So we completetely borked the budget ceiling negotiation last week, leading to the S&P downgrade of America (read, 'What Happened to Obama' for a brilliant analysis on Obama's utter failure to establish a coherent narrative as president).
And if that wasn't enough, last week also underscored how completely the patent laws are screwed up to the point that they're officially a drag on innovation - the exact opposite of what patents were designed to do (read the transcript from the NPR program, 'When Patents Attack' to see what I mean).
Somehow, we can no longer figure this stuff out, yet recent history suggests that we can figure out how the universe works, can figure out how to thwart Hitler and rebuild Europe after World War II, can put a man on the moon, can create the Internet, etc.
Given this seeming asymmetry between the two realms, let me submit the following:
- While everything is more complex than you give it credit for; and
- The weight of self-interest meaningfully incentivizes people who **should** know better to nonetheless screw the pooch for everyone else;
- We don't have to be dumb and blind about it.
Much of this starts with changing the old memes (i.e., ideas that virally propagate), and replacing them with new memes.
Simply put, while form logically follows function, there is a larger truth that our thoughts on the "definition of the situation," including both specifically desired outcomes and tangible constraints, fundamentally instructs function.
In other words, our thoughts codify function, which give a mandate for form to manifest in a particular way.
In fact, there is a specific term that defines how we process congruities and incongruities called Cognitive Dissonance.
It basically suggests that if your actions and perceptions are out of whack, either you need to change your actions OR you need to change your perception of the situation as it exists. To NOT do so is physically and mentally uncomfortable.
A simple example is that if you think that you are fat and need to change your diet, one of two things is going to happen the next time that you are chowing down on a deliciously greasy pizza.
One, you will feel that eating that pizza is incongruent with your new aspirational image for yourself, and stop eating pizza so much.
Or, two, you will decide that being thin is over-rated, all relative, and more to the point, life is too short not to eat pizza, which is so delicious.
So, what does this have to do with the mess in our economy, our governance mechanisms, and the rot festering within society in general?
Most fundamentally, it's that changing the narrative and the actual words that we use to establish that narrative is a first, integral step to manifesting real change.
Putting it to the Test
Therefore, next time you encounter a story about Wall Street, Insurance Companies, Congress or Special Interest Groups (like Unions, Patent Lawyers, Environmentalists, etc.) start training your mind to be on the look out for:
- Predatorial Behaviors: Ask yourself if the behavior being discussed is a case where one individual or group is taking advantage of another group by virtue of power, influence, wealth or knowledge.
- Parasitic Entities: In order to maintain its existence or position in the economic, societal or organizational system that it participates within, does the entity leech off of the lifeforce, blood, energy or money of others? Does it remove more from the system than it puts in?
- Protected Classes: Does the indvidual, industry group or company have undue influence on the rules that define its governance, and the methods and consequences by which those rules are enforced?
Now, recognize that most stories will be presented according to False Dichotomies, such as being "pro" this (e.g., business, big government, unions or jobs) or "anti" that.
It's far easier to tell a story, and sell a desired outcome, such as passing a bill or changing a rule, when the conclusions are presented in black and white terms.
Don't get fooled by this anymore. When you hear the facts presented in a way that frame the topic as an either/or scenario, be willing to question if the scenario presented is indeed a false dichotomy, and be rigorous about: A) consistently calling it such; and B) codifying what a reasonable "and" scenario looks like.
Understanding "Relative Yields: Everything is Relative
Similarly, the efficacy, or goodness, of specific outcomes are defined by the qualitative and quantitive content of what they yield.
Most yields are relativistic to multiple variables. Ask yourself what the yield is locally in your own backyard, for the larger region or nation as a whole, and/or globally.
Think about the actual impact both in the short term, measured in days, weeks, and months, and in the long term, over many years.
Also, ask yourself if there are collateral impacts that further shape yield. For example, a program that results in less expensive clothes for consumers, but that also has the collateral impact of jobs moving overseas can be good or bad, but the collateral impact is real, and needs to be factored into relative yields.
Finally, when all else fails, simplify the topic and be surgical about the words that you use to codify it. If an individual did this same type of action to another individual, would that action being considered reasonable or lawful?
If not, then ask yourself, why it's reasonable at the governmental or corporate level. There may be valid reasons, but learn to articulate and understand the "What" so as to ask "Why," and be willing to challenge conventional wisdom by saying, "So What."
UPDATE: Mark Cuban has written an excellent post arguing that we should get rid of software and process patents completely. Worth a read.
Related Posts:
- The Great Reset: Why tomorrow may not be better than today (O'Reilly Radar)
- Why the Malaise in our Economy (and Society) is a case of The Innovator's Dilemma
- Getting Real: On Doomsday, the Demise of So-Called Experts and the New Arbitrage
- Assertion-based Reasoning: What, Why and So What
Losing My (Institutional) Religion: A few weeks back, I saw an intuitive, yet troubling, chart on how Americans are losing faith in our greatest instituitions (e.g., Congress, Banks, Schools, the Presidency, the Supreme Court). Then, I read Apple's legal response today to the Department of Justice's E-Book Case. The specific way that Apple frames it (it's worth a read), put a bow around how fucked up so many of our intitutional processes are. This point was lain especially clear in a conversation I had with a friend of mine in the real estate industry. Regardless of whether you consider yourself pro-businesss, anti-business, liberal or conservative, his point was illuminating. He told the story of how everyone in his industry is worried about the capricious way that the government has gone about changing the rules for banks about lending, from reserve requirements to constraints on where they can make loans. His point was less that the government shouldn't be coming up with policies for these things, and more that the government bodies typically step in with broadstroke policies that are completey disconnected from the outcomes they want to encourage or discourage. As a result, we end up with policies that by virtue of their superficiality, just institute random risk, which is obviously not a good thing if you want business investing in growth. To me, this speaks to a false dichotomy that we find ourselves in with respect to the role of government. Today, it feels like a choice between: A) laissez faire policy/enforcement (which led to an SEC completely asleep at the wheel, culminating in the 2008 economic crisis); and B) broadstroke governance, which results in policy that's akin to the "successful" surgery where the patient dies. It's why the health care reform sucked so bad for the very people it was supposed to help most, at a time when they needed it most. The net effect of this false dichotomy is that it only serves to perpetuate the gridlock in Washington.
