part of the illusion. It is not “evil” because you know it is all part of the show. As an adult, at least, you don’t think that the woman was really sawn in half and then magically healed. It’s a perceptual challenge. It’s meant to be fun. It would be quite different if the magician murdered his assistant by actually sawing them in half!

woman reading a book sitting on mattress near the blue string light inside the room

Photo by Ivandrei Pretorius on Pexels.com

Twelve thousand lies. Twelve thousand lies. Not twelve. Not twelve hundred. Twelve thousand. Each one is a cut to American democracy. Each lie reduces the credibility of America on the international stage. Each lie makes people feel less confidence in government.

Yes, there are cases where it makes sense for POTUS to lie. Say that a reporter says, “A source tells me that we are going to try to capture Bin Laden on May 2nd (2011) at his compound in Abbottabad around 1 pm local time.” And then, imagine the reporter asks the POTUS at a Press Conference, “Is that accurate?”

Let’s further suppose that POTUS knows that this is accurate. Should he say, “Oh, yes, in fact, your source is precisely correct.” No, of course not.

That is not at all the same quality of lie as it is to lie in a self-aggrandizing way about your abilities, your height, your vote total, whether or not you have Russian help in getting elected. It is not the same as lying that the Mueller report “exonerated” you.

All lies are not created equal. And one lie or even a dozen lies does not equal 12,000 lies. One cut does not equal 12,000 cuts. One liter of water does not equal 12,000 liters of water. Heating my French Roast in the microwave for 12 seconds does not give the same result as heating it up for 12,000 seconds. No-one would carelessly equate any of these things.

So, why do the apologists for the POTUS respond to 12,000 public, provable, and important lies by saying, “Well, everyone lies sometimes.”

A little is not a lot.

——————————————————-

Books on Amazon by Author:

The Winning Weekend Warrior focuses on strategy, tactics, & the mental game for all sports, for business, and for life.

Turing’s Nightmares uses fictional scenarios to explore ethical issues around robotics and AI.

Fit in Bits suggests numerous ways to fit more fun and exercise into daily activities.

Tales from an American Childhood recounts early experiences and relates them to contemporary issues and events.

How do you Re-culture a Culture?

11 Saturday May 2019

Posted by petersironwood in America, apocalypse, management, psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

collaboration, competition, cooperation, culture, essay, innovation, life, marketing, sports, teamworkd

We now live (at least in the USA) in such a divided and divisive political climate that I hesitate to bring up something that sounds political but really isn’t. I don’t even have a position, at least as of yet. It’s just a thought I had while I was reaching out to people in India and inviting them to my blog.

Photo by Roney John on Pexels.com

Here it is. The USA has a very competitive and individualistic culture. It’s been that way my whole life, but now, it’s insanely so. For one thing, people spend proportionally much more time watching TV and playing on the Internet than they do interacting face to face. In effect, everyone is “competing” not just with local talent, but with people from all over the country. In a nation of 330,000,000 people, 329,999,999 of them will not be the best runner in the country. The vast majority of people will never be winners. This may be why lotto and the Reader’s Digest drawing may be so appealing to so many.

41494225-657B-4155-ABBC-2438018C5171

But it isn’t just running, and throwing, and high jump where we see competition. We have contests around human activities that have traditionally been mainly about bonding and cooperating, not about competing and winning. We have contests about cooking, and dancing, and singing. I grant you that in the past, small communities might have a dancing contest, once a year. But most of their activity was cooperative activity face to face, and certainly not cutthroat competition. Now, the contest is not part of the yearly festival. The contest is all there is. And, for the most part, the contest is all that is broadcast.

It seems that we here in America, with many exceptions and so on, have a culture of individuality and contest is everything there is. Oh, and of course, money. For instance, for far too many Americans the first question they ask about anything is “how much money?” I’ve seen articles that purport to tell retirees what the best place to retire is. Some of those articles focus solely on the financial aspects. Some articles ask which college provides the best education but all they really talk about is ROI.

We’ve actually accomplished a lot as a nation with this kind of crazy culture. It helped us achieve in terms of invention, discovery, and innovation. But what if the problems of the 21st century are of a fundamentally different nature? What if most of the problems we faced in the 20th century resonated well with a culture that encouraged competition, but that now, as we embark on the 21st century, the nature of problems has shifted. Perhaps now we face problems that require a much more collaborative and cooperative cultural attitude in order to solve?

Naturally, these are large trends that I’m talking about. Not every single problem we faced changed lock-step overnight. Let’s examine some examples though. A 1930’s problem might be: “How can we clear cut this forest as cheaply as possible?” And the logging company that solved that problem “won” and got rich. A 2030’s problem might be framed this way: “Is it feasible to provide material by using this forest in a sustainable and humane fashion? How?” One lends itself fairly well to top-down direction. One does not. The reader can guess which is which.

depth of field photography of brown tree logs

Photo by Khari Hayden on Pexels.com

A 1950’s problem might be: “How can we entice consumers into buying one of our new cars when their old car still works?” A 2050’s problem might be: “How do we provide a transportation system that is effective, efficient, and pleasant for everyone involved?” One is about manipulation and disregards collateral damage. The other collaboratively looks to a sustainable solution without side-effects that are so negative they outweigh the good done by the transportation system.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Can American culture evolve quickly enough to be a partner on the world stage in the 21st century? If not, the absolute best we can hope for is slow decay full of internal bickering and hostility as people point fingers and shout loudly in order to establish blame.

Do we really need to change our culture and change it quickly to avoid that? Or, is the emphasis on competition and individuality still the right way to go?

C9C3EEAF-D862-4222-886F-CCF8950DC6C3

Other countries and cultures are already ahead of us in cooperation. Look at the cost versus benefits of their health care systems for one.

How can we change and work together as a culture to a develop a more cooperative view when we seem to be so divided and competitive? That is a real puzzle.

Do you have a piece of that puzzle? I’d love to hear about it.

Or, do you think we should “double down” on competition and individuality? I’d love to hear about that as well.

—————————————————

Author Page on Amazon.

Theory of Mind

09 Sunday Dec 2018

Posted by petersironwood in America, management, psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

"Theory of Mind", cooperation, Design, empathy, politics, psychology, sports, teamwork, truth

Theory of Mind.

“Theory of Mind” refers to the ability of most humans to imagine, at least to a degree, what another person is likely to do based on their knowledge of what the other person knows. Here is a simple test used to determine whether someone has this ability.

You are the “subject” being tested and you are in a room with me (the “experimenter”). Your friend Vlad is in the room too. In full view of you and Vlad, I hide a giant luscious chocolate chip cookie (such as you might purchase from Panera, but won’t because you realize that if you buy it there is no way you aren’t going to eat it!). I “hide” this cookie in the top drawer of my desk. Now, Vlad walks out of the room. He’s well out of sight. Now, I take the cookie out of my drawer, and using great self-control, do not eat the cookie myself but instead put it in my pocket.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Now, I turn to you and ask, “When Vlad comes back, where will he look for the cookie?” If you are 2, 3, or 4 years old, you would say, “In your pocket!” I rephrase this a few times to make sure you understand that I am not asking you where the cookie actually is but where Vlad will search. You again insist that Vlad will look in my pocket. At such a young age, kids do not distinguish their state of knowledge from someone else’s. Most adults will have no problem with this task. They have a “theory of mind” that allows them to know that their state of knowledge is not the same as Vlad’s. Some adults diagnosed with autism will have trouble with this task however.

An interesting question arises as to whether other animals have a “theory of mind.” It is not a settled question. My purpose here however, is to explain what the term means and show how it’s useful for humans. Despite the fact that most adult humans have the capacity to do “theory of mind” tasks and that it is useful, they nonetheless often fail to evoke their capacity.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

A closely related concept is “empathy.” Empathy generally refers to being able to feel what another person feels emotionally. I see the distinction as one of perspective or emphasis rather than two different entities. These two concepts (empathy and Theory of Mind) are explored in much greater detail in the “Myths of the Veritas” series in this blog. For now, suffice it to say that you might empathize with another person by relating to their facial expressions, posture, or regarding what they say and how they say it. You might see a picture of a small, terrified four-year old alone in a cage and know that they are terrified without having any verified knowledge or detailed knowledge of what they “know” or “don’t know.” They might or might not know any English. And you might or might not know their language or even what their language is. But you can tell that they are in great distress just by looking at them. If you actually feel what it is like to be a small child separated from your parents and being trapped in a cage in a strange place, that is generally called “empathy.”

If I were to ask you what kind of pleading this four year old is likely to make in court, if you have the capacity for a “Theory of Mind,” you might well ask, “Well…I don’t know. What do they know about courts or proceedings? What could they know? They are only four years old.” You’d be correct, of course, to question whether it was meaningful to have a four year old acting for themselves in court. This would be particularly true if they had to plead in a court where they were unfamiliar with the culture, the venue, and the language. But even a really smart four year old who had been brought up in America and spoke excellent English would not be capable of really understanding the consequences. This kind of understanding demonstrates a deeper theory of mind than simply knowing that because a specific piece of information is in your own head doesn’t mean it’s in someone else’s head.

In The Myths of the Veritas, people are given a range of tasks that involve what is called empathy. To me, although one can draw a conceptual distinction between understanding another person’s knowledge and feeling an echo of another person’s feelings, when it comes to many practical situations, it’s more important to put oneself in another person’s shoes, than to correctly label the process.

Writers must often deal with multi-level theories of mind. There is what the writer knows about the events that are being written about in a story. There are the spheres of knowledge that various characters have. Most often, different characters have critically different states of knowledge. What the reader knows is yet again different. And all of these spheres of knowledge change throughout the course of the narrative.

In The Myths of the Veritas, for example, the author knows throughout that ALT-R is making POND MUD put his face in the mud purely to humiliate him and keep power over him. ALT-R knows it as well. Over time, most readers will come to the same conclusion but not necessarily at exactly the same place in the narrative. Most of the Veritas tribe initially know nothing about this incident, but She-Of-Many-Paths intuits it and eventually many of the Veritas come to understand it. At first POND MUD is fairly certain ALT-R saved his life by making him do it. But as he observes and interacts with ALT-R and others, he begins to doubt that and then goes about actively seeking information from others that would help clarify ALT-R’s true motives.

mudface

In Othello, the writer knows from the beginning that Iago is an evil sociopath. The audience knows quite early that Iago is an evil sociopath and learns more about his schemes through speeches that Iago delivers directly to the audience. Othello himself, on the other hand, has his state of “knowledge” manipulated by Iago. The audience knows that Othello is being duped by Iago but Othello himself does not know of it or of Desdemona’s innocence when he murders her though at that point, the writer, the audience, Desdemona, Iago, Cassio and other characters all know that Desdemona is innocent. We have some sympathy for Othello because we realize that he is operating on false information.

Let’s turn to a happier piece of fiction, The Gift of the Magi by O’Henry (William Sydney Porter). In this story, a couple with financial struggles each gives up their most prized possession to buy a gift for the other. The functional value of the gifts is destroyed by what they gave up. Della knows that Jim’s most prized possession is his gold watch so she sells her beautiful hair to get money to buy him a watch chain. Jim knows that Della’s most prized possession is her beautiful hair so he sells his watch in order to buy her some jeweled combs for her hair. Of course, the real gifts they give are not diminished by their being no longer functional. The real gift is the gift of love. The author obviously knows all this from the beginning. Readers “catch on” to what is happening at various points in the narrative, but Jim and Della are the last to learn of the full irony.

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

Sadly, many people seem not to bother trying to understand the situation and capabilities of others. In one of the simplest cases, people are apparently unable to understand how very basic physical properties of the universe result in various people having various states of knowledge. On the tennis court, in a “friendly game,” the players themselves make the calls and keep track of the score. The server is supposed to announce the score before every serve. Some people actually “announce” the score by saying it so softly that only they can hear it!

In other cases, novice drivers will follow a semi truck so closely that the truck drive cannot see the car behind them. Another trick of drivers is to turn their blinkers on – but only as they begin making the turn. In another post, I explain how one person’s driving behavior in “stop and go traffic” can influence many other people’s. In particular, if you leave a large space between your car and the one in front of you, it makes it easier for many people around you to drive more smoothly because they have a much more complete view of what is happening in front of them.

buildings cars city cross harbour tunnel

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

A more subtle failure in “Theory of Mind” occurs when a person assumes that everyone is motivated in the same way that they are. For example, a person may be so partisan that they will always defend and promote people in their own political party no matter how heinous the crimes of that person. This is an error, but a concomitant error is that such people assume everyone who doesn’t defend the criminal, and certainly anyone who actively resists such a crooked politician is doing so from a purely partisan perspective because that’s what they would do. Sociopaths who cheat may assume that everyone would cheat and the only reason they don’t cheat is because those non-cheaters are not smart enough to get away with it.

When teamwork is operating at a high level, whether it’s hockey, soccer, tennis doubles, basketball, families, or design teams, people exhibit excellent “Theory of Mind” skills. How are yours? Have you experienced such high functioning teams? How can you improve your skills at “Theory of Mind”?

group of woman playing on green field during daytime

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Author Page on Amazon

Myths of the Veritas: The Third Ring of Empathy.

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by petersironwood in America, psychology, story, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

cooperation, emotional intelligence, empathy, learning, life, myth, truth

When the full moon rose after the hottest days of summer had passed, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives summoned the Eight-Who-Feel-Another’s-Hunger to a great council fire at their customary places. “You have served your tribe well and each of you has grown even since the first such trial. A new challenge awaits you. At your place, you will find a small piece of deerskin and upon that deerskin the picture of an animal. That animal you will observe, copy, learn from, speak too, listen too, come to love as one of your very own family. I want all those who live near you to understand your tasks as well so that they may not impede your study.

“The full moon is here. There shall be another. And another. But on the third next full moon, we will reconvene our council fire. You shall indeed share your knowledge with all the tribe. And, then, I will question you separately to determine who shall win the Third Ring of Empathy and be so invited to the next trial.” The entire council including the Eight-Who-Feel-Another’s-Hunger left as well, all save Pond Mud, who politely asked the favor of a question.

ant

“Oh, She-Who-Saves-Many, I fear that though my muscles may be strongest among my peers, my powers of perception are yet weak, for I looked upon this deerskin and it appears that it may be an elk, that it may be a deer, it may be bison, but it most looks to me like…like an ant.”

She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives laughed, “It is not your perception, my young friend; it is my lack of artistic skill, though you are indeed correct. It is an ant. Now, go forth and study her for three moons.”

“But, but, they have nothing to teach; they have no power; they have no thinking; they are teeny insignificant things that are simply a pest.”

“My decision is final, Pond Mud. I only sought to aid you in removing your uncertainty. If you become Shaman, you may devise tests as you see fit.”

Pond Mud bit his lip and turned away though a slight shake of the head did not go unnoticed.

The Shaman therefore spoke once more: “You are judging the ant, though you have not studied them. You know almost nothing about them. Spend three moons watching and then we will see whether I have given you something unworthy of study.”

So it was that the Eight-Who-Can-Feel-Another’s-Hunger began their various studies of Ant, Eagle, Possum, Tiger, Snake, Squirrel, Horse, and Wolf. On the moonrise of the next month, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives bestowed on each of the eight a mask suited for the animal that they were studying. She suggested that they may want to spend some time each day trying to imagine what life was like through the skin, nose, ears, and eyes of that creature and the using the mask might help in this endeavor.

So it was that on the third full moon, each of the eight was ready to give an account of what they had learned before the entire tribe. And, it was so.

{Translator’s Note}: The actual legend is filled with minutia for every single one of the eight animals. It’s not surprising that such detail would be included for these specific details about each of these other creatures could spell the difference between life and death for themselves or possibly even the entire Veritas people. They took the time to find out about the world and pass on every detail they could to their offspring. Education was a serious business that everyone respected as crucial to their very survival. We live in a different world, however, and therefore I am only translating the first and most obvious thing or two about each animal.

First to speak was Alt-R who spoke of some of the cleverness of the opossum such as keeping their unprotected ones close by, of hunting at night when they had less worry about those who might harm them, although on balance, they seemed quite stupid, concluded Alt-R.

Next to speak was She-of-Many-Paths. She spoke with such passion and in such vivid detail that the children, and the youth, and the married, and the old of the tribe all listened in fascination and learned much about Wolf. Not just the Shaman but all could feel that indeed, she had come to love the wolves. She spoke of they way they hunted together and took turns chasing down prey until that prey was exhausted. She spoke of their social order and how they communicated and how they kept the peace among themselves. “And,” she concluded, “I’m just getting started! There is so much more to learn!”

Eyes-of-Eagle had been assigned the Eagle. She spoke of how the eagle changed it very shape according to the task at hand.

“When an Eagle wished to soar on the winds it spread its wings as far as possible and flattened its chest and tailfeathers. When it spotted prey below, after a few strong thrusts of its wings, it folded them tightly and made itself nearly into a teardrop. It fell like a rock, only shooting out its wings at the very last possible moment to arrest its fall and save its life and at the same time twisting just so onto the back of rabbit or squirrel or mouse!” This much was known by the adults of the tribe, but Eyes-of-Eagle had many more details to share on the subject. It was clear to all in the council that she had been aptly named.

Shade-Walker spoke next of his observations of snakes. Like he himself, he had noted, the activity of a snake is much determined by the heat of the sun. But Shade-Walker then said, quite unexpectedly, that he believed that snakes could feel the heat of their prey just as we can feel the heat of a fire or the heat of another’s skin if it’s quite close. Shade-Walker noted that a snake too can change its shape. Some can unhinge their jaw and some who swallow their prey whole because they can make that change.

Initiates also spoke of their many observations of Tiger, Squirrel, and Horse.

Last to speak was Pond Mud. He still viewed ants as unworthy of study because they were weak enough to be crushed in his fingertips. However, he had noticed a kind of war between black ants and red ants.

“Somehow, an anteater became aware and filled his belly on the fighting ants. Normally, ants are keen to sense a nearby enemy, but in the heat of battle, they didn’t seem to see the anteater at all! He seemed the only beneficiary of the ant war.”

Most of the adults in the council were quite convinced that two more would-be inheritors of Shaman-ship would be dropped from consideration and that these would almost certainly be POND MUD and ALT-R. Sadly, they seemed not to understand the value of creature so different from themselves.

Indeed, it was so ordered and came to pass.

The next day, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives summoned Alt-R to see her. “I have a game for you to try your luck at. Do you accept this challenge?”

“Is this part of the test? Everyone seems to think I lost. Is this a chance to redeem myself?”

“Do you accept this challenge?”

Alt-R said, “Yes, I accept. What am I to do?”

“I have three cups. You choose one of the three. You will have 100 chances to guess and we will see how many acorns you acquire,” explained She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives.

So, the game began, and every time Alt-R thought he had at last figured out the rule, he proved wrong on the next guess or the one after that. At long last, the 100 chances had all been used up. Alt-R had managed to obtain 11 acorns and felt very frustrated. Alt-R searched the face of She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives but saw no hint of the rule.

“Has anyone figured out your rule? Has anyone done better?” asked Alt-R as politely as he could in his state of frustration.

“Yes, indeed, I’m must say, that someone did indeed do much better. In particular, one of my friends was able to gather 34.”

Alt-R was taken aback, but he was still curious. “But then no-one has gotten all 100? No-one has really figured out the rule?”

She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives cocked her head to the side and her endless brown eyes looked into the heart of Alt-R. “Who said there was a rule?”

“Who…? I mean, there has to be a rule, right? How did you know how to switch the acorn each time and mostly fool me?”

She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives lowered her voice and looked down. “Who said there was an acorn every time?”

“But…! You said…I don’t understand? How did someone gather 34 then? Who was this one who outguessed me three to one?”

She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives looked at him long and hard watching him go through the possibilities in his head. Some he gave voice to. Was it this young man? Was it this young woman? Was it this elder? At last, he ran out of likely possibilities.

“None of those, Alt-R, it was the very creature I asked you to study. The possum.”

“WHAT?” shouted Alt-R, against all protocol. “I was outsmarted by a possum? That’s impossible!”

“Not at all impossible, Alt-R. It happened. The reason is quite simple. You looked at this as a test of how smart you were or how much empathy you had. You assumed there was one acorn per trial. You assumed that there was a rule. And then you spent all your time trying to determine the rule. What did possum do?”

Alt-R frowned, “What did possum do? How could I possibly know?”

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

“You couldn’t. Because you didn’t follow my advice and learn to know possum and how he felt about things, what he smelled about things, what he saw, how he loved, and feared, and died.”

Alt-R hung his head. This had not really been a test. This had been another teaching – a teaching that taught him that he should have followed the first teaching. “You are right, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives, but I still don’t see how possum could have done better than I did.”

The Shaman explained, “You came in here and made assumptions. You were trying to find the acorn each time assuming that there was one. You were trying to figure out the rule. I put one acorn always in the one left-most cup to you and to possum 1/3 of the time not according to any rule. After two acorns from the left cup, the possum always chose the left cup, most often being wrong but 1/3 of the time being right. You came in hungry for rules and assumptions. The possum came in hungry for acorns.”

“Thank you, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives.”

“Please return tomorrow night, Alt-R, for I have one further lesson.”

The next morning, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives summoned Pond Mud, for Pond Mud, like Alt-R, had another few lessons to learn.

“Come, Pond Mud, I have a simple task for you. You are one of the strongest young men in the village. Is that not so?”

“Well, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives, I do not know but I have overheard some say that, yes.”

“So, Pond Mud, you value physical strength. Is that so?”

“Yes, indeed, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives! That is why the ant…well, we will not speak of that. Anyway, yes, I am strong and I value physical strength.”

“Good, Pond Mud, then you will have no trouble with this small task. I would like you push over that old cabin. I wish to build a new one.”

“Well, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives, I am strong but … I mean the cabin is well-built…it is meant to withstand snow and wind and you want me to try to push it down?” queried Pond Mud.

“No, I want you to actually push it down, not try to push it down. Proceed.”

Pond Mud walked over the cabin and walked around it looking for a possible flaw or weak point but found nothing. He braced himself and pushed with both hands but nothing moved. He turned his shoulder to the edge and pushed but nothing moved. He lay on his back and pushed with his legs but that slid him backwards. He found two giant boulders and rolled them near the cabin and used the boulders to brace himself and pushed with both legs. He could not budge the cabin. He looked at the boulders and began to hatch an elaborate plan to smash the cabin with the boulders.

“Pond Mud, you failed to push over the cabin. Please follow me. I want to show you a larger, stronger cabin that someone did push over. It is near. Follow.”

They soon came to a small clearing where the collapsed remains of a large cabin lay scattered about. “Pond Mud, what would you say regarding the strength of the creature who pushed this cabin down?”

“Gigantic. Perhaps a great cave bear. Or perhaps a bison? But it’s in the woods. A giant moose perhaps?”

“Pond Mud, look closely at that log and tell me what you see.”

Pond Mud strode quickly to the indicated spot. “It’s just a log. I mean it’s filled with … it’s filled with … carpenter ants. It’s filled with carpenter ants.”

“I see you studied the ants enough at least to recognize one when you see one. Let us return now to my cabin because your friend Alt-R is about to appear.”

They strode in silence back to the cabin of She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives. Indeed, Alt-R had just arrived.

She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives looked at each of them and said quietly, “I am sure by now you both realize that you will not be getting the Third Ring of Empathy. However, I am giving you each two other gifts. And each such gift, I can assure you, is worth far more than a ring with a pretty stone affixed.”

“The first gift is that you now realize not to dismiss a human or any creature because it seems they are not so smart nor so strong as you. And, now that you understand this, you may choose to become better and better at seeing things through another’s eyes. And, if you so choose, you will have a much better life and help those around you to also have a much better life. If you so choose, you can instead ignore this lesson and disdain those who are not like you. It’s your choice.”

“But if I learn the lesson, then why cannot I not be yet in contention to be your replacement?” wondered Pond Mud & Alt-R aloud and almost in unison.

“Because,” said the Shaman, “it was not your first instinct to do so. Under stress or duress, you will be prone to revert to your first instinct and stressful situations are precisely such times that your empathy is most needed. Over time, over many wanderings of the stars back to their homes, your first instinct will change and you will be just as able to see through the eyes of another as any of the initiates. But if I die tomorrow, it would not be well for you or for the tribe or even for all the other creatures that share this world with the Veritas.”

The silence grew at first and the crickets decided it was their turn to talk. And so it was. But after a time, Pond Mud spoke again.

“What was then the second gift?” asked Pond Mud.

“The second gift is that now you know that you are not always the best at everything though you, Alt-R are well the smartest among all the Veritas. And that knowledge that you are not the most able at everything can save you an ocean of pain if you choose to keep learning from those around you who know things you do not or those who are able to perceive things you cannot. And you, Pond Mud, though you are strong, you are not therefore to demand special privilege because of it. To the sun and the moon and the mountain, your strength is as like to the ants only less so. Keep about you the humility that befits being strongest.”

Alt-R spoke then, “Thank you, She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives. It is well. And, I take your teaching as my learning kept close to heart. I will choose to follow the path of the greater wisdom.”

Pond Mud spoke next, saying, “Thank you,” She-Who-Saves-Many-Lives. I too shall now look at such strength as I may sometimes have as a treasure not for myself alone but for all of the Veritas.

{Translator’s Note}: The reader may well wonder why so much of this myth revolves around the two who lost the contest rather than those who won. This focus on continually trying to teach the entire tribe to learn from failures rather than simply be shamed by it, is typical of the Veritas. The Veritas, insofar as I can tell from such a distance in time, space, and culture, not only cared for the lessons of those who won the contest, but also in those who lost the contest, for among the Veritas, every leaf on the tree got sustenance from the rest of the tree and provided loving sustenance from the sun itself to the rest of the tree.

———————————————————-

Magic Portal to Four Completely Different Universes

Myths of the Veritas: The Second Ring of Empathy.

11 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by petersironwood in America, management, psychology, story, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bohm Dialogue, collaboration, competition, cooperation, empathy, learning, life, myth, politics, trial, truth, Veritas

Myths of the Veritas: The Second Ring of Empathy.

[My photo of masks created by Sarah Morgan].

“She Who Saves Many Lives” began the very next dawn to craft ten of The Second Ring of Empathy. This she fashioned from bronze as well but each ring sported a small but fiery opal. Each was beautiful and ever-changing yet each was different from each of its kin.

After caressing the final touches on the first such ring, she summoned that one of “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others” who was known among the Veritas as “She of Many Paths.” She had been named this because of her penchant for trying many paths before settling on the way to take.

The instructions to this first such were to immediately begin fasting. On the dawn of the fourth day, “She of Many Paths” was instructed to travel to the twisted oak near the waterfall that sings and to sit quietly by the dark pool at the bottom of the falls and notice all that she saw. When the sun was high she was to return to “She Who Saves Many Lives” and tell all that he had observed. And, it was so. And so she did.

MythofVeritas-2-1

{Translator’s Note}: It isn’t said in this part of the legend that the initiates were explicitly told to be silent, but those familiar with the Veritas will see that such secrecy was indeed implicitly assume. Naturally, the young Veritas were sorely tempted to share their experiences with each other. However, they most probably did not. If they did, the narrative below makes it clear that any such sharing was well disguised.

“She Who Saves Many Lives” had not been idle. While “She of Many Paths” had been fasting and observing, the shaman had been crafting another opal ring set in bronze. After “She of Many Paths” shared her observations, “She Who Saves Many Lives” summoned another of “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others.” The girl was called “Eyes of Eagle” for her superior eyesight. “She Who Saves Many Lives” told “Eyes of Eagle” that she was to drink nothing and eat nothing for the whole next day. When the dawn of the next day came, she was to travel to the twisted oak, rest, reflect, and observe. When the sun was high, she was to return to “She Who Saves Many Lives” and tell all that she had observed. And, it was so. And so she did.

MythofVeritas-2-2

From the time of the crescent moon to the first quarter, no more were called from among “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others.” It happened then, that a day became hotter than any could remember. No-one wanted to do anything besides sleep and swim. At noon, “She Who Saves Many Lives” summoned another of “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others.” He was called by the Veritas “Shade Walker” for his definite preference to stalk, walk, and sit in the shade. “She Who Saves Many Lives” instructed “Shade Walker” to trek the journey to the twisted oak; to sit by the dark pool (but not partake of its refreshing waters); instead to observe and reflect and then relate it all back to “She Who Saves Many Lives.” And, it was so. And so he did.

{Translator’s Note}: In the recounting of the next part of the narrative, I have slightly shortened the repetitive structure of the original since the modern reader is much more impatient than were the Veritas.

One by one, “She Who Saves Many Lives” called each of the remaining from among “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of the Others” and gave them a task. Each such task, “She Who Saves Many Lives” constructed to be especially apt for that particular person. Each such task was different. Each such task was designed quite deliberately to put each particular person in a different frame of mind. Just as the first three had been hungry, thirsty and unbearably hot, so too were the successive candidates from “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others” variously exhausted from physical labor, desirously aroused by tales, angry, fearful, over-filled with food, in pain, and in a happy and hilarious mood. “She Who Saves Many Lives” knew well that each person would see, smell, hear, feel, and recall different things because of these different states of mind. And, as she heard their various recountings, her judgment on this was confirmed.

On the day when Winter and Summer balance each to each and Summer promises to give way to Winter, since all had now accomplished their tasks, “She Who Saves Many Lives” invited all them to a council fire. They were now asked to dialogue about their observations of the deep pool, the spraying cataract, the twisted oak and the nearby surrounds. “She Who Saves Many Lives” did not speak but listened carefully to all that was said.

{Translator’s Note}: Here the word “dialogue” is used to convey a process much like Bohm Dialogue. The English word “dialogue” is often erroneously thought to connote a two-sided debate because of the apparent Latin root “di” meaning “two.” However, the English word “dialog” actually comes from the Greek roots, “dia” meaning “through” and “logos” meaning “meaning.” A dialogue is not properly a debate with two sides. Rather it refers to a process of developing meaning through the processes of the group: recounting experiences, listening respectfully, and reflecting upon what was said. No-one “wins” and on-one “loses.” It is much like group problem solving except that there is no specified problem to solve. More on Bohm Dialogue can be found here. Again, with a nod to the great impatience of the modern people, I have taken the liberty to summarize much of what was actually related.

“She of Many Paths” spoke first of the many frogs, rabbits, and insects she had seen by the dark pool. She spoke of how tasty they would be and what manner one could cook frog, rabbit, and dragonfly but she had been instructed only to observe and thus had not eaten any though she was quite hungry. She also observed how frogs lay just beneath the surface of the water jutting their quick tongues out to capture fly or mosquito. She had also observed rabbits eating the large ripe blackberries she would have rather had for herself.

“Eyes of Eagle” said she had not noticed any rabbits at all though she had seen a few dragonflies skimming the water eating mosquitos. There may also have been frogs but mainly, she had noticed that the water falling over the cataract fell mainly into the deep pool but many drops also hit upon the rocks at the sides of the waterfall and that such drops splattered high into the air. At some times of the day, these made rainbows. Several times, wonderful cool breezes wafted mist onto her thirsty tongue.

“Shade Walker” had also noticed such lucky sprays. He recounted that when he first arrived beside the deep pool, he could think of little else than how wonderful it would be to dive into the depths of that cooling pool. Five fish jumped into the air from the pool and then dove back in. “Shade Walker” had imagined five times that he had been such a lucky fish. He had thought he might go mad with the heat and began silently cursing his ancestors for ever leaving the water. As the sun continued its sky journey however, he noticed the shadow of the twisted oak approaching him. Soon, his knees and feet were in the cool shade of the twisted oak. Soon, his torso and finally his face and head were also in shade. Still the water splattered off the rocks making a cooling mist. When the sun was half-way between its high point and sunset, a cool breeze flitted through the glade.

Photo by Fabio Partenheimer on Pexels.com

So in turn, did each of “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others” recount to the others their observations. Each of “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others” listened respectfully. Occasionally, one would make a brief comment. “She Who Saves Many Lives” sat in silence, neither speaking word, nor gesture, nor grin nor grimace.

Now it came to pass that each of the ten sat silently reflecting a long while on the experiences of the others. At last, “Shade Walker” spoke: “It seems that perhaps the same place seems quite different depending on whether it was day or night.” All nodded.

“Eyes of Eagles” spoke next. “As well, the hungry see food; the thirsty see water; the hot, see shade; the fearful hear enemies; the exhausted see little but ways to rest.

The one known as “Bent Finger” claimed that his observations had been the best and encompassed the whole of what everyone else had seen.

“She of Many Paths” asked whether he had noticed dragonflies catching mosquitos or rabbits eating blackberries.

“Bent Finger” scoffed, “I meant important things. I saw all the important things.”

“She of Many Paths” then proceeded to tell a story about her own experiences the point of which was that it is sometimes difficult to know at the time what is an important observation.

“Many Muscles” opined that he had had the most difficult task for “She Who Saves Many Lives” had sent him exhausted from three day’s worth of hard labor to sit and observe. “In such a state, it is very difficult to observe anything.”

“She of Many Paths” observed that she had probably never been so exhausted as “Many Muscles” had been and therefore it would be difficult for her to know exactly how “Many Muscles” had been feeling just as it would be difficult for someone without three days hunger to know just how she had felt.

“That’s my point exactly!” added “Bent-Finger.” I was probably the only one in a good mood and that’s why I saw the most.

Their dialog continued for many hours until at last “She Who Saves Many Lives” spoke.

“I thank you each for your many observations and as well for your thoughtful reflections each to each on what each of you said. I think the future generations of the tribe will be well served by such as you. Indeed, no one person can feel and see and hear what many can. Hopefully, you will now be in a slightly better position to know what it’s like to be hungry, thirsty, hot, tired, aroused, angry, fearful, over-sated, in pain, or happy. I have made my decision.”

At this, “She Who Saves Many Lives” stood and began walking around the outside of the circle, handing each of eight among “The Ten Who Can Count Mountaintops with the Eyes of Others” one of the rings of opal. “Many Muscles” and “Bent-Finger” received no such ring. For

“She Who Saves Many Lives” waved her hand and extinguished the remaining embers. She spoke thus: “Arise now, rest, and further contemplate the teachings that each of you has provided to the others. And, know that it is hard to know what someone else is feeling be they hungry, thirsty, hot, tired, aroused, angry, fearful, over-sated, in pain, or over-happy. Soon, there will be another task for you who would earn the Third Ring of Empathy.”

———————————–

Magic Portal: Touch this and you may then cause a book to be delivered to your door should you so wish it.

The Myths of the Veritas: The Forgotten Field

03 Friday Aug 2018

Posted by petersironwood in America, management, psychology, story, Uncategorized

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

collaboration, competition, cooperation, experiment, life, peace, politics, religion, science, truth, war

The Myths of the Veritas: The Forgotten Field

{Translator’s Note}: I should have made it clear that I am not so much creating these stories as translating them from the original language family known by pseudo-linguistic scholars as the Veritas language; a language remarkable mainly in the mythical nature of their myths. This is quite different from every other set of creation myths because so many (though not all) of the people of every other religion know that their story is the “correct” one. There is no way to tell which myth is true, because they are all myths. However, there is a way to tell whether the sun is still in the sky. Go out and look. And say what you see. And if you disagree, solve the problem together. Fighting it out is completely stupid. What you need to do together is uncover the truth. But I diverge from the task. Back to the translation:

fullsizeoutput_136c

The people of Micah’s tribe lived long and prospered untold generations in many camps on all sides of the lake of reeds and bubbling streams. Using their gifts of sounds, made whole into the patterns of language by the careful work of the story-weavers, they prospered greatly. In a nearby valley, the people soon found the field of flowers. Whenever someone felt sick at heart as sometimes happened, the wise would walk with the world-weary to the field of flowers. Here they would sit together talking quietly among the buzzing bees about this and that. Sometimes, the wise would spin tales to help the weary once again see the unity of life; the essential oneness of all things; the long view; the broad view. The weary grew weary no longer and the pair returned to the nearby village, both renewed as to purpose. Now, the brick-makers made bricks with love in their heart for they could see that their bricks were part of a pattern that made life better for everyone in the village and their children and their children’s children and their children’s children’s children. The bread-makers baked bread with love in their heart for they could see that their bread was part of a pattern that made life better for everyone in the village and as well, for their offspring for all generations. The bead-makers polished beads with love in their hearts for they knew they were making the world more beautiful with each passing day and that they could teach their children and their children’s children to do the same.

shallow focus photography of sliced brownies

Photo by Craig Dennis on Pexels.com

As the people prospered, some explored well beyond the shores of the lake and settled on the sides of mountains while others journeyed to edges of deserts. Still others moved to the depths of the forests. Over time, the people began to build different buildings that were suitable for different locales. Over time, the people began to weave different kinds of clothing as appropriate to different climates. Over time, the people learned to hunt different game and to gather different plants. Over time, they began to weave different sorts of baskets. Over time, they began to weave different sorts of stories as well.

{Translator’s Note}: Is this surprising? Would you expect anything else? Doesn’t this seem to comport precisely with your own experience in life? Oh, well. Back to the story.

Yet, the people did not fight battles over whose stories were correct. If the were stories about things that could no longer be seen or heard, and had no impact on one’s actual life, everyone agreed that everyone could have their view.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

When it came to things that could be proven, one way or another, all the people worked together in a spirit of curiosity because all wanted to know the way of things. Some of every tribe went together as friends into the field of flowers. And, here they thought, and they spoke and they listened. And they agreed on ways to test that which they did not know. And, the people checked each other’s logic and it happened many times that new ideas came from their speakings and listenings and thinkings.

All the people worked together, though they built different sorts of buildings. All the people worked together, though they wove different kinds of clothing. All the people worked together, though they hunted and gathered differently. All the people worked together, though they wove different sorts of baskets. All the people worked together, though they wove different stories.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

And the people saw that the very fact that there were now so many tribes and so many ways of building and so many ways of weaving and so many different ways of hunting and so many different stories was a testament to their strength as a people. If they had not flourished and expanded and become different, they would be but a tiny tribe with one kind of building and one kind of clothing and one kind of hunting and one kind of story. Far from being reasons to fight, these were reasons to celebrate. And whenever they sought to settle a disagreement, they began with a recognition of their common ancestry and acknowledged that it was only because of their tribe’s success that they spread out to different situations and that these situations led quite naturally to different ways of doing things. This is what the people did every single time.

Until, they forgot. They forgot to go to the field of flowers. And they forgot to go in a spirit of love. And they forgot to begin by acknowledging their common ancestry and they forgot to acknowledge that their differences were a testament of their mutual success. This was something to celebrate! But they forgot.

{Translator’s Note}: You can see in the primitive pattern of repetition the kind of immature thought process that a culture like this is prone to. In our modern societies, we have obviously moved far beyond that to systems that exaggerate the differences among people (for profit, mainly but sometimes just out of hate) and cause arguments and prevent common resolutions and instead make more profit out of sending other people’s kids off to be maimed or killed in wars and also, by the way, to maim and kill people that they don’t really know from Adam. And, how much do the surviving soldiers really gain from all that compared with the destruction of lives and property that they do on orders? But I digress. Yes, I was simply making the point that we are so much more evolved now than were the Veritas. Now, we do not only build buildings; we bomb them down. Now, we do not only weave baskets, we shred them to pieces. Now, we do not only weave stories to entertain or to teach the truth but we weave stories to deceive. Oh, incidentally, How and Why they Forgot is a different myth to be translated soon.

——————————–

Magic Gateway to the Delivery of Books right to your door

The Creation Myth of the Veritas: Part I

29 Sunday Jul 2018

Posted by petersironwood in America, apocalypse, psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 22 Comments

Tags

cheating, collaboration, cooperation, creation, lies, myth, social capital, Storytelling, trust, truth

The Creation Myth of the Veritas: Part I

The gods grew bored and decided to hold a kind of maker fest. Using the wet clay by the River of Life, they fashioned all sorts of strange and wonderful life forms including whales that swam in the seas, giraffes, tigers with strength and speed, cunning and claws, They created birds that soared in the skies and tiny worms that squirmed in the dirt. After many eons, all of creation was done and the world was filled with wondrous creatures of all sorts. All the gods had participated and each admired the work of all the others. Only Dionysius had failed to participate. As usual, he had been roaring drunk the night before, and as usual, arrived late to the party.

Ever the bon vivant, Dionysius after glancing around at all the beautiful creatures, said, “Hey! Cool! I want to play too!”

Zeus shook his head for no matter how many times Dionysius missed out by being drunk, he never seemed to learn. “Well, Dionysius, had you been here on time, you could have played. But all the materials are gone. All the best fangs, the sharpest claws, the keenest eyes and ears, the strongest bones are all gone. You can see that all that’s left is a tiny pile of clay by the estuary and that little cluster of the very most pathetic weapons, over by that mesa.

“Oh, crap,” opined Dionysius. “No matter, I’ll make something cool.” Unfortunately, Dionysius was not a morning person. In fact, when he was this badly hungover, his design skills were, if anything, even worse than when he was besotted. Worse, he rushed everything and today was no exception. He hastily slung together the remaining wet clay in a kind of rough approximation of a bear or an ape. He threw in a few bits of bone, teeth, and claws and was ready to call it a day and then try to locate the next party. But the result was so pitiable that it didn’t even meet his own low standards.

Zeus, not for the first time, considered banning Dionysius from Olympus. “My god, Dionysius, could you make it any uglier?”

Dionysius felt a twinge of guilt at his shoddy work. No sooner had he felt this than he decided to show Zeus a thing or two. “Indeed I can!” The only saving grace of the poor design of Dionysius had been the luxurious silver and black fur that covered the poor creature head to foot but, out of spite, he now hastily stripped it all off, save for a few odd hanks here and there. “There! That’s better!”

The other gods simply shook their heads in disgust. Dionysius was Dionysius after all. Without comment they walked off. “I’ll show them,” he thought. While their backs were turned to him, Dionysius took a tiny spark of creative curiosity out of his own heart and imbued his creation with it. He dubbed the result “Human” but it held little interest for the other gods. He placed “Humanity” on the earth and gave it no more thought, caring nothing for how it might or might not survive.

When the other nearby animals saw the featherless, scaleless, nearly furless monstrosity, they chuckled to themselves. Some, such as Lion, Tiger, and Bear were hoping it would prove tasty despite its looks. Zeus however, felt some pity for the poor creature and asked the other animals if any would be willing to give Human something to help it survive. Lion and Tiger did not want to give up their speed, their claws, or their fangs. Eagle would not give up his superior eyesight. Elephant had no desire to give up his trunk, his great strength or his amazing hearing. Mammoth loved his thick coat of fur. Even the lowly chameleon would not give up his camouflage. Without knowing about the strictly illegal spark of creativity that Dionysius had bestowed, Zeus took pity and added just a small spark of intelligence.

Those first years were very hard on Human. His only gifts were creative curiosity, some small intelligence, and, like all life, love. (For love, was not a gift bestowed by the gods, but inherent in the very stuff of Life itself). Upon seeing how hard life was for Human, Zeus again asked whether any of the other animals would give up any of their gifts. None really wanted to give up their great gifts, but one by one, they gave some small gifts out of pity for poor Human.

Snake, for example, allowed Human to borrow the sound of his hissing sizzle and thus did Human receive “ssss.” Crow, not to be outdone, allowed Human to share his cursing “Caw! Caw!” Mourning Dove shared his “Cooo. Cooo.” Chattering squirrel offered up “t-t-t-t.” Sheep let Human borrow, “aaaa – aaaa!” Horse let Human use “Neigh! Neigh!” Eagle, ever jealous of his keen eyesight allowed human the use of “Eeee. eeee.” Busy buzzing bee bestowed a “zzzz” for Human’s use.

In this way, Human was able to make the sound of many animals. Though the animals did not realize it at the time they bestowed these gifts, they were actually quite useful. Making these sounds helped disguise Human as he went about hunting and gathering. Because Human, like all the other animals, had the gift of love, they also began using these sounds to share their treasures with others. If a Human found some honey, they would make the buzzing sounds of a bee and point to the direction of the honey.

Humans lived in small tribes and it happened that some particularly smart Humans fell in love with other smart Humans and produced a Very Smart Human. Very Smart Human saw how spider spun a strong web made in a pattern and learned how to weave baskets of reeds.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Then, Very Smart Human saw how the sounds of the beasts could be woven into words and the words could be woven into statements and the statements woven into stories. And these stories could be shared. Over time, leaders learned to weave stories into a shared vision so that many people could have their purposes woven into a strong fabric of purpose to make projects to help all the people. They told a story of making dams to catch fish. And it was so.They told of making rooms to hold corn. And it was so. They told of traps and plans to corner prey. Working together, people could plan and build for all the people. And Humanity prospered.

Author’s Note: The first three pictures above are original artworks by Pierce Morgan.

Author Page on Amazon

Pattern Language Summary

29 Friday Jun 2018

Posted by petersironwood in America, management, psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

Anti-Pattern, bully, Business, collaboration, competition, cooperation, innovation, Overview, Pattern, pattern language, politics, tyrant

A fellow writer recently posted a story seed on Facebook: “The World is Made of Glass.”

I immediately thought: “Indeed it is. And that glass can be extremely beautiful but it is also fragile. It is called ‘mutual trust.’ We live in a globally interconnected world that fundamentally depends on that mutual trust.”

I recall that when I was eleven years old, if my friends and I saw a bottle on our travels, we would find a way to destroy it. Before we actually destroyed it, we would discuss the most fun method. Would we chuck stones at it? Or would take turns throwing it high in the air and wait for it to crash upon the ground? One thing we never discussed: whether or not smashing the bottle was a good idea. It never occurred to us that time and effort had gone into making the bottle. It never occurred to us that someone might come along and cut themselves or their bike tires on the broken glass. It never occurred to us that a shard of glass might go flying into someone’s cornea.

Stupid. But I was eleven. Now, quite astoundingly, I find people who should be decades beyond knowing better want to break bottles just for the hell of it. They want to destroy the current network of agreements, treaties, compromises, supply chains, currency exchanges and replace it with … ? The goal of the pre-teen billionaires? An extremely divided society in which a very small number of people will hold all the wealth and all the power and control all the sources of information. Most people on earth will essentially be their slaves. It will be a world run by men, not laws. This “break everything and then grab all the pie for yourself” goal might succeed but I think a more likely outcome is the destruction of civilization.

Suddenly realigning the nations of the nuclear-armed world when many of them will be headed by essentially authoritarian dictators is extremely dangerous in terms of beginning an atomic war. War and war-like rhetoric are standard tools for autocrats to consolidate their power.

Even if atomic war is somehow avoided, billions of people could die. No, not millions. Billions. As I’ve mentioned before, most of us know how to survive and thrive in a particular context and we’ve become largely unaware of the extent to which the adaptive habits in our brains depend on our network of friends, family, and information sources. Not only will infrastructure and supply chains falter, fray, and fail; Anti-Patterns for collaboration will prevail over Patterns. This will make life more miserable but it will also make what people do far less efficient and effective as well.

Photo by Amber Lamoreaux on Pexels.com

I think anyone can do the necessary extrapolation. Becoming better at positive collaboration and increasing mutual trust will have two effects; at least, so I claim. First, there will be a local effect: whatever work you’re doing will become more pleasurable and effective. Second, there will also be a more global effect: you are providing a model of what works for others; you are also making them feel good about working with others; increasing their trust in each other and, to some extent, in their fellow humans. Better collaboration, teamwork, and cooperation can help prevent the destruction of our glass world.

Needless to say, the world is hardly perfect. It does need to change. That can be done in a collaborative way that leaves people alive; respects individuals; protects important freedoms. Real improvements will not be made by isolating nations, by trade wars, by shooting wars, by reneging on signed agreements, by tearing families apart, by cruelty.

And yet, there is reason for hope – and action. People around the world are interested in learning how to collaborate better. That’s one reason for hope!

——————————————————

Here is an index to the Patterns and Anti-Patterns that have been presented in this blog.

Special Spaces & Wonderful Places introduces the concept of a Pattern Language.

“Who Speaks for Wolf?” reminds us to seek the input of all stakeholders and relevant areas of expertise before making a decision.

“Reality Check” reminds us that we cannot settle for ersatz measures; at least periodically, we must make sure we understand what is really happening.

Small Successes Early suggests that before launching into a complex project, especially when strangers must collaborate, it is useful to first tackle a smaller, shorter term project so people can build mutual trust.

Small Successes Early: Metaphor & Fable is an experiment in additional, potentially useful new parts of a Pattern. Although they seemed useful in this particular Pattern, I am not certain that they should be a normal part of a Pattern.

Radical Collocation suggests that for some types of complex problems it is important to put everyone together in the same space. Particularly relevant when the structure of the problem is not completely known ahead of time.

Meaningful Initiation can be a significant source of group cohesion but if done poorly, it can become an excuse for people to act cruelly. In that case, it can backfire.

The Iroquois Rule of Six suggests that we do not glom onto the first interpretation that comes to mind when it comes to interpreting the behavior of others.

Greater Gathering is a way for people to feel connected to the larger organization that they belong to – over and above those they come into frequent contact with.

Context-Setting Entrance allows people to know how they should act once inside a physical or virtual place.

Bohm Dialogue is a way of relating non-competitively. Rather than “making points” to “prove” one’s pre-existing beliefs, people work together to build a joint understanding.

Build from Common Ground – Rather than trying to be overly “efficient” by jumping right into “resolving” differences, it works much better to begin by establishing common ground in terms of experiences, likes, values, hobbies, concerns, etc.

Use Thoughtful Group Feedback Structures and Processes in order to provide useful information in a way that maximizes its likelihood of actually being used.

Indian Wells Tennis Tournament is not a Pattern per se. The purpose of this interlude is to provide an example of complex collaboration. Often, when we use a service, buy a product, or attend an event, we fail to think about how much complex collaboration is necessary to make it happen.

Negotiate from Needs, not Positions. Often, creative solutions to negotiations can be discovered by working together to understand the situation from each other’s perspective.

Give a Sympathetic Reading. If you work together with others in good faith, it pays to do your best to interpret what others say in a way that makes sense, if you can find one.

Positive Deviance. There is always variation in the way people do things. In a large enough population, it often happens that a few people may have solved a problem that faces everyone. That information, often implicit, can improve the lives of the entire population.

Music binds people together. This post explores some of the possible reasons.

Narrative Insight Method describes techniques for gather valuable knowledge from experts through the use of storytelling.

Fostering Group Cohesion through Common Narratives is another storytelling technique: in this case, one focuses on building and disseminating stories that illustrate common values.

Fostering Community Learning via Transformed Narratives. This helps solve a dilemma. For organizational learning, it’s crucial to learn from people’s mistakes. Ordinarily though, mistakes are not just used for learning but to bar one from advancement, raises, and the esteem of one’s colleagues.

Speak Truth to Power says that those in power must hear the truth rather than simply what will make them happy. (See also Anti-Pattern: Kill the Messenger).

Find and Cultivate Allies in complex organizations. Often, necessary allies may not be immediately obvious from official org charts.

Support Both Flow & Breakdown if you want to avoid systems that crash catastrophically.

Use Diversity as a Resource. This can be especially useful in finding and formulating problems, generating ideas, synthesizing ideas, looking for bugs, finding creative ways to market and sell products, etc.

The Day From Hell: Why Does Anyone Care? A fantasy of how the simplest most mundane things could become nightmares of conflict without cooperation and collaboration. (Not a Pattern – a motivation for a Pattern Language.)

Collaboration Patterns: A Pattern Language for Creative Collaborations. This is a pointer to a so-far unrelated attempt to build a Pattern Language for Collaboration.

Anti-Pattern: Power Trumps Good This is the first of a series of ANTI-Patterns; that is, things to be avoided. Might does not make right; but when people act as though it is, the most powerful rather than the most competent calls the shots.

Anti-Pattern: Gratuitous Push Down This Anti-Pattern describes the behavior that some people engage in of useless and unnecessary cruelty. They push people down for no reason.

Anti-Pattern: Kiss Up; Kick Down People obsessed with power for its own sake will tend to be very solicitous who have more power and show no respect for those whom they oversee

Anti-Pattern: Conjure a Common Enemy This is a common trick of tyrants. They will point first to some very unpopular group and exaggerate its influence, power, or ill intent. In some cases the “enemy” can be completely imaginary. Eventually, the “common enemy” is anyone who disagrees with the tyrant.

Anti-Pattern: Taking Credit & Spreading Blame. Another common tyrant trick is to take credit for everything good even when they had nothing to do with it and to spread blame on others even if they had nothing to do with the bad outcome.

Anti-Pattern: Kill the Messenger This is the opposite of a Learning Organization. Tyrants want to “kill the messenger” because they bring bad news.

Anti-Pattern: Cascading Betrayal Since the organization built by a tyrant does not rely on affection or competence, once power starts to crumble, people will begin to desert the tyrant. Viewed from a different perspective, some may simply decide to do what’s right rather than what’s easiest or most profitable.

Author Page on Amazon

Anti-Pattern: Kill the Messenger

28 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by petersironwood in America, management, psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

advertising, Anti-Pattern, bully, Business, collaboration, cooperation, learning, marketing, media, Pattern Langauge, politics

This may be the last in the series of socio-technical Anti-Patterns (that is, things you want to avoid doing). Although I do think there is value in the Anti-Patterns (or I wouldn’t have bothered), I think the emphasis should be on the Patterns. It’s also personally depressing to write about Anti-Patterns right now because every time I write about how a particular type of behavior is to be avoided, it happens in real life! In abundance! Without apology!

This is why I also included the “what if” story about tennis. I really think people do not quite see how utterly dependent the vast majority of us are on complex, globe-spanning interactions which are, at bottom, based on mutual trust.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Once we erode that trust, literally millions will die even if war is avoided – which itself seems a remote possibility. It is a bit, I suppose, like the proverbial story about fish not “realizing” they are in water because it’s all they’ve ever known. People exist and thrive because of this network of trust. But they have no realization that it’s even there, let alone that it’s crucial. Once these networks are destroyed, they will be most likely be replaced by much simpler, less flexible ones based on power. There is a limit to how large these can grow because when possible, everyone will realize that such a network only really benefits the person at the top. So, they escape if they are able. Such power-based networks are also far less capable of innovation than ones based on trust, expertise and experience, fair incentives, the free flow of information. And, one of the main deficiencies in power-based networks is illustrated by the following Anti-Pattern.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

————————————————————

Kill the Messenger

In the context of a crucial issue or task, important information is provided to the Person in Power: information that is critical in making the right decision or designing the proper course of action. When this information is delivered to the Person in Power (here abbreviated “PP”), they hear something they don’t like. So, they literally or figuratively, kill the messenger.

At first blush, this Anti-Pattern seems insane. Of course, it is unfair and unethical to kill the messenger, but how does it benefit the PP who does the killing? Here’s the surprising answer: It doesn’t! Not in the least! He or she is encouraging people to avoid providing him with crucial information. It doesn’t benefit PP, but it does benefits his or her Id-Baby. Some people would say it benefits his or her ego, but that is not really in keeping with Freud’s original meaning of the words Ego, Id, and Superego. Or, to say it another way, killing the messenger is not good for the PP’s body or the PP’s long-term prospects; in other words, not for the adult PP (if there is one). Killing the messenger is an infantile reaction of the inner child who believes everything must be the way they want it to be.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

There is, however, another reason – an also insane reason – for the PP to kill the messenger. He is now free to discredit the messenger. This in turn, if carried out as a policy against the Message Sent by Messenger (here abbreviated “MSM”), people will begin to doubt the MSM and rely only on the PP for the “truth.” This reason shows a somewhat longer time-span of attention. After all, if people have a lot of experience with MSM that turns out to be quite useful information, it will take some time for the PP to destroy credibility of the MSM. But, it is still quite limited thinking; perhaps not a 2 year old, but more like a spoiled 13-year old from one of the more prestigious Prep Schools. Plans must change and we must be open to it. So, for the PP to destroy sources of potentially useful information to the PP, is still insane.

(Editorial Aside: And, I must confess, I am totally bewildered that we while we shouldn’t and wouldn’t let an insane person drive a school bus, we would have one armed with nuclear weapons. Well, more than one.)

In various organizations and contexts, the specifics of Killing the Messenger vary as well as the degree to which it happens. “Killing the messenger” figuratively can be partial. For example, a company will likely fill its website with positive news about the company. They probably take a similar tack with employees. If they are required by law to tell you about a drug’s side-effects, they will do it while a beautiful woman in a white dress dances carelessly and weightlessly through a field of daisies and while somewhere magic elves are playing Beethoven’s Ode to Joy. Who wouldn’t want those side effects?! And, yet, that same company might be quite scrupulous about the accuracy of some of the data it depends on for its operational efficiency. So, it can be a mixed bag. At least, it can be a mixed bag for a normal organization or a normal person.

At one extreme, we might have some sort of highly enlightened guru who would immediately take in each new moment without judgement. Most people may initially have a negative reaction to bad news. They may not believe the messenger. They might say, “What? What did you say? No! You must be joking!”

In some cases, even a normal person might lash out at a messenger. I can see that if a member of the Armed Services came to your door to tell you that your spouse had been killed, you might scream at the messenger. But, if you’re more than a very small child, you realize it wasn’t their fault.

fullsizeoutput_1385

But no sane adult would block out potentially crucial information that should inform their critical decisions. A sane adult would seek out additional sources of information; cross-check them against each other; surround himself with smart, competent people honest enough to tell the truth, even when it “hurts.” Without the truth to work with, a PP is just a Powerless Puppet to their own Id — or, likely, someone else’s.

Perhaps you have been the recipient of some variant of “Kill the Messenger”? Or observer?

——————————————-

I will post another Pattern Language Overview that includes the newer Patterns and Anti-Patterns – with clickable links. After that, I plan to move in a quite different direction.

Author Page on Amazon

Collaboration Patterns: A Pattern Language for Creative Collaborations.

14 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by petersironwood in management, psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Business, collaboration, cooperation, creativity, Design, innovation, pattern language, teamwork

Collaboration Patterns: A Pattern Language for Creative Collaborations.

(Takashi Iba with Iba Laboratory).

In response to a look at my on-going efforts to build a Pattern Language of ‘best practices’ in collaboration and teamwork, one of my readers suggested I take a look at the work of Takashi Iba at Keio University in Japan. I fondly recall visiting Keio University back in 1977 and giving a lecture on our work at IBM Research with John Carroll and Ashok Malhotra on the “Psychology of Design.” (See references below). In any case, I bought the book and read it and here I am recommending it to you.

The approach taken in Collaboration Patterns: A Pattern Language for Creative Collaborations is somewhat different from the one I’ve been taking so far. The Patterns here are fairly elaborate and “wordier” while the ones in Collaboration Patterns are much shorter and more at a strategic level. They deal more with what one should do rather than how how to achieve the results. Another way to think about it is that some of the Patterns in this blog are more about mechanisms or processes to achieve many of the goals expressed in Collaboration Patterns.

The Patterns in Collaboration Patterns are each only two pages (one of which are quotes and cartoons). You can read the book quickly and an entire group could come up to speed on using this book fairly rapidly. By contrast, understanding all the Patterns in this blog will take a longer time. Anyway, if you are in the middle of a project right now or about to start one and would like to improve your creative collaboration, I would suggest starting with Collaboration Patterns. It gives excellent suggestions for how to use the book in multiple ways. Hopefully by now, everyone sees that collaboration has always been vital for humanity to have many of the things that now exist to make life more beautiful, comfortable, and safe. I think that there is a place for these longer Patterns as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Collaboration-Patterns-Language-Collaborations-Catalogue/dp/1312447168

Carroll, J. and Thomas, J.C. (1982). Metaphor and the cognitive representation of computer systems. IEEE Transactions on Man, Systems, and Cybernetics., SMC-12 (2), pp. 107-116.

Thomas, J.C. and Carroll, J. (1981). Human factors in communication. IBM Systems Journal, 20 (2), pp. 237-263.

Malhotra, A., Thomas, J.C., Carroll, J. & Miller, L. (1980). Cognitive processes in design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20 , 119-140.

Carroll, J. Thomas, J. Miller, L. & Friedman, H. (1980). Aspects of solution structure in design problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 93 (2), 269-284.

Malhotra, A., Thomas, J.C. and Miller, L. (1980). Cognitive processes in design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, pp. 119-140.

Carroll, J., Thomas, J.C. and Malhotra, A. (1980). Presentation and representation in design problem solving. British Journal of Psychology/,71 (1), pp. 143-155.

Carroll, J., Thomas, J.C. and Malhotra, A. (1979). A clinical-experimental analysis of design problem solving. Design Studies, 1 (2), pp. 84-92.

Thomas, J.C. (1978). A design-interpretation analysis of natural English. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 10, pp. 651-668.

————————————————-

Author Page on Amazon

petersironwood

~ Finding, formulating and solving life's frustrations.

Tag Archives: cooperation

A Little is Not a Lot.

How do you Re-culture a Culture?

Theory of Mind

Myths of the Veritas: The Third Ring of Empathy.

Myths of the Veritas: The Second Ring of Empathy.

The Myths of the Veritas: The Forgotten Field

Pattern Language Summary

Anti-Pattern: Kill the Messenger

Collaboration Patterns: A Pattern Language for Creative Collaborations.