The Atlantic’s Post

Much of what we consider to be structured and predictable is actually the result of random, chance events. Kokura didn't get the atom bomb because it was cloudy on August 9, 1945. In Japan, they still call such a random lucky escape "Kokura's luck". I don't know if they have a word for Nagasaki's tragic misfortune... But, as Brian Klaas explains in his book "Fluke", these uncontrollable chance events that govern our lives should not put you down. In Fluke, Brian Klaas shows how random events, or "flukes," can have big impacts on politics, proving that small actions matter. He uses the "sand hill model" to explain this: just like a sand pile seems stable, small changes can cause big shifts. This idea highlights how even minor decisions can lead to significant results. Crowdstrike's fallout, the attempted assasination on Trump, Biden's decision to step down, melting Greenland ice that's shifting ocean currents... As I look back on the events of last week, I can't help but feel a bit overwhelmed and helpless. Out of control in the grand scheme of things... But then I was reminded of Klaas' concepts. They teach us that our actions, no matter how small, can be powerful and transformative. This empowers us to realize that every choice we make could have a major impact. I highly recommend his book. It's a great read and highly affordable.

Recently, I was reading a book of Stuart Chase called "The Tyranny of Words" (published in 1938). It explains how the word juggle can turn a neutral situation into a conflict, a person into a slave, and a meaningless sentence into a smart idea. And one of the tricks is to use the abstractions - the words that express no concrete physical object but personal and emotional associations. For example, what is "beautiful"? Can you define it explicitly in a way that everyone perceives "beautiful" things similarly in various situations? People can discuss such topics endlessly and believe they are on the same page. Nothing stands behind the words - no facts, no proven references. Nothing but the feelings. Verbiage does not mean a reasonable contribution to discussion. Let's practice and look how the trick above manipulates your opinion. Step 1. The History Blog on the official Robert Bosch webpage provides the following information (https://lnkd.in/esKYBV45): “In celebration of his 80th birthday, the National Socialists proclaimed Robert Bosch a “Pioneer of Labor” on September 23, 1941. Robert Bosch’s attempt to escape any honors by celebrating his birthday in Baden-Baden did not work. Even in death, he was not left in peace, but was given a state funeral.” What do you think about the attitude of Robert Bosch to Nazi Regime? Was he against the regime or not? Step 2. Now let's have a look at the formal description of the award that Robert Bosch has received: “Pioneer of Labor” was the highest award for the outstanding labor achievements. In the time between August 1940 and June 1944, only 19 people had an honor of receiving it (https://lnkd.in/egM6hwFb). Did it change your opinion? Step 3. What if you now look at the paper about balancing between the high values of Robert Bosch and company’s interests during the Third Reich: https://lnkd.in/eCQk7H5A How does your current opinion differ from the one you had after Step 1? Having the clearly defined abstract concepts (e.g. "efficiency", "productivity", "team work", "responsibility", "successful task accomplishment") in the professional domain, in my opinion, might decrease conflicts caused by misunderstanding and double standards. What do you think?

Sometimes the universe bombards you with messages, and it is impossible to ignore them. As I stepped back from work for a sabbatical, I definitely had a lot of feelings about my firm and what I was doing wrong, and I came to the conclusion that I had failed, because my business wasn't behaving how I wanted it to behave. While I spent a solid amount of time wallowing, a dear friend and mentor of mine suggested I was too hard on myself. This article from HBR about failing correctly popped up for me. On Freakonomics today, Amy Edmondson is talking about her book, "Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well." And then following the Obama reunion, I have heard from a few other business leaders that there are things they would have done differently, but were likely considered fails. I think a lot of us who sit at the intersection of entrepreneurship and social change assume failure when faced with serious business adversity. I myself assumed that was the case. BUT after a few months away, I am finally starting to embrace learning from what I thought was a failure. And for our current political climate, this might also be the time to rethink a lot of other things too, ahead of this next Presidential election. Biz owners, what do you think? I know we all always say everything is great. But what if it isn't? What could we do with more institutional honesty (if only among each other)? #failureispartofsuccess

Daniel Kahneman died last week. If you aren't familiar with the man, you certainly are of his legend. The video, a clip from a past keynote, highlights some of his most groundbreaking research.   To say his work has positively impacted my career (and life) would be a drastic understatement. Thus, I feel compelled to pay homage to one of the most important, influential figures of all time. For perspective: » Kahneman’s research established cognitive bias and a vast majority of the science behind how people think (including how perspectives form). He and his partner, Amos Tversky, are essentially the founders of the entire behavioral science field. » His research paper, Prospect Theory*, is the #1 most cited study across psychology and economics (3x more than the second most | of the top five all-time most cited research papers in the Web of Science – Kahneman & Tversky have three). » He's Nobel Laureate, winning the prize for applying psychological insights to economic theory, particularly in the areas of judgment and decision-making under uncertainty. » He authored "Thinking Fast & Slow" - dubbed by many as one of the most important books of the 20th century.   *Prospect Theory | back in 2016, I randomly stumbled across this paper, and it changed everything, immediately thrusting me into the world of behavioral science. In fact, it's genuinely one of the top three reasons I ended up leaving Unum in 2017 (knew it'd be big/needed to go deep).   Now, over 8-years after that initial discovery, considering I infuse a high degree of human elements into every total rewards strategy, Kahneman's research continues to elevate my work (and client results) to new heights.   While I don’t expect him ever to receive proper credit, I’m thrilled that decision-making functions like bias, including framing & loss aversion, are starting to come to the forefront of business. (it’s about damn time) May Kahneman’s legacy live on!

Emotional Intelligence is the one key missing components in organizations, leaders and managers but yet it is KEY to the success of an organization!! More focus on emotional intelligence is critical!!!!

**The Power of Self-Talk: How Your Brain Interprets Your Words** By Rex Sikes “The brain is a servo-mechanism*. What is that? It’s a servant. It works reliably and automatically. It does whatever it is programmed to do without judgment or question. It never says ‘no.’ It can only say, ‘yes.’ It doesn’t even understand the concept of ‘no’. That is why we can say, ‘don’t think of a blue elephant.’ Too late! You already did. It does not understand negation. For example, if you say, ‘I am stupid’, your brain says, ‘yes you are’. It will find multiple examples of how this might be true for you. If you say, ‘I am not stupid,’ your brain drops the negation and what you are left with is ‘I am stupid.’ Get it? Consider this. What is the most memorable word in the sentence? If you said ‘stupid,’ you are definitely not.” From ‘Life on Your Terms: Create the Life You Want’ by Rex Steven Sikes https://lnkd.in/gJMA_q2E *Maxwell Maltz coined the term servo- mechanism 90210 Enterprise Advisory Executive Council

“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” - Frank Herbert Laws to deter greedy or hateful human behavior are relatively useless in changing the human heart. “The little Dutch boy’s finger in the dike” only delays the flood. The two paths that we choose between come down to Martin Luther King Jr. and Saul Alinsky. 1) “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” -Martin Luther King Jr. and, 2) “WWSAD” What would Saul Alinsky do? Hillary wrote her thesis on Saul Alinsky and knew him personally, and President Obama taught Alinsky’s principles in university classes. In his book, “Rules for Radicals“ Alinsky lays out a path for changing one’s world. As a personal anecdote, a book called “Steal this Book” written by Abbie Hoffman the year before Alinsky died, inspired me to concoct a surprising home recipe smoke bomb — that brought three firetrucks to my college dormitory. You all are the first to hear that “that was me” (and not even close to the oopsie-est thing I did in engineering school). 😎 But, alas, I digress. Alinsky, surely an inspiration to Abbie Hoffman, was very different than Martin Luther King Jr. So, “WWSAD” What would Saul Alinsky do? Alinsky wrote, Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. People are most motivated to act based on their own perceived benefits or losses. Create confusion and fear. They cannot defend against an unknown strategy. Make the Enemy Live Up to Their Own Book of Rules. Hold their own morals against them publicly. They “aren’t allowed” to do what you do. Use it. Ridicule, derogatory labeling is a potent weapon. It is impossible to counterattack ridicule effectively. If your people are not having fun, they won’t stick around. Keep the action dynamic and evolving. Constant pressure results in reactions and responses. Relentlessly keep the opposition off balance with one thing, and then another. Play up the threat your opponent represents. The Threat is Usually More Terrifying than the Thing Itself. Leveraging this can be a powerful strategy. Intensified negative actions can lead to shock, fear, and submission — provoking change. WHATEVER it takes to accomplish your goal. Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It. Make issues clear and personal to galvanize support. That was Alinsky. And, just a reminder of the other option available to us so we can see what the leaders offer and where they are getting their strategies, (A) “WWSAD” What Would Saul Alinsky Do, or (B) “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light. Everyone who does evil hates the light.” -Martin Luther King Jr

As Schwab reaches the end of his life, he appears to be desperate to push forward a radical futurist agenda with the obvious potential for global disaster. I believe that the World Economic Forum is reaching its maximum level of expansion before its inevitable collapse, because eventually those people who love their own national identities will stand up against the immediate threat to their specific cultures and they will fight back against the globalist rule. Quite simply, you cannot make everyone a globalist, no matter how much brainwashing is applied. There is a natural contradiction between national freedom and globalist rule, which make the two completely incompatible. “It has become increasingly clear that our technological and even our economic achievements are mixed blessings. Through progress issues arise such as the accumulation, augmentation, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the loss of privacy and solitude; the Increase of governmental and/or private power over individuals; the loss of human scale and perspective and the dehumanization of social life or even of the psychobiological self; the growth of dangerously, vulnerable, deceptive, or degradable centralizations of administrative or technological systems; the creation of other new capabilities, so inherently dangerous as to seriously risk disastrous abuse; and the acceleration of changes that are too rapid or cataclysmic to permit successful adjustment. Perhaps most crucial, choices are posed that are too large, complex, important, uncertain, or comprehensive to be safely left to fallible humans.” ~ Herman Kahn #globalism #identity #freedom #fear #control #perspective #bombs https://lnkd.in/gTVwz3dk

The drama of the age and health of American Presidential candidates Biden and Trump has fixated the US and entertained the world. Even God got involved when She/He/They saved Mr Trump from assassination, according to The Donald. Be that as it may and perhaps it was also a Divine Whisper in Mr Biden's ear that persuaded him to withdraw, a wider question of legitimate public interest is triggered: how to assess the fitness of our leaders to govern? Not least because history teaches that the pains and aches of rulers - democratic or authoritarian - creates good and bad humours in them and dictates the fates of peoples and nations under their grip. The health of leaders is, therefore, a matter of strategic and security interest with intelligence services expending serious resources to collect clandestine medical info on politicians and generals of both allies and enemies. Perhaps that is why North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un travels with his personal toilet the contents of which are closely guarded because their analysis could provide important insights into his well-being and, as gut health is linked to brain health, what he might do next. Predicting that would, indeed, be a breakthrough. However, despite much scientific effort, there is no reliable way to screen for mad or bad leaders, despite all the medical screenings, cognitive and personality tests that have been devised. Besides, what is healthy or sick in governance terms is itself a matter of contention. Perhaps, therefore, the founders of the American Republic were wise in adopting their national motto, "In God We Trust" to guide the voters of their democracy. Let us hope that God does not desert them this time around. My wider reflections on the fitness of rulers to govern is in this latest oped in The National News. Please read:

I learned an interesting (and useful) decision-making paradox today! Fredkin's paradox. The most agonising decisions are the ones where the options we have available are closest in the desirability of their outcomes. These tend to be the decisions we equivocate most about, and yet, when you think about it, these are the decisions where the choice we make matters least because the possible outcomes are similar. The paradox was identified by computer scientist Edward Fredkin, whose colleague Marvin Minsky summarised the idea “The more equally attractive two alternatives seem, the harder it can be to choose between them – no matter that, to the same degree, the choice can only matter less.” So anyway, if you happen to be agonising over two choices with very similar likely outcomes... maybe just flip a coin?