4. • Have you ever been
involved in a volatile
encounter – either at
home or at work – that
you lived to regret?
• Take a moment to
reflect upon the impact
of that encounter
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 4
5. 5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 5
• Would it be worth your while …
• to have a way to address
problems like this
• which has the potential for
producing a much different
outcome?
6. When two or more
people are about
to explode ...
What is the last
thing that any of
them will ever
do?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 65/19/2015
7. THE LAST THING THAT
THEY/WE WILL EVER DO ...
is pause the action and …
inquire non-
judgmentally
into the other person's reasoning
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 75/19/2015
8. WHY DON'T WE DO
THIS?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 85/19/2015
16. THE HUMAN EGO
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 20
• Our silo of certainty tends to stimulate the human egos need to
be right
• That need is, in our minds, inextricably linked to our need to
survive
20. FACTOR #3: OUR PERCEPTION IS LIMITED
• It cannot take in all that we need to know
in order to understand critical issues
• The Invisible Gorilla
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 265/19/2015
24. • Prematurely
judge
• And focus
only on
observable
behavior
• Or deepen our
understanding
• of what is
happening
here and why
WE HAVE A CHOICE
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 33
25. THIS APPROACH IS ROOTED IN …
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 34
26. THIS APPROACH IS ROOTED IN 2
REALITIES…
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 35
27. The challenge is to remove the fear
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 37
• We can do this
• by entering into the
mindset of the other
and
• by becoming a
proponent of their
well-being.
5/19/2015
28. BUT IF WE REMOVE THE FEAR …
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 385/19/2015
31. WE DON’T DO THIS VERY OFTEN,
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 42
• but when we have done it,
• the results have been
remarkable.
32. • Creates cocoons
of ignorance
• When silos of
certainty collide
• Two major
disasters in less
than 60 years
THE REALITY, ALL TOO OFTEN
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 435/19/2015
33. TWO MAJOR DISASTERS IN LESS
THAN 60 YEARS
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 445/19/2015
35. THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF 2007-8
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 465/19/2015
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission
36. IF THIS CAN HAPPEN TO VERY GIFTED
LEADERS,
• It can happen to anyone
• The problem is a universal one
• All of our truths are incomplete
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 475/19/2015
38. THE STOOL MAKERS OF JOBRA VILLAGE
• He began visiting
villages so as to
better understand
the life of the poor.
• This led to a
revealing
interview with
Sufiya, a stool
maker in Jobra
village
5/19/2015 51
40. SUFIYA’S LIFE: WHERE DID THAT 2 CENTS GO?
• “it was barely
enough to feed her,
let alone shelter her
family and clothe
them properly”
• “It seemed hopeless
to imagine that her
babies would one
day escape this
misery.”
5/19/2015 53
41. YUNUS’S REACTION
• “…this knowledge …
shocked me.
• In my university courses,
I theorized about sums in
the millions of dollars,
• but here before my eyes
the problems of life and
death were posed in
terms of pennies.
5/19/2015 54
42. SOMETHING WAS WRONG …
• Why did my university courses
not reflect the reality of Sufiya’s
life?
5/19/2015 55
43. I WAS ANGRY, …
• angry at myself,
• angry at my
economics department
&
• the thousands of
intelligent professors
• who had not tried to
address this problem
and solve it.”
5/19/2015 56
44. THE STRATEGY
• Make loans to
small groups
• Hold weekly
meetings
• Payments are
made at these
meetings
5/19/2015 59
45. RESULTS
• The poverty rate (as measured by international aid
organizations such as the World Bank) has fallen
from an estimated 74% in 1973-74 to 57% in 1991-
92, to 49% in 2000 — and then to 40% in 2005.
Poverty Rate
5/19/2015 61
40%2005
49%2000
57%1991-92
74%1973-74
61
47. • Avoid a first
order or gut
response
• From the human ego
• I am right and you are
wrong.
• From the reptilian
part of our brain
• An automatic reaction to
either perceived threat:
flight or fight
THE WAY OUT
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 645/19/2015
48. THE WAY OUT (CONTD)
• Create an other focused strategy
• One that scrutinizes the thinking, fears, and
needs of one's adversary
• It's purpose is not refutation
• Its intent is to gain clarity of understanding
• So that dialogue on the issues that separate can be achieved
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 655/19/2015
49. DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT:
• Test it for yourself
• Use Three Words to Change Your World for
background information
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 665/19/2015
51. 5/19/2015 68
• These words require us to
• move outside of the limits
• of our own psychological boundaries
• Into the reality of another during
moments of high tension
52. • Take your best
shot
• Share with a
neighbor
GREATEST CONTRIBUTION OF MODERN
SCIENCE
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 69
53. CHET RAYMO: "I DON'T KNOW"
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 70
• From the dawn of time, people have resisted
saying "I don't know."
• They looked instead for explanations in
tribal tradition, sacred books, or the
supposed wisdom of shamans, priests and
prophets.
• The most common coverup for ignorance
is to invoke divinity.
54. IF SCIENCE HAS GIVEN ONE GREAT GIFT TO
THE WORLD
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 73
• greater than the wonders of
technology,
• greater than modern medicine,
• greater than flights to the moon and
planets
• it has given us permission to say "I
don't know."
55. HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST
• The next time, do the
following
• Don't respond immediately
• Wait till you have gathered your
wits about you and subdued
your anger
• This can take anywhere from a
minute or two, an hour, a week,
or longer
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 745/19/2015
56. WHEN YOU HAVE CALMED DOWN
SIMPLY ASK ...
•Help me understand why
you said or did X?
• Then simply listen.
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 755/19/2015
57. WHAT YOU WILL HEAR AND WHY IT IS IMPORTANT
• Assuming that you have in fact calmed
down, and …
• If your inquiry is authentic and non-judgmental,
.
• We always think we know what is on the mind of
another
, especially in those moments of high
tension,
.
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 765/19/2015
61. … OF THIS KIND OF APPROACH:
• It will produce a journey of lifelong
learning
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 925/19/2015
62. • … will reinforce
a strategy rooted
in reality
• And not in a
myth of our own
making
THIS JOURNEY
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 935/19/2015
63. A SOBERING REALITY …
• is that
• during a moment of intense crisis
or volatile conflict
• the people we most need to talk
to
• and fully understand
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 945/19/2015
64. • are the very people that we
will be least likely to talk to,
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 955/19/2015
65. • which inevitably creates one
disaster after another.
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 965/19/2015
67. THIS PROGRAM: WHAT IT IS
• A set of tools for
handling interpersonal
conflict
5/19/2015 CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 99
68. A GUIDELINE:
• Your Rights End at My Doorstop
My rights, correspondingly, end at yours.
The Doorstep Rule
5/19/2015 CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 100
69. WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS?
Good fences make good
neighbors
5/19/2015 CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 101
70. THE FIRST RULE OF DIALOGUE:
-Such an effort requires a
genuine, not self-serving,
desire to understand.
1.Inquire into another point
of view.
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 103
77. Ask
Why
Now that
the critical
incident is
in focus,
we need to
take the
next step.
We need to
inquire
into the
other
person’s
point of
view.
Therefore, start with an initial question:
Help me understand why you said or
did …? 5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 111
79. Test
How did it
go?
Were your
goals
achieved?
• Did the
encounter
produce
greater
clarity?
• Have you
established
the basis for
on-going
dialogue?
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 113
85. 5/19/2015 120
• Think of your
–
a boss, a peer, a
customer, a subordinate.
• That will
the
focus of this section.
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
86. 5/19/2015 121
• What led up to it
• What has the person done that is a source of concern for you
• What attempts have you made to address the situation
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
87. 5/19/2015 122
• What is to this person
• What about the situation do you find
irritating?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
91. 5/19/2015 126
SUSPENDING JUDGMENT
• Step back and observe what is actually
happening
• Separate interpretation from event or behavior
• Recognize that there are multiple ways to
interpret what is going on
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
94. 5/19/2015 132
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT - BARRIERS
HUMAN TENDENCIES, I
• Divine Right: Our need to be right, to feel superior
• Proselytizing: it is the other person that must change!
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
95. 5/19/2015 133
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT - BARRIERS
HUMAN TENDENCIES, II
• Fault Intolerance: default to the negative
• Ego lock: The impulse to attack or counterattack
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
97. 5/19/2015 135
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT - BARRIERS
Breaking the causal link
• Avoid the automatic response
• Stimulus can precipitate multiple responses
• Usually we respond predictably
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
98. 5/19/2015 136
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
• At the beginning of a
relationship, how clear
is the glass?
The Spectacles of life
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
99. 5/19/2015 137
The Spectacles of life
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
• What happens to
the glass as the
relationship
develops?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
100. 5/19/2015 138
• What’s happening
to the view?
The Spectacles of life
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
101. 5/19/2015 139
• And finally…
Total FIXATION on
the person’s
negative qualities.The Spectacles of life
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
102. 5/19/2015 140
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
So, you say, what’s the point?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
103. 5/19/2015 141
A = ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT
• Our task:
• Separate out judgement from what
we’ve seen
• Why?
• To free ourselves from fixating on
only one aspect of the person.
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
108. 5/19/2015 147
D = DATA COLLECTION
• List the observed events that have led up to your
current level of frustration. Where possible, also
include direct quotes.
• The trick, however, is to list them without your
interpretations, without your associated meanings.
• List as many as you can recall.
• BE OBJECTIVE!!!!
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
109. 5/19/2015 148
D = DATA COLLECTION
• Share these events with your
developmental partner.
• Then, ask for their interpretation of
their meaning.
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
117. 5/19/2015 160
A = ASK
Putting observable behavior
on the table
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
118. 5/19/2015 161
A = ASK
• Your initial purpose: put observable behavior on the table, then ask:
Help me understand.
What is going on here?
Or, what is your thinking?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
119. 5/19/2015 162
A = ASK
• Why are these questions so crucial?
It is almost universally true that
what we typically don’t know is
the other person’s reasoning.
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
120. 5/19/2015 163
A = ASK
• We are setting the stage for the MEETING STRUCTURE
•Purpose
•Description of events
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
124. 5/19/2015 168
P = PRESENT
1. Data – Behavior Observed
2. Ask Question(s)
3. Present additional Data:
• Other Points of view
• Your point of view
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
126. 5/19/2015 170
2. ASK
• Possible questions:
• Help me understand.
What’s going on here.
• Please explain. What’s
your thinking?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
127. 5/19/2015 171
3. PRESENT POINTS OF VIEW
If apprpropriate, share
interpretations
• Others
• Yours
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
128. 5/19/2015 172
3. PRESENT POINTS OF VIEW
• Why present other points of view first?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
129. 5/19/2015 173
3. PRESENT POINTS OF VIEW
• Sharing a variety of interpretations, yours as well as
others.
• Their perceptions are part of the DATA that is relevant
to this discussion
• Remember: this step is a judgment call. It
may not be appropriate (especially if this is a meeting
with your boss and you just want a better
understanding of where s/he is coming from).
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
130. 5/19/2015 174
3. PRESENT POINTS OF VIEW
• Transition Paraphrase:
• What you have said is…
• Now, ask:
• Are you interested in hearing how
others have interpreted this behavior?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
131. 5/19/2015 175
3. PRESENT POINTS OF VIEW
•Present:
•This is what they are saying:
...
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
132. 5/19/2015 176
3. PRESENT POINTS OF VIEW
• Question:
• Are you interested in my view?
• Present
• This is how I view it
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
135. 5/19/2015 179
T = DISCREPANCY TEST
Is there a discrepancy between
where you are and where you
want to be:
• Has the basis for continuing dialogue been achieved?
• Is your understanding more complete?
• Is your rapport greater now than it was before the
meeting?
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
136. 5/19/2015 180
T = TEST THE WATERS
• If you remain uncomfortable
with the meeting result, …
• SAY:
• I hear what you are saying, but it doesn’t
seem to explain everything that I’ve seen
happening:
CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES
137. T = TEST THE WATERS
5/19/2015CRITICAL PATH ENTERPRISES 181
•In particular, several events remain
unexplained or unclear:
• Event #1
• Event #2
• Event #3
• Can you help me here?
Determine whether or not to keep the title as advertised or to stay with the current one.
Determine whether or not to keep the title as advertised or to stay with the current one.
Allow time at the beginning of this slide after the title appears for their responses
This sets the stage for the reptilian brain slide
Insert a slide before this one that paves the way for the concept silos of certainty
I’m going to suggest in this presentation that one of the key problems between human beings at any level --whether it be one-on-one within the family or a group of friends or whether it be at your organization where you work or whether it be between nations across the globe– is that we all live in what I’m referring to here as silos of certainty. We need to have a set of rules by which we live in which guide us through the ups and downs of life. There are problems however with that reality when we come up against others who have a different way of thinking, or at least they appear to have a different way of thinking.
Insert a slide before this one that paves the way for the concept silos of certainty
I’m going to suggest in this presentation that one of the key problems between human beings at any level --whether it be one-on-one within the family or a group of friends or whether it be at your organization where you work or whether it be between nations across the globe– is that we all live in what I’m referring to here as silos of certainty. We need to have a set of rules by which we live in which guide us through the ups and downs of life. There are problems however with that reality when we come up against others who have a different way of thinking, or at least they appear to have a different way of thinking.
Insert a picture of a silo here
I’ll give examples of this with Vietnam, the civil war, Digital Equipment Corporation etc.
I’ll give examples of this with Vietnam, the civil war, Digital Equipment Corporation etc.
Before this slide show a silo alone so that it can be talked about. Break this into two slides one showing only the silos of certainty during interaction and the other showing what is missing. That is, what is unseen and unheard.
These others usually are those with whom we are having a major disagreement. We find ourselves clashing because the behavior that we’re seeing another person is not behavior that we like. And I am putting the emphasis on behavior. This becomes obvious when we reflect on our history of conflict and it is usually between nations that have a different agenda and a reason for that agenda, religions which vary in their understanding of the rules of life from God, as well as ethnic or cultural differences or racial differences where there appears to be a way of behaving that is threatening to another.
Before this slide show a silo alone so that it can be talked about. Break this into two slides one showing only the silos of certainty during interaction and the other showing what is missing. That is, what is unseen and unheard.
These others usually are those with whom we are having a major disagreement. We find ourselves clashing because the behavior that we’re seeing another person is not behavior that we like. And I am putting the emphasis on behavior. This becomes obvious when we reflect on our history of conflict and it is usually between nations that have a different agenda and a reason for that agenda, religions which vary in their understanding of the rules of life from God, as well as ethnic or cultural differences or racial differences where there appears to be a way of behaving that is threatening to another.
Follow this slide with a picture of what is missing
When such differences are rise to the level that they become extremely volatile, they can lead to an interpersonal or group violence that can be either verbal or physical in nature. When that clash occurs, what we are reacting to is behavior that we do not like or that we feel is threatening. We never pause the action to inquire nonjudgmentally and the key word there is nonjudgmentally into the thinking and reasoning of the other. We make assumptions at this point that some people are good in other people are evil. We don’t look beyond that label often enough to arrive at an understanding as to why someone is behaving the way they are. We are locked into our own silo of certainty and we looked upon the other is sadly delusional, misguided, or just plain evil.
At that moment we lock ourselves into what I am referring to here is a cocoon of ignorance. The other group or person that does the exact same thing. The only way out is often violent in a way that may in fact be unnecessary a good part of the time. The cocoon of ignorance I’m referring to here is a creation of our own making because what we are doing is we are projecting onto the other person or group a thought process that may or may not be accurate. We don’t bother to check our assumptions or our projections as they’re called, we act upon them as if they are true.When we do that we are entering into a cocoon of ignorance. We think we know, but I submit to you today we never do.
Insert a slide before this one that paves the way for the concept silos of certainty
I’m going to suggest in this presentation that one of the key problems between human beings at any level --whether it be one-on-one within the family or a group of friends or whether it be at your organization where you work or whether it be between nations across the globe– is that we all live in what I’m referring to here as silos of certainty. We need to have a set of rules by which we live in which guide us through the ups and downs of life. There are problems however with that reality when we come up against others who have a different way of thinking, or at least they appear to have a different way of thinking.
Pronunciation: Chinese
SoundMeaning
Dao The Way
De Virtue
Jing Book
If you realize that you have enough, you are truly rich.
October 16, 1962 Kennedy: In the next 24 hours, what is it we need to do? McNamara: Mr. President, we need to do two things, it seems to me. First, we need to develop a specific strike plan. The second thing we have to do is to consider the consequences. I don't know quite what kind of a world we'll live in after we've struck Cuba. How do we stop at that point? I don't know the answer to this. Kennedy: The chances of this becoming a much broader struggle are increased as you step up the ? talk about danger to the United States. McNamara: Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep up out of war. And General Curtis LeMay, whom I served under as a matter of fact in World War II, was saying "Let's go in, let's totally destroy Cuba." On that critical Saturday, October 27th, we had two Khrushchev messages in front of us. One had come in Friday night, and it had been dictated by a man who was either drunk or under tremendous stress. Basically, he said, "If you'll guarantee you won't invade Cuba, we'll take the missiles out." Then before we could respond, we had a second message that had been dictated by a bunch of hard—liners. And it said, in effect, "If you attack, we're prepared to confront you with masses of military power." So, what to do? We had, I'll call it, the soft message and the hard message. At the elbow of President Kennedy was Tommy Thompson, former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow. He and Jane, his wife, had literally lived with Khrushchev and his wife upon occasion. Tommy Thompson said, "Mr. President, I urge you to respond to the soft message." The President said to Tommy, "We can't do that, that'll get us nowhere." Tommy said, "Mr. President, you're wrong." Now that takes a lot of guts. October 27, 1962 Kennedy: We're not going to get these missiles out of Cuba, probably anyway, by negotiation. Thompson: I don't agree, Mr. President. I think there's still a chance. Kennedy: That he'll back down? Thompson: The important thing for Khrushchev, it seems to me, is to be able to say, "I saved Cuba, I stopped an invasion." McNamara: In Thompson's mind was this thought: Khrushchev's gotten himself in a hell of a fix. He would then think to himself, "My God, if I can get out of this with a deal that I can say to the Russian people: 'Kennedy was going to destroy Castro and I prevented it.'" Thompson, knowing Khrushchev as he did, thought Khrushchev will accept that. And Thompson was right. That's what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes, just to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions. Khrushchev's advisors were saying, "There can be no deal unless you somewhat reduce the pressure on us, when you ask us to reduce the pressure on you."
Curtis LeMay, General of the Air Force
Cocoons of ignorance
In areas critical to our survival, we create
Two major disasters in less than 60 years
for example,
If this can happen to very gifted leaders,
for example,
Brooksley E. Born (born August 27, 1940) is an American attorney and former public official who, from August 26, 1996, to June 1, 1999, was chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency which oversees the futures and commodity options markets. During her tenure on the CFTC, Born lobbied Congress and the President to give the CFTC oversight of off-exchange markets for derivatives in addition to its role with respect to exchange-traded derivatives,[4] but her warnings were opposed by other regulators.[5] Born resigned as chairperson on June 1, 1999, shortly after Congress passed legislation prohibiting her agency from regulating derivatives.[6][7]
David Zervos: There Is A New Committee To Save The World, And Markets Are Going To Surge Like Crazy
Joe Weisenthal | Jul. 30, 2012, 2:05 PM | 11,245 | 30
inShare4
Email
More
Wow!
In a totally over-the-top new note, Jefferies' David Zervos declares that the world is seeing a repeat of the famous Committee To Save The World.
You remember that, right? That was the famous 1998 Time Magazine cover featuring Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, and Robert Rubin, trumpeting their efforts to prevent the Asian financial meltdown (and everything else that year) from turning into a global rout.
TIME
Of course, all three of the men in the Committee To Save The World are now more associated with bubbles, busts, and dangerous deregulation. But whatever, at the time, they saved the world, and markets went on to boom for another two years.
So who's in this new C.T.S.T.W.?
Ben Bernanke, Mario Draghi, and a player to be named later.
Says Zervos:
We have to wait and see the final make up of the trio. But after last week, Mario has clearly been elevated to financial sainthood along with our current hero, St. Ben. With 2 sentences last Thursday, Mario rode Spanish and Italian 2yr yields nearly 200bps lower. It was like watching George Woolf ride Seabiscuit. Beautiful!! So sometime in 2013 or 2014, just before Ben walks through the ivory tower gates, a Time magazine cover should appear - and the reflators success story will be told. It will be the committee to save the world - part deux (and yes, I am trying to make a veiled reference to that Charlie Sheen spoof classic - "Hot Shots, part deux")! We will all cheer as spoos push to 2000, borrowing spreads for corporates collapse, house prices rise, global job and GDP growth spike higher and of course incumbent politicians get reelected. It will be years of celebration!! Markets will cheer the ECB and Fed, Ben and Mario. Politicians will see the political benefits of central bank balance sheets. And central banks will become ever more important parts of the regulatory and political processes!
We're pretty sure that Zervos is being purposely grandiose in his statements here, though we're not 100% sure.
Either way, the message isn't a good one. If the world is being saved, it's being saved by bubbles and financial chicancery, according to Zervos. Nothing that in the long term we'll be proud of.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-zervos-committee-to-save-the-world-part-deux-2012-7#ixzz2LSq6H0ot
It can happen to anyone
The problem is a universal one
and it is fundamentally human and it is a result of the way we are built
All of our truths are incomplete
68
Science Musings by Chet Raymo
S U N D A Y , S E P T E M B E R 1 2 , 2 0 0 4
T H E M Y S T E R Y O F L I F E ? I D O N ' T K N O W .
Albert Einstein said, "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
At first glance, this may sound like a Zen koan, or a paradox. In fact, it is a profound statement that says more than volumes of philosophy.
But first, a bit of background.
From the dawn of time, people have resisted saying "I don't know." They looked instead for explanations in tribal tradition, sacred books, or the supposed wisdom of shamans, priests and prophets.
The most common coverup for ignorance is to invoke divinity. A storm that devastates a village is "an act of God." A child taken by disease at a young age is divine punishment for a parent's sin. And so on.
Superstitions too have their origin as a cover for ignorance. I lost my wallet because a black cat crossed my path. My lover left me because Venus was in the wrong house of the zodiac. I won at the roulette table because I was holding my lucky rabbit's foot.
In every case a reluctance to say, "I don't know." No admission that the cause of an event might be unknown or unknowable.
Traditionally, people have divided explanations into true and false. In general, truth is what we believe. Falsehood is what everyone else believes, if different.
Einstein's remark suggests another attitude towards knowledge.
On the one hand, we have reliable theories, characterized by the simplicity with which they explain experience. Not absolute truths, but provisional truths that work well for the time being and are open to
revision.
For example, Newton's theory of gravity qualifies as reliable knowledge because of the way a few simple equations explain everything from the motion of planets, to the fall of an apple, to the flow of the tides. With Newton's equations we can predict the return of a comet Halley's Comet, say to the day, hour, second, hundreds of years in advance. That's reliable knowledge.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains with almost self evident simplicity the diversity and interrelatedness of life on Earth as revealed in the fossil record and in the genes. That's reliable knowledge.
That's knowledge as simple as we can make it.
Beyond that, according to Einstein, we must be humble enough to say "I
don't know."
Those three little words, "I don't know," are completely modern. They are the essence of the scientific way of knowing, and they set the person of scientific temperament apart from every other people who have gone before and from most people who are alive today.
Beneath reliable knowledge Einstein draws a line. Don't suppose we know what we don't know, he suggests. Don't make up fictions gods, spirits, superstitions, the influence of the stars, lucky charms to explain things for which we have as yet no reliable explanation.
As simple as possible, but not simpler.
The physician/essayist Lewis Thomas wrote : "The greatest of all the accomplishments of 20thcentury science has been the discovery of human ignorance." He was talking about the recognition that there is an entire universe below Einstein's bottom line about which we know nothing, and about which we should be willing to admit that we know nothing.
Those three little words "I don't know" are used far too infrequently by teachers, politicians, religious leaders, even philosophers. With the presumption of knowledge where no reliable knowledge exists goes righteousness. Righteousness breeds pogroms, jihads and crusades. Righteousness flies airplanes into skyscrapers and holds children hostage in schools. Righteousness presumes to forcibly impose on others what we think they want or need.
If science has given one great gift to the world greater than the wonders of technology, greater than modern medicine, greater than flights to the moon and planets it has given us permission to say "I don't know."
How did life evolve from nonlife? I don't know. What is consciousness? I don't know. What started the big bang? I don't know. Why did my father die at a relatively young age of cancer? I don't know. Why do bad things
happen to good people? I don't know.
As simple as possible, but no simpler. Ironically, it is when we give up thinking we know it all that we begin to acquire reliable knowledge.
When we think we know everything, thinking stops.
Further Reading
For more on the discovery of ignorance and the response to mystery, see my Climbing Brandon: Science and Faith on Ireland's Holy Mountain, now also available in Ireland and the UK.
Student Activities
Write the following list of words on the board. You may want to add other terms in the same spirit. Ask for a show of hands for how many in the class can provide a reasonable definition of each term.
PCR (polymerase chain reaction). ESP. SETI. Yeti. Gigahertz. UFO. Cosmic microwave background radiation. Hot (and cold) fusion. Reincarnation. Loch Ness Monster. Pulsar. Shroud of Turin. Fractals. Close encounters of the third kind. Human genome. Bermuda Triangle. Adam and Eve. Superconductivity. Electron microscope. Horoscope.
I predict that far more hands will go up for those things that reside below Einstein's bottom line, than for those he would consider reliable knowledge. Discuss.
Science Musings by Chet Raymo
S U N D A Y , S E P T E M B E R 1 2 , 2 0 0 4
T H E M Y S T E R Y O F L I F E ? I D O N ' T K N O W .
Albert Einstein said, "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
At first glance, this may sound like a Zen koan, or a paradox. In fact, it is a profound statement that says more than volumes of philosophy.
But first, a bit of background.
From the dawn of time, people have resisted saying "I don't know." They looked instead for explanations in tribal tradition, sacred books, or the supposed wisdom of shamans, priests and prophets.
The most common coverup for ignorance is to invoke divinity. A storm that devastates a village is "an act of God." A child taken by disease at a young age is divine punishment for a parent's sin. And so on.
Superstitions too have their origin as a cover for ignorance. I lost my wallet because a black cat crossed my path. My lover left me because Venus was in the wrong house of the zodiac. I won at the roulette table because I was holding my lucky rabbit's foot.
In every case a reluctance to say, "I don't know." No admission that the cause of an event might be unknown or unknowable.
Traditionally, people have divided explanations into true and false. In general, truth is what we believe. Falsehood is what everyone else believes, if different.
Einstein's remark suggests another attitude towards knowledge.
On the one hand, we have reliable theories, characterized by the simplicity with which they explain experience. Not absolute truths, but provisional truths that work well for the time being and are open to
revision.
For example, Newton's theory of gravity qualifies as reliable knowledge because of the way a few simple equations explain everything from the motion of planets, to the fall of an apple, to the flow of the tides. With Newton's equations we can predict the return of a comet Halley's Comet, say to the day, hour, second, hundreds of years in advance. That's reliable knowledge.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains with almost self evident simplicity the diversity and interrelatedness of life on Earth as revealed in the fossil record and in the genes. That's reliable knowledge.
That's knowledge as simple as we can make it.
Beyond that, according to Einstein, we must be humble enough to say "I
don't know."
Those three little words, "I don't know," are completely modern. They are the essence of the scientific way of knowing, and they set the person of scientific temperament apart from every other people who have gone before and from most people who are alive today.
Beneath reliable knowledge Einstein draws a line. Don't suppose we know what we don't know, he suggests. Don't make up fictions gods, spirits, superstitions, the influence of the stars, lucky charms to explain things for which we have as yet no reliable explanation.
As simple as possible, but not simpler.
The physician/essayist Lewis Thomas wrote : "The greatest of all the accomplishments of 20thcentury science has been the discovery of human ignorance." He was talking about the recognition that there is an entire universe below Einstein's bottom line about which we know nothing, and about which we should be willing to admit that we know nothing.
Those three little words "I don't know" are used far too infrequently by teachers, politicians, religious leaders, even philosophers. With the presumption of knowledge where no reliable knowledge exists goes righteousness. Righteousness breeds pogroms, jihads and crusades. Righteousness flies airplanes into skyscrapers and holds children hostage in schools. Righteousness presumes to forcibly impose on others what we think they want or need.
If science has given one great gift to the world greater than the wonders of technology, greater than modern medicine, greater than flights to the moon and planets it has given us permission to say "I don't know."
How did life evolve from nonlife? I don't know. What is consciousness? I don't know. What started the big bang? I don't know. Why did my father die at a relatively young age of cancer? I don't know. Why do bad things
happen to good people? I don't know.
As simple as possible, but no simpler. Ironically, it is when we give up thinking we know it all that we begin to acquire reliable knowledge.
When we think we know everything, thinking stops.
Further Reading
For more on the discovery of ignorance and the response to mystery, see my Climbing Brandon: Science and Faith on Ireland's Holy Mountain, now also available in Ireland and the UK.
Student Activities
Write the following list of words on the board. You may want to add other terms in the same spirit. Ask for a show of hands for how many in the class can provide a reasonable definition of each term.
PCR (polymerase chain reaction). ESP. SETI. Yeti. Gigahertz. UFO. Cosmic microwave background radiation. Hot (and cold) fusion. Reincarnation. Loch Ness Monster. Pulsar. Shroud of Turin. Fractals. Close encounters of the third kind. Human genome. Bermuda Triangle. Adam and Eve. Superconductivity. Electron microscope. Horoscope.
I predict that far more hands will go up for those things that reside below Einstein's bottom line, than for those he would consider reliable knowledge. Discuss.
Science Musings by Chet Raymo
S U N D A Y , S E P T E M B E R 1 2 , 2 0 0 4
T H E M Y S T E R Y O F L I F E ? I D O N ' T K N O W .
Albert Einstein said, "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
At first glance, this may sound like a Zen koan, or a paradox. In fact, it is a profound statement that says more than volumes of philosophy.
But first, a bit of background.
From the dawn of time, people have resisted saying "I don't know." They looked instead for explanations in tribal tradition, sacred books, or the supposed wisdom of shamans, priests and prophets.
The most common coverup for ignorance is to invoke divinity. A storm that devastates a village is "an act of God." A child taken by disease at a young age is divine punishment for a parent's sin. And so on.
Superstitions too have their origin as a cover for ignorance. I lost my wallet because a black cat crossed my path. My lover left me because Venus was in the wrong house of the zodiac. I won at the roulette table because I was holding my lucky rabbit's foot.
In every case a reluctance to say, "I don't know." No admission that the cause of an event might be unknown or unknowable.
Traditionally, people have divided explanations into true and false. In general, truth is what we believe. Falsehood is what everyone else believes, if different.
Einstein's remark suggests another attitude towards knowledge.
On the one hand, we have reliable theories, characterized by the simplicity with which they explain experience. Not absolute truths, but provisional truths that work well for the time being and are open to
revision.
For example, Newton's theory of gravity qualifies as reliable knowledge because of the way a few simple equations explain everything from the motion of planets, to the fall of an apple, to the flow of the tides. With Newton's equations we can predict the return of a comet Halley's Comet, say to the day, hour, second, hundreds of years in advance. That's reliable knowledge.
The theory of evolution by natural selection explains with almost self evident simplicity the diversity and interrelatedness of life on Earth as revealed in the fossil record and in the genes. That's reliable knowledge.
That's knowledge as simple as we can make it.
Beyond that, according to Einstein, we must be humble enough to say "I
don't know."
Those three little words, "I don't know," are completely modern. They are the essence of the scientific way of knowing, and they set the person of scientific temperament apart from every other people who have gone before and from most people who are alive today.
Beneath reliable knowledge Einstein draws a line. Don't suppose we know what we don't know, he suggests. Don't make up fictions gods, spirits, superstitions, the influence of the stars, lucky charms to explain things for which we have as yet no reliable explanation.
As simple as possible, but not simpler.
The physician/essayist Lewis Thomas wrote : "The greatest of all the accomplishments of 20thcentury science has been the discovery of human ignorance." He was talking about the recognition that there is an entire universe below Einstein's bottom line about which we know nothing, and about which we should be willing to admit that we know nothing.
Those three little words "I don't know" are used far too infrequently by teachers, politicians, religious leaders, even philosophers. With the presumption of knowledge where no reliable knowledge exists goes righteousness. Righteousness breeds pogroms, jihads and crusades. Righteousness flies airplanes into skyscrapers and holds children hostage in schools. Righteousness presumes to forcibly impose on others what we think they want or need.
If science has given one great gift to the world greater than the wonders of technology, greater than modern medicine, greater than flights to the moon and planets it has given us permission to say "I don't know."
How did life evolve from nonlife? I don't know. What is consciousness? I don't know. What started the big bang? I don't know. Why did my father die at a relatively young age of cancer? I don't know. Why do bad things
happen to good people? I don't know.
As simple as possible, but no simpler. Ironically, it is when we give up thinking we know it all that we begin to acquire reliable knowledge.
When we think we know everything, thinking stops.
Further Reading
For more on the discovery of ignorance and the response to mystery, see my Climbing Brandon: Science and Faith on Ireland's Holy Mountain, now also available in Ireland and the UK.
Student Activities
Write the following list of words on the board. You may want to add other terms in the same spirit. Ask for a show of hands for how many in the class can provide a reasonable definition of each term.
PCR (polymerase chain reaction). ESP. SETI. Yeti. Gigahertz. UFO. Cosmic microwave background radiation. Hot (and cold) fusion. Reincarnation. Loch Ness Monster. Pulsar. Shroud of Turin. Fractals. Close encounters of the third kind. Human genome. Bermuda Triangle. Adam and Eve. Superconductivity. Electron microscope. Horoscope.
I predict that far more hands will go up for those things that reside below Einstein's bottom line, than for those he would consider reliable knowledge. Discuss.
The next time, do the following
you are involved in a volatile conflicts with someone who is close to you
Don't respond immediately
Wait til you have gathered your wits about you and subdued your anger
This can take anywhere from a minute or two, an hour, a week, or longer
When you have calmed down simply ask ...
Help me understand why you said or did X?
Then simply listen.
What you will hear and why it is important
Assuming that you have in fact calmed down,
You will probably get an answer that you did not expect.
If your inquiry is authentic and non-judgmental,
it is most likely that you will learn something new and potentially powerful
We always think we know what is on the mind of another, but especially in those moments of high tension, we never do.
the point that I am emphasizing here is that
“In The Power of Now, I mentioned my observation that after two ducks get into a fight, which never lasts long, they will separate and float off in opposite directions. Then each duck will flap its wings vigorously a few times, thus releasing the surplus energy that built up during the fight. After they flap their wings, they float on peacefully, as if nothing had ever happened. If the duck had a human mind, it would keep the fight alive by thinking, by story- making. This would probably be the duck’s story: “I don’t believe what he just did. He came to within five inches of me. He thinks he owns this pond. He has no consideration for my private space. I’ll never trust him again. Next time he’ll try something else just to annoy me. I’m sure he’s plotting something already. But I’m not going to stand for this. I’ll teach him a lesson he won’t forget.” And on and on the mind spins its tales, still thinking and talking about it days, months, or years later. As far as the body is concerned, the fight is still continuing, and the energy it generates in response to all those thoughts is emotion, which in turn generates more thinking. This becomes the emotional thinking of the ego. You can see how problematic the duck’s life would become if it had a human mind. But this is how most humans live all the time. No situation or event is ever really finished. The mind and the mind- made “me and my story” keep it going.”
. As far as the body is concerned, the fight is still continuing, and the energy it generates in response to all those thoughts is emotion, which in turn generates more thinking. This becomes the emotional thinking of the ego. You can see how problematic the duck’s life would become if it had a human mind. But this is how most humans live all the time. No situation or event is ever really finished. The mind and the mind- made “me and my story” keep it going.”
is that the people we most need to talk to and fully understand during a moment of intense crisis or volatile conflict are the people that we will be least likely to talk to, which inevitably creates one disaster after another.
Alan Greenspan and Brooksley Born
Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu
Vietnam: McNamara and Thach; Johnson and Ho Chi Minh
Introduction rev 5
Introduction
"Self" and Ego
“Self” and Ego
The consciousness that we each feel is experienced by our strong sense of self, and by our thinking self – the ego. It becomes important to make this distinction between our sense of self and our thinking self. Our sense of self is non-verbal and comes from our vision-based (non-verbal) cognition. It is more fundamental than our thinking self or ego.
Gerald Edelman, author of Wider Than the Sky, speaks of a primary consciousness which is the state of being mentally aware of things in the world, and a higher order consciousness which is the ability to be aware that we are aware. Being aware is our right brain sense of “self”. Animals are “aware”. Being aware that we are aware is our left brain sense of self or “ego”.
There are 2 components to our consciousness and self-identity: a non-verbal awareness and sense of self that is based upon the sense of vision, and a thinking awareness and sense of self (ego) that is verbal and based upon speech and hearing. They are distinct, but also closely bonded with one another.
If we introspect about our consciousness, we find that it is filled with a stream of thoughts that comes to us as an internal voice – as if in a conversation with our self. This left brain, or verbal aspect of our consciousness, is quite easily recognized. We can almost hear ourselves think. Our thinking self, or the “ego”, is easily identified through introspection. It is so pervasive in our consciousness that it makes it difficult to be aware of the other aspects of our consciousness.
Our right brain sense of awareness is also part of our consciousness, however, it is often less obvious. Some people are able to discern the difference between the right brain awareness and the left brain thinking; whereas for many others their consciousness is so continuously filled with a stream of verbal thoughts that they are unable to appreciate the right brain awareness. A personal example of right brain awareness: when I am hiking in nature, or even driving on a highway, I am often simply appreciating and just being with the environment - no thoughts. I can even attain such a right-brain state with another person in the car, provided we are not in conversation. If I am asked: “What are you thinking?” My reply is: “I am not thinking about anything?”, because I have essentially shut down my left brain thinking and I am just “being” with my right brain awareness. This is similar to being in a meditative state. I have found that some people cannot understand how a person cannot be thinking about anything; they are unable to experience that state because their consciousness is continually filled with thoughts. They cannot shut down their left brain thoughts.
The right brain is based upon the sense of vision and uses parallel processing. The vision-based parallel processing of the right brain enables simultaneous processing and assimilation of many pieces of information – very similar to processing a picture (i.e., vision). The right brain is sometimes called the “silent brain” because it does not have verbal thoughts. The right brain does not have verbal processing capability; therefore, it does not have thoughts. However, right brain feelings can stimulate left brain thoughts. The awareness contributions of the right brain are equally part of the self along with those of the left brain. In fact, I hypothesize that the right brain sense of self is more fundamental to our being than is the left brain sense of self.
The right brain can simultaneously process information from several different senses and create a holistic image or gestalt of a situation. We continually have a general awareness of our environment. For example you may be sitting in a chair in a living room with beige walls, a painting overhead, and a fire in a fireplace. You are very aware of all of these elements in your surroundings, but you are not thinking about any of them because you are reading or in conversation with someone. Your general sense of your environment comes from the right brain.
Likewise, when we say that we “understand” something or have an “intuition”, this comes from the right brain. Such understanding or intuition comes about because the right brain has processed information from several different sources (i.e. several different senses or several different facts or deductive thoughts) and has come to a conclusion about something. Each of us has had the experience of toiling over a problem and after thinking about the problem and looking at it from every conceivable viewpoint (all left brain activities); the answer just “comes” like a bolt of lightning. The answer can come to us when we are least expecting it – perhaps in the middle of the night, when showering, or having our morning coffee. The right brain has assimilated the information (from our left brain deductions) and given us the answer. Our feelings and emotions are also non-verbal aspects of our self and are experienced by our right brain. Feelings and emotions exist independent of any words. The holism, understanding, orientation, awareness, intuition and feelings of the right brain are a strong part of our general awareness and sense of “self”. No words.
Right brain awareness, consciousness, and sense of self are attained during meditative states. The Buddhist teachings of “no mind” refer to the state of essentially shutting down the left brain thinking and ego, and just being with the right brain consciousness. In this state of mind, the original mind or true “self” is said to be attained. These teachings very accurately identify the right brain sense of awareness and sense of self. The deepest part of our “self” is contained in our vision based brain.
Because our minds can be overwhelmed by thinking and words, it is more difficult to access the right brain consciousness. As result, the vision-based awareness housed in the right brain has been labeled “unconscious” – including by such scholars as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. At one level, this could simply be considered a semantic issue. However, I suggest that the act of “thinking” should not be the differentiator between conscious and unconscious.
In fact, I suggest that the right brain sense of “self” and its contribution to our awareness is a stronger and more fundamental part of who we are as living beings than is our thinking left brain. (Supportive arguments are provided later.) Relegating the right brain awareness contributions to the realm of “unconscious” leads to the impression that they are less important than our thinking self. The general awareness and sense of “self” that come from the sense of vision should be considered a strong part of our consciousness. In fact, the right brain contributions towards creativity and understanding further suggest that it has leadership roles. We can be aware that our consciousness and our concept of self are comprised of 2 portions: a right brain sense of “self” that is non-verbal and based upon vision-derived cognition, and a left brain thinking self that is verbal-based. On a daily basis, our sense of self and our thinking self (ego) are so in tune with one another that we don’t generally recognize them as being different from one another.
Introduction rev 5
Introduction
Introduction rev 5
Introduction
114
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
182
183
184
185
Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction our mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego.[1] The super-egocan stop one from doing certain things that one's id may want to do.[2]
Although the model is structural and makes reference to an apparatus, the id, ego and super-ego are purely symbolic concepts about the mind and do not correspond to actual (somatic) structures of the brain such as the kind dealt with by neuroscience.
Cognitive Hierarchy and the Sensory Mind
Our advanced cognitive skills have built upon the neural architectures for vision and for speech/hearing. As our cognitive skills have developed, they have built upon one another. This can be conceptualized as layers of advanced cognitive skills.
The fact that our cognitive skills have built upon the senses of vision and speech/hearing is demonstrated in Plato’s writings. Plato also observed hierarchical levels of cognitive development on both vision-based and speech-based skills. As we have developed our cognitive skills we have certainly had advances in those skills. Hence there are lower and higher levels of cognitive skills based upon both the vision and speech-based cognition.
The model in the figure shows the evolution of our Sensory Mind into higher cognitive levels. Figure A is the base as taken from the earlier differentiation of vision and speech based mind, and Figures B and C respectively model advanced levels of cognitive development.
222
Auschwitz
In areas critical to our survival, we create
The strategy moves us beyond the focus of our particular set of circumstances and has us look at the broader circumstances of life where this problem always occurs.
Let's take a look at each of these to see how it might play out
Over the course of a child's years in schools,
there will be numerous opportunities to learn a new skill set and friction with one's peers surfaces
Some challenges are well-known
Bullying
Racial and ethnic prejudice
Religious prejudice
Peer harassment
These provide the basis for learning a skill not typically taught in schools
