Douglas Bader on Rules

The World War 2 ace said: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."

I think I said something similar (see here). Obviously I'm not the first to think such thoughts...

Watch 'Invictus' streaming

This is a great movie. The story of South Africa winning the rugby world cup in 1995. It is about exceeding our own expectations of ourselves. Inspiring.

Click on the picture below, the movie pops up as a new page, click play, enjoy...

Neil Pasricha: The 3 A's of awesome

Neil's life went bad. But he got on with it and made a conscious effort to find the good things in life rather than dwell on the bad (why oh why don't more people do this rather than loaf around in self centred, self inflicted, self perpetuating misery). This is Neil's story and his insights. It's touching, simple and so damn obvious! Many people go through ordeals like this but he deals with the matter so personally and delicately (and even thanks his parents). It is from the heart. He got his platform at TED because he helped change the world. Respect. Thanks for having a bad spell :-)

Snow wars - where is the military?

In case you have missed it, the UK has come to a halt due to the snow (see here). I am fine with the fact that we only get ‘hit’ by bad weather for two or three weeks a year and therefore should not invest too heavily to counteract the impact of bad weather. We are economically constrained and I would rather my tax be spent on education, police and other critical public services. But I would have expected some pre-emptive measures. Did you know that modern science actually allows us to observe and predict weather patterns – I fear this is news to the government. I would also like to know why the army are not out with shovels at the major airports, helping to move snow and why they are not also providing the essential man-power and resources to support the thousands of people who are stranded. Surely they are well skilled for dealing with situations like these? Why has no one thought to ask for their help...or the MoD mandated it? Surely I cannot be the first person to think about involving the military? Would they not do this in North America under similar circumstances? Did I miss something?

When losing is winning

He that fights and runs away, may turn and fight another day; but he that is in battle slain, will never rise to fight again.
-Tacitus

Rules

This is something I have been thinking about recently. People who follow rules to the letter do not understand what they (themselves or the rules) are there to achieve.

Currency of community

I have talked previously about the currency of favours (see here). Recently, the Mosaic Church in Coventry announced the launch of its Grout system - essentially a currency that can be acquired and spent within a community. Grouts are transacted for giving time or something more tangible. This is a true community currency and slightly different to the principle I mentioned which relies on the trading of actions without the need for a transactional, quantifiable currency. Nonetheless, as schemes like these appear and evolve (and they are excellent), I hope to see them move away from the reliance on a currency with guaranteed returns and mature to one that relies on passive confidence that acts of good will be reciprocated as I describe here.

Watch 'Pay It Forward' Streaming

I've talked about "Cooperative behaviour cascades in human social networks". For those that don't know, "Pay it Forward" is an outstanding movie from 2000 that sees the theme in practice.

Here is the movie. Click on the red arrow - when it turns green, click on the green arrow. Then click on the screen and it will open in a new window so you can enjoy the full screen. The video, as posted here, is too wide for the posting space.



Here's a link to the movie on Tudou: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/KfuiMUDLv4s/

Judge me on my intent

I previously raised the question of judging someone based on their actions or intent. It seems that scientists have taken us one step towards answering this question. When we are faced with a simple task, scientists are able to predict our actions by analysing our brain activity in real time. These simple tasks can be adding or subtracting two numbers. By scanning our brains, scientists can predict our intent before we are consciously aware.

Here is an article from New Scientist that describes the work.

This form of mind reading leads to a philosophical and ethical consideration. If our intent is a true and unconscious reflection of our belief system, do our actions always mirror our intent? The answer has to be 'no'. We have a conscious filter that stops us acting on gut instinct, that forces us to behave appropriately in polite situations. If someone were to commit a crime would they be guilty if their intent was never to take part - perhaps they had been coerced, or felt obliged for some reason?

As we learn more about the brain, society will need to hold these debates. As we, individually, learn more about the brain, we have a responsibility to increase our self awareness and be 1) mindful of our intent 2) conscious of our actions.

Unreciprocated favours

I talked about the currency of favours previously where people contribute their time in exchange for a personal benefit of some type. I recently came across a piece or research from the University of St Andrews that demonstrated this characteristic in orangutans (see here for the article). So in short, and cynically, humans are no different to monkeys.

Is there such a thing as selflessness in human conduct? The Machiavellians would say no. The Daoists would say yes. I would say ‘I hope so’ (then I have also raised the debate about altruism which is something similar). One principal difference between these ideologies is that of active calculation. The Machiavellians undertake certain actions in the knowledge of the immediate consequences to their benefit. The Daoists undertake certain actions according to the belief that nature takes its course and the consequences will be what they are – by forcing nothing, nature yields to the will of the inevitable and nature inherently exists to benefit (or enlighten) people who follow ‘the Way’. The end result yields personal benefits but the means of achieving these benefits is very different – as is the underlying set of personal values.

I have also talked about our cultural transition from ‘knowledge’ to ‘wisdom’ (see here) and how we must evolve our attitudes towards society from one of fact and solution to one of insight and responsibility. So the currency of favours is nothing new: Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the early 16th Century and the Dao De Jing was written in 500 BCE (give or take). So the question is whether we are happy to share the characteristics of monkeys in a quantitative, calculated Machiavellian approach to engaging in societal endeavours or embrace our responsibility to give selfless, unrequited favours with courage and vindication for the greater benefit of our communities.

As Barack Obama said, we are entering an era of personal responsibility. As the Buddhists say, everything is cyclical. I propose that the time for Machiavellian thinking is over and it’s time to embrace the tenets of the selfless philosophies. So let the currency of favours be implicit not explicit. Let the intent behind favours be unrequited, safe in the knowledge that nature deals in a currency that will see personal investment repaid. So let the expectation of repayment be passive and let the will to help others be active and selfless. Let us be humans not monkeys.

One Young World: Summit Highlights

I talked about One Young World previously. The organisation held its first summit in February 2010 which gave young people, from across the globe, the chance to debate the top issues facing the future of the planet, move our thinking forward and develop actionable plans to help change the world. Here is a video of the highlights.



They are planning their next summit for 2011. It will be interesting to see if they review (and recognise) the actions taken at the summit this year - can you see an opportunity for the youth action oscars based on videos of success stories? One Young Oscar?

Are people inherently good?

The Bible, Confucius, Sharia law and the Constitution of the United States of America are all historical examples of guidelines that set out the proper behaviour of people. This begs the question: if people are inherently good, altruistic may be a better word, and act for the greater good of their communities why have certain behaviours been mandated again and again through thousands of years of history? Agreed they all have their nuances. But fundamentally they all state a series of rules, rituals, principles or laws that are to be followed without question. There are, of course, cases where the rules have evolved – the best example in Western culture is the evolution and reinterpretation of Jewish law by the Christians and even differences have evolved between different Jewish and Christian groups.

If we look at the Bible, after the great flood that eliminated human kind, with the exception of Noah and his family, Genesis Chapter 20 verse 21 states “...I (God) will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth..”. Confucius wrote his Analects at a time when China was in the throes of civil war and the country was in desperate need of cohesion. I could go on.

Perhaps Richard Dawkins (or in fact, Charles Darwin) is the most enlightened of all the great thinkers of the last few thousand years. The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, depicts the biological phenomenon that genes work towards a state of stable expression through their passive or inherent (but not conscious) propagation until such time that they are dominant in a given community (gene pool). Altruism in this case, states that sacrifice is a necessary part of the process to propagate the genes. Altruism is therefore a critical part of selfishness ie. The unprecedented expression of the gene to as high a level of frequency as possible until it is consistently and stably present throughout the gene pool.

If this form of selfishness is indeed our inherent behaviour, law and order exists to counteract our biological imperative. So are we inherently good? In terms of propagating successful or ‘fit’ genes – and I am talking about humans here – we are built with the nature to propagate and advance our species. You could argue that the great works of philosophy and religion spanning more than 5 thousand years have developed as a means of controlling mankind – this statement in itself is one that has been debated for years. But to take it a level further, you could argue that religious and philosophical texts of spiritual means actually exist to oppose human nature. Is our view on whether we are inherently ‘good’ skewed by the filters that these texts place on our apparently open minds? Is our nature, our biological imperative, constrained through the social constructs of religion, law and spirituality? If the human heart is evil and evil is the norm, can you argue that evil is actually good because it is the nature of the populous? As Shakespeare says, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). Democracy exists to represent the thoughts of the masses on proportional basis (at least that is the intent). Therefore I propose that evil hearts are the norm and evil is good and laws exist to prevent society and the human species from progressing towards its full potential.

Then, as Isiah Berlin famously wrote, "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". I am an atheist who believes that we have responsibility for our actions and that our actions must safeguard our communities and the future of the planet. Still, an interesting debate and one that I hope we can all enjoy.

Be a 'good' leader

A recent study by James Fowler, at the University of California, demonstrates that a single good action is amplified through our networks of friends and colleagues - in fact, everyone we encounter. The article "Cooperative behaviour cascades in human social networks" was published this month in a leading academic journal. He demonstrates something intuitively obvious - if we do something 'good' to someone they are more inclined to do something 'good' to other people with whom they interact...and so the web of positivity is cast.

Here is his website: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/

We are responsible for our actions and always have a choice. So the key lesson from Fowler's paper is that we can, individually, play a role in benefiting our communities. We must all take responsibility for our value systems and these are manifested through our actions. We must all be leaders and demonstrate our beliefs through our actions at every opportunity. We must all respond to challenges through actions that are balanced, just, inclusive and benefit our communities. We must remove our egos and selfishness to ensure that our actions exist with the single objective of benefiting our communities. Fowler's paper demonstrates that we, as individuals, can help change the world for the better. We must all be 'good' leaders.

21 hour working week (New Economics Foundation: NEF)

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) has just released a paper stating that a 21 hour working week is 'set to become the new norm'. According to the NEF "...so many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume. And our consumption habits are squandering the earth’s natural resources... Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We’d have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours. And we could even become better employees: less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive. It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future.”

http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week-soon-inevitable-forecasts-think-tank130210

This is inspirational. That said, Isiah Berlin famously wrote "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". Perhaps the paper by the NEF is trying to do something along these lines. I don't know many people who could handle a 50% pay cut - but then the principle is that wealth is spread and individual people are given the chance to focus on the pressing the matters stated above. The benefit is to society as a whole.

The important point is that an influential Think Tank has taken a stance on something (strangely) controversial that, if followed, could have major ramifications. I admire the principle and will follow the ensuing discussions with interest.

Racist? Sexist?

Are we really as balanced and considered as we like to think? Is our thinking process truly rational? Do we have valid defences to our reasoning?

Project Implicit uses the Implicit Association Test to scientifically demonstrate our unconscious prejudiced associations. Gender, race, religion etc.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

It is controversial - the data says what it says. We exist in a society of 'equal opportunities' but is this how our minds really work.

Take the tests and challenge your thinking.

One young world

One Young World is an organization that aims to be the voice of young people around the world on critical international issues such as the environment, health and interfaith engagement. Next week they are holding their inaugural summit in London and are expecting 1500 delegates from 192 countries to attend and debate the major socio-political issues we face today. The counsellors include Kofi Annan, Bob Geldof and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

As people say, if you want to know what tomorrow will be like, ask kids. Now, more than ever, everyone can have a voice - next week, One Young World will be the forum for collaboration and unhindered creativity, the place to debate world issues and move our thinking one step forward. This is about bringing people together who are passionate about the world, under the auspices of established world leaders, who are interested in the thoughts and opinions of those closest to the volatile changes that underpin the way society works – on a global scale.

http://www.oneyoungworld.com/

By the end of February, 1500 people will have helped to influence the future direction for the world and will continue to do so through their evolving thoughts and actions.

This is a truly remarkable organisation.

Actions or intent?

Should we judge people based on their actions or their intent?

Should we judge ourselves based on our actions or our intent?