How did I think of this solution?

People sometimes ask me: How did I think of this solution?

One way of thinking about it is that God set me up for this. God made me into a thinker, a problem solver. Then God arranged the circumstances for me to stumble onto this problem, and the solution. I didn’t want to pursue it, I was like Noah, reluctant. But my duty was clear. I could not deny the calling. To ignore it would have been to cowardly turn my back to God.

Another way of thinking about it is that I was fated to do this. It was my fate to be a thinker and a problem solver. It was my fate to work and get married and have kids and buy a house and then to wonder what to do with my life and then be faced with this problem and the solution. My conscience made it clear that my destiny was to bring this to humanity.

Another way of thinking about it is that it was just luck, just a random convergence of events. In a twist of fate, I was born a smart kid. I had become a thinker and a problem solver. I randomly stumbled on this problem and, being a problem solver, I did what was natural for me. I solved it. And when I looked at what I had done, another problem arose- should I build it? So I solved that one, too. I couldn’t really ignore the right solution. That’s not what a problem solver does…

Another way of thinking about it is that it was my choice. I actually made choices that led me to become a thinker and a problem solver. I made choices that brought me face to face with America’s political problems. I chose to grapple with the problem, which led to the solution. And I chose to rise to the challenge to build it, despite the risks, the costs, and mostly rejection from most people who had the resources to help.

In the next article, we’ll look to see which of these is true- was it God, fate, luck or choice?

Jerk vs Psychopath, Why it Matters

In an article this morning on Medium.com, Jason Smith writes that the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, Martin Shkreli is a jerk (he used a different word, though).  Mark’s company bought a drug company that makes an anti-food-borne-illness pill needed by people who have AIDS and cancer, and right away he raised the price 55 times, from $13.50 to $750.

Dog yelling, "You So and So!"We shouldn’t call Shkreli a jerk. When we do that, we’re complaining, but not in a way anyone can do anything about. Everyone has the right to be a jerk. There’s no other (decent) reason to call Shkreli a jerk.

Maybe Smith, the author, wanted to shame Shkreli into reversing his decision. But think about it!  If someone is enough of an asshole to raise the price of medicine used by cancer and AIDS patience to $750 per pill, do you think they’ll feel shame?

Shkreli probably did some research, modeled the elasticity of the market and determined at the price at which he can make the most money. If you look at company charters, there’s usually no other legal purpose for a company other than to make money. Shkreli is probably just a psychopath, meaning he was born able to feel little or no empathy, and he doesn’t have guilt or shame. He doesn’t particularly value people he’s not emotionally involved with (dependent on). Estimates are that about 1% of the population are like this, and 4% of CEOs are!

Rhino doesn't care about people

Doesn’t care about people

The distinction between jerk vs psychopath is important. We can’t regulate jerks. We could regulate psychopaths, or find another solution. We could say it’s a deviance that prevents them from being reliable citizens, so they either can’t be CEOs, or they’re required to have some kind of moral supervision, or they’re simply not allowed in industries like healthcare where compassion is particularly important. Or maybe we lessen the length of a medical patent to 5 or 10 years to minimize the effort. Or maybe we give the FDA the authority to invalidate a patent if it’s used cruelly. Raising the price like this of a lifesaving drug could alert the SEC that he’s probably a psychopath, so they could look into his background, and if he is, take action. He needn’t be fired or lose his patent- he could simply be forced to lower the price of the pill. And, the company could be liable for the cost of the FDA’s efforts.

I’m not saying we SHOULD do this. What I’m saying is that if we let go of our righteous indignation and look at what’s happening in a situation, instead of just complaining, it might be easy to find a constructive solution.

This is the foundation of PeopleCount.org. Our two major parties have sorted themselves into pretty coherent groups, so on many issues they disagree hugely. We have Congressional gridlock. But instead of figuring out on which issues they agree and disagree, they’ve locked themselves into a power struggle so they fight about almost everything. They often see ideological differences where there are none.

We often take this to mean a solution is impossible. We need not. If we stop name-calling, we could see that if these groups, as well as the rest of us, could communicate dispassionately about what we want, some of the gridlock would disappear and we could solve some of our problems. This is one thing that PeopleCount.org will provide, this Winter, in 2016.

PeopleCount won’t suddenly make people reasonable, but it’ll help. And as people use it and see that all their opinions are expressed, they’ll feel they’ve taken actions consistent with responsible citizenship. As more people act as responsible citizens, our culture will begin to change, in the right direction, toward more cooperation and compromise, solving problems instead of just bickering. Over a few years, our culture will improve. And in that new, improved culture, even more will be possible.

So finish your tantrum. Let go of your upset. Accept the situation exactly as it is. What’s possible?

A New Way to Politically Organize

Americans, and American understandings about politics are organized around a lot of erroneous thoughts. Let’s look at some of these and create a new way to organize.

Our Current Politcal Organization

David Roberts wrote an article in Vox titled:

Tech nerds are smart. But they can’t seem to get their heads around politics.

His conclusion:

Only when they understand politics, and figure out how to make it work better, will all their dreams find their way into the real world.

It’s a beautiful article, full of things to expand the understanding of most of us. My conversations with people show that most of us think in very human ways- we simplify. We make sense out of the world pretty quickly, and stop when we’ve put a sensible picture together- not an accurate picture, just one that’s sensible to us.

And then we act on that understanding. We talk, we rant, we complain, many of us proclaim and even preach. And most of us end up generalizing, not particularly respectfully, about the “others”.

David gives a number of statements that pierce our generalizations.

Aren’t 45% of American voters registered as independent?

“…independents are not independent. … (they) resemble weaker partisans much more than they do real independents. In actuality, real independents make up just over 10 percent of Americans, and a small fraction of Americans who actually vote”

But aren’t many of these independents moderate?

“…moderates … gravitate toward the political center, splitting the difference between the mainstream positions of the two parties. If that’s a moderate, then America doesn’t have many of those either.”

They should be more centrist than others, shouldn’t they?

Moderates also tend to be more disengaged from politics. More engaged voters will tend to follow … the positions of party leaders. People who know little … will tend to support positions outside the mainstream… A voter with deeply informed, mildly center-left positions will code as “more partisan” than a moderate who has ill-informed positions that are all over the map, but that doesn’t mean the moderate is more centrist…

At PeopleCount.org, we say that political parties organize us and divide us. They capture allegiance on a few issues, often offering an emotional hook like an injustice or threat. Then they pretend to represent us on a host of issues, usurping our power for their own purposes which often seems to be battling “the opposition” for power.

Kids dressed as donkey and elephant, shooting each otherThis is why so many people are registered as independent. Not because they don’t favor one party, but because each party represents a platform and ideology that doesn’t agree with them in important ways and are they are run to use their power regardless of what The People want.

PeopleCount.org proposes a new way to politically organize. Let’s organize separately around each issue, see where we stand and hold Congress accountable for results. While we are buffeted by new circumstances, we are organized by old parties. We react to old ideas and drift, paralyzed, into a random future. Let’s try something new. Let’s deal with each issue on its own and design our future together.

Instead of politicians being accountable to the parties, let’s have them be accountable to you and me, The People.

PeopleCount.org is now making progress and targeting our launch this Winter! To help us succeed, please register and vote on some issues. And please donate a few bucks and join our mailing list.

Societal Myths

There was a shallow and inaccurate article: Aerosmith made more Money from Video Games.  The article is bogus, beginning with its premise:

> Guitar Hero: Aerosmith generated far more in revenues than any Aerosmith album

Many commenters showed the errors of it.  Would people have bought the “video games” if not for the albums?  My purpose, though, it to call attention to the societal myths the article reveals.  Let’s start with these:

Myth:  Aerosmith generated the revenue

That’s just a way of looking at it. Really, Aerosmith generated little or none of the money. The money came from labels (record producers) and concert organizers and managers and a whole industry set up for a very modern idea (that started in the 1960’s), to generate money from music as copyrighted property. What Aerosmith contributed was music, passion and a struggle to make their particular “rock star” life work, as they navigated the culture. Aerosmith generated something of value. The industry generated revenue from it.

Another way of seeing that this is a myth is to look at songwriters and performers before the modern music industry began in the 1950’s and 60’s. Artists and performers were mostly poor.

The article conclusion is also bogus if it’s interpreted that Guitar Hero was a success based on Aerosmith’s fame, rather than their efforts:

> who you are may be more important than what you do.

First, notice the meaning, that “what’s important” is “revenue generated”, money. These are (self-reinforcing) societal myths, that fame and wealth matter. Another is that Aerosmith’s contribution is more than yours, or mine, or anyone’s. Granted, these seem very true to most of us, since they are our cultural myths. They color what we think is true or false.

While measures are often invaluable when working to accomplish something, they’re measures of something arbitrary. We humans often forget that each of us defines what’s important. When we forget, it’s easy to just reinforce the shallow interpretations of the definitions that our culture hands to us.

> who you are may be more important than what you do.

The myth is that they’re separate, so one can be more important. This hides two possibilities. 1- Perhaps what Aerosmith did was an expression of who they were.  2- Perhaps doing it empowered them to more strongly be the Aerosmith that evolved its further expressions. In both of these, “who you are” and “what you do” are intertwined.

Another societal myth is that “who you are” somehow exists. Maybe you get to say who you are in every moment. Others also get to say who you are. And what they say influences their actions, such as buying music and games. But this myth hides that “who you are” is created. It’s created by others, and it’s created by you saying it and expressing it in action.

In one sense of the phrase, “who you are” means your reputation. It seems to me, too, that after someone is famous, that’s often more important. But even so, the stated myth leads many people to blame their lack of success on lack of fame. Granted, winning American Idol brings a lot of success. But at the same time, without practice and great performance, people won’t win.

Another lie is that there really is a “what you do.”  While our actions are real, their significance is up to each of us. Often the significance of our actions changes over time, and later we see what a huge contribution something was, or discover huge consequences. So there’s no telling, today, the importance of what you do. Or we could look at it as, the telling of it is everything, and gives us who we are.

We can choose what we say, and we can choose what it means

Like the author, we have complete choice in what we say. You can buy into the myths or see the lie in them. You get to create who you are and what you do.

To me, this article was shallow and inaccurate.  Junk food.  Kudos to the author for giving us food for thought.

PeopleCount.org was born out of seeing our societal myths around government and politics, and creating a way we can all work together harmoniously to create together the future we desire. See societal myths everywhere. Choose your life, your actions, and your future.

Failure is a Myth

Nathan Vanderford wrote about The Failure Myth” which for him is that PHD students are failures if they don’t receive a faculty position with tenure. Many end up working at low pay for years instead of getting a job with stature, a future, accomplishments and other rewards.

There are myriad failure myths. Off the top of my head:

  • One must have money to be successful
  • One must have stuff (car/iphone/house, etc) to be successful
  • Anything grade less than an A isn’t good enough
  • One’s not successful unless one’s parents approve, or are proud
  • No bonus means no success
  • You’re not successful unless your spouse is happy
  • You’re not successful unless you’re getting sex
  • You’re not successful unless you have a job
  • If you have a job, you’re not successful unless you have a good job
  • If you have a good job, you need to be a manager to be successful.
  • If you’re a manager, you need to be a director or VP to be successful.
  • If you are one, you need to be a CEO to be successful
  • Or you need to start a company to be successful
  • Your kids or spouse must win awards or make money for you to be successful
  • In music or theatre, one must win awards or make money at it to be successful
  • For those who didn’t graduate high school, success requires a diploma
  • For high school grads, a college degree is required
  • For those with an AA or AS degree, you need a 4-year degree to be successful
  • For those with a bachelors degree, you have to have a masters to be successful
  • For those with a masters, you have to have a PHD to be successful
  • Like Nathan noted, for PHDs, you have to have tenure
  • and on and on and on…

Perhaps we all worry about being a loser. Either we think we are one, or we deny we are one, or we’re worried we might really be one, or we worry life could take a wrong turn and we become one. When we achieve something – it’s great! And pretty soon the worries return and we feel the same as we did before the achievement.

Then comes the epiphany, “I must need a better achievement!” Or we see someone else with more and we think “that’s the answer,” not realizing they’re in the same rat race we are, just at a different place on the track.

Luckily, our minds don’t fixate on this crap all the time. But probably, you and I have latched on to all sorts of cultural bull like this.

The only freedom I’ve seen is to dig it all up and see all the myths we’re attached to, and distinguish them as the inadvertent indoctrinations that they are, just ideas rattling around our noggins pretending to be true. You can discover a lot of this in meditation. Or for a wild, myth-busting ride with breakthroughs, take Landmark Education’s Success seminar. (Prerequisites: The Landmark Forum and one other seminar.)

Life is a creation. You can either create a life by stumbling into it, or by realizing that you stumbled into every friggin’ facet, every idea, every truth, and bought into it hook, line and sinker. Perhaps only by exploring the extent of our chains, our mind-trips, our “truths”, is any freedom possible.

This is, to me, true enlightenment. Nothing is serious, or important, or sacred, or good or bad, except that we believe so. Pain in life is often inescapable. But you don’t have to suffer. Suffering is optional. Joy is optional.  (I am soooo glad I learned this.)

I absolutely love being enlightened, being truly free to love, be loved, experience joy and wonder, be fully self-expressed, totally fulfilled.  Judgement is pure creation.  We can live in a world that’s wrong, or paradise. Of course, like most, I also fall prey at times to the addictions of our culture- that there’s scarcity, appropriateness, approval is needed.  And, that I need the food I crave. But I have many reminders each week that none of this is real.  Suffering is optional.

The failure myth is the tip of the iceberg…