From Limping to Leaping; Teaching the system to dance

Below are some of the topics I've considered writing about.  What are your thoughts?

Benefits to Reduced Rewards:  Helping systems self-sustain

From Limping to Leaping:  Teaching the system to dance

Designing for Personality:  People scaled progress

The Profit Primacy Pitfall

Building New Banks:  Keeping it local, keeping it human, keeping it good.

Profits to the People:  Doing good with local loans

Ending the national ponzi scheme of interest:  Fixing the missing interest loophole

Ending Interest:  Closing the loop with community cash

Stocking Up on Wealth:  Barter Banks Make Wealth Without Interest

Avoiding Fixations:  Examining the roots as well as the trees

Making Real Money:  Assets as Deposits and Time for Cash

Burgeoning Bottom Lines Building Community Health

Creating Virtuous Circles:  Rewarding real wealth creation

Rewarding Rational, Realistic, Robust and Human Scaled Progress

Bonuses, Benefits and Dividends, rewarding ALL the stakeholders

Rationally Reducing Expectations:  Rewarding mindful, progressive and conservative action

The case for working within existing systems

Everywhere people are, problems are too. 

This is not pessimistic, it is realistic in the truest sense of the word.  It's an essence of being human.  As long as we continue to grow and change, we will invent systems for our support – in fact, we can’t live without them.  Instead of vilifying our early attempts at systems (which actually embody a number of robust, even ingenious solutions), we must instead honor the intent of the systems, appreciate the entire reality of why some seemingly imperfect solutions may be appropriate in an imperfect world (Don’t try to eat a year’s worth of food in one meal), and accept and work within the natural forms that are most suited to exceptional outcomes.

It's a little bit about humility, a little bit about the turtle's race, and a lot about our children.

That's why I support the food movements - the sustainable foods movement, the local foods movement, the organic movement - each one of these embodies a greater understanding of how we are connected to the world arround us.  Each one offers a piece of a larger solution, which is best learned by living within that solution.

Small steps, big goals.

Eye Contact

Here is an interesting question.  When two people converse, they often make eye contact.  In fact, if you watch their eyes closely, you will find that they roam and glance across all parts of the face, and occasionally to the hands or parts of the surroundings as well.  Ignoring, for a moment, the rich trove of information contained in the multiple glances at the mouth, the hands, the room, etc. I wonder what might be learned from simply examining the contact between the eyes…

For example- when two people come to an emotionally important moment in the conversation, their eyes will often lock, and they will glance first at one eye, then another, then back and forth several times.  The question is: what is going on in this second of silent dialog?

Often, this interaction can be observed when one person is attempting to asses another person’s sincerity.  Other reasons apply as well.  It would be interesting to notice the different patterns of eye contact between individuals who are telling the truth versus lying – between individuals who know each other versus those who don’t, and between those who are in different emotional states.

My own hypothesis is interesting, but I won’t go into it now - I've noticed my posts are often too long.

Charitable Contribution

I had an idea the other day – I hoped it might be useful to a charity. 

Most people agree that there are many charities that do wonderful work for the world.  We may also believe that the good of a charity is not only in the acts that it performs for the world, but in the beneficial effects it has on the giver itself.

This idea is designed to increase the number of people who give to charity, to increase the amount that each person gives, and to increase the total amount given to charity.  The benefits of this idea are threefold:

First, it benefits the donors, who have a more positive view of themselves, their community, and the world.

Second, it benefits the charities, which have more resources to do good with.

Third, it benefits the recipients of the increased charity.

The idea is simple.  Based on the foot-in-the-door technique Dr. Cialdini studied, representatives walk to each house in their local area.  They begin the conversation by asking if the residents have given to any charity within the last 5 years.  Whatever the answer, they then continue with the response that they are working to increase the number of people who donate to charity in this specific neighborhood.  They next ask if the resident would be willing to walk around to all of the homes within a five block radius, asking them to give to charity.  A few will say yes.  The majority will say no. 

Those who say no will then be asked:  “Okay, well then is it okay with you if we leave this jar with you and come back in 6 months to pick it up?  We’ll donate the money to any charity that you choose.”  The jar is labeled “Charity Change” and there is a slot in the top.  Many will agree to this request.  The representative will then ask for their phone number and email address to schedule the pickup.  Before leaving, the representative says, “I recommend that you put the jar wherever you normally put your spare change.  By the way, do you have any children who you would like to have a jar to so that you can teach them the value of donating to charity?”  Whatever the answer, the representative ends with:  “Most people fill their jar within a few months – if you want another jar, please call me and I’ll drop one off.”

Each month the resident is sent an email with details of the local campaign, contrasted with neighborhood, city, state and nationwide results.  Three months later, a follow up call is placed asking about their progress so that they can tally the local results (“How full is you r jar – half, 1/3, Full?  Do you need another jar?”)  One week before six months, the representative calls to schedule a pick-up (“Don’t give you jar to anyone else!”)  They ask about the fullness of the jar as well – and also ask if there are mainly pennies and dimes, or if it’s quarters and paper money.  “Don’t bother counting it, we will send you a total of what you donated once we count it.  You’ll get a receipt for your taxes.”

Thank you!

This program benefits from a number of human characteristics.  The large request at the beginning (to canvas the neighborhood) sets up a strong desire to comply with a smaller request, and increases the chance that the resident will agree to keep the jar.  The fact that they can choose the charity to receive their donation also increases agreement.  Accepting the jar will create a desire to reciprocate the gift of the jar – especially if the jar looks like a gift (a ribbon with a bow, bright colors, etc.)  Keeping the jar in their own home increases their sense of ownership over the decision to give to charity which increases their positive emotional response to giving.  The follow up calls will increase the amount that they deposit in the jar, and in some cases, will cause them to donate an increased amount or write a check at the end.  Some people may have to be cautioned not to give more than they can afford.

Finally, when the jar is picked up, the homeowner is first asked how it went, then asked if they would be willing to canvas the neighborhood, and finally asked if they would be willing to keep another jar.  The key to encouraging continued participation is keeping just the right amount of follow up with the resident.  Not too much to be pushy, and not so little that the resident thinks they’ve been forgotten.  Also critical is a constant emphasis on the positive benefits that the resident is now a part of.  Total money raised – pictures of people helped by local donations, etc.  Sharing participation percentages in a way that highlights the high numbers of participants (67% of our neighborhood participated in giving to charity through this effort this year!  312 people in your neighborhood gave to charity through this program) is another way to increase participation.

Some of these ideas may seem a little unorthodox, but I feel the worthiness of the goal sanctifies the means.  What do you think?

A Subtle Awareness of Shifting Beliefs

It’s simplistic and misleading, but it’s also perfectly true that everything is an idea.

Especially in the human realm, everything that we see, every thought that we think, every relationship that exists, every moment of time that occurs in contemplation, or in reminiscence exists or is reflected in the mind.  If it doesn’t, we are not aware of it, and therefore, to us, it does not exist.  Its effects may still exist, and so we may posit it as a thing, but the thing itself must exist in our minds, or to us, it doesn’t.

It is probable that there is an existence independent of our awareness of it – but what difference does it make to us?  And if this is true, there is much that we can also gain a deeper appreciation of:  Human systems are created by us – therefore each and every human system would never have existed without our awareness of it.  Importantly, what does that mean for the creation of future human systems?  It means that they must begin with human awareness.

It’s tempting to say that we can imagine a new reality – and in one sense we can – but there is more to it than that.  There is consensus that must be created.  There is awareness, reflection, discussion, transmission, assimilation, and finally, the action of creation.  Change, on a great scale, can seem overwhelmingly, breathtakingly, fast.  But that is only because the only part of the change that can be easily seen is action.  We may see a few of the memes cropping up here and there within the media, or sense reoccurring patterns within communication.  We may experience a subtle awareness of shifting beliefs and ideas, but in the millions of individual reckonings, the thousands of deep conversations between influential opinion makers (who may not even realize that they are) there is a cultural dialog through which emerges a new concept of our world.

A few may feel that they understand the broad strokes of this process – possibly some even feel they have gone further than this.  These people may seek to influence the culture through media, advertising, and subtle memes.  But the property of emergence and the understandings of complexity hint that there may not be any possibility of predicting emergent behaviors with certainty.

So when the “unthinkable” happens, a few surely saw it coming.  A few were in the way of the swing – and they almost surely felt the tension building as the sea of opinion rocked them.  It can as easily be understood as a person coming to understand a new belief, but replicated and magnified across the spectrum of ages, beliefs, genders and culture, subtly or greatly changing each person who learns this new idea or behavior.  If we could see these shifting beliefs from a height, we would see them sweeping as wind across fields of wheat – spreading through print, video and conversation, igniting small understandings and occasionally culminating in massive shifts of culture.

Changing the System (Part 2)

I promised a second post on changing a system. Some of this may be redundant but I hope it's helpful - especially for those of us hoping to see more positive movements like those being advanced by this group.

Let’s say I wanted to make a change in my life.

I would be wise to try to understand all the ways that I was being pushed to continue doing what I am doing currently. There must be reasons, or I wouldn’t still be doing it, right?

So, I begin by understanding that actions have reasons. This is not to say that they are necessarily good reasons… Just that they are reasons. Smokers smoke because of the habit, because their bodies crave the nicotine content, because they enjoy the rebellion, because of placebo effects, and past positive memories, along with other reasons as well.

The same could be said for any number of habits that have serious side effects.

Take our dependence on other countries’ oil for instance. Almost nobody likes it, almost everybody sees that there are negative consequences that go along with it, but there are reasons that we stay dependent.

One of the most powerful of these is the energy available in oil. I read recently in Yes! Magazine that one liter of oil contains an equivalent amount of energy to 5 weeks of human labor. Amazing isn't it? It’s no wonder that we have found so many uses for this substance. I’m certain when oil was first discovered it seemed like a tremendous benefit to humanity, with little or no down-side. The fumes were probably seen as mild compared to the smells emitted from tanneries and coal furnaces. Plus, there were very few applications for oil machines, so the eventual situation of an entire world dependent on oil would have seemed unlikely.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see how the gradual accumulation of decisions brought us to the place we are in today. The invention of the gasoline engine led to wars won through the aid of gasoline powered armor and airplanes, led to industries founded on the cheap power useful in many applications. As we see over and over again, if there is a useful resource in the environment, we humans are extraordinarily able at finding a way to make use of it. Especially under a system such as capitalism – where individual efforts are rewarded.

Capitalism, the system as a whole, excels at finding uses for useful things. Land is put to the highest and best use. Fat pigs are bred with other fat pigs to make fatter breeds. Cattle are bred to put on weight more quickly, requiring less feed, less heat, and less space until processing. Chickens are bred to lay more eggs. Tomatoes are bred to be redder in color, to stay red longer, and to stay firm during transportation so they don’t squash. All of these things are done in the name of a quality. Often, the quality that is enhanced is the quality of profitability, but there are other qualities that are enhanced as well. When we consumers decided that we wanted lean meat, pork was bred to be leaner. When we decided we wanted cheap chicken and beef, farmers produced cheaper meat.

There is a sort of Catch-22, merry-go-round quality to discussions about the changes in our lives that come from the systems we live within – tempting us to ask which came first, a more profitable chicken, or the demand for cheaper eggs?

On one side of the equation, corporations might like to point fingers at consumers and say – “If people demanded higher quality chicken, we would give it to them. We would have to!”

On the other side of the equation, consumers might be tempted to point back and say, “It’s your responsibility as the producer to make sure that the chicken is more wholesome, nutritious and flavorful!”

Producers might reply “We tried that, and people bought the cheaper chickens from our competitors! We’d love to produce nothing but free range all natural birds, but most people won’t buy them!”

And consumer groups then might say “Well then we need laws that require chickens to be free-range and all natural, so that all the chickens are the same quality, and businesses are on a level playing field!”

In step the politicians, who might say “But people vote us out of office when we try to pass laws like that. They say, who are you to make me pay more for chicken? What is this, Russia? If I want to buy cheap chickens that taste crummy and are raised in factory farms, who are you to tell me I can’t? Who’s more important, a chicken (that tastes fine to me), or my family's welfare?”

And there we may find angry citizen groups, lobbyists, corporate ad campaigns and politicians all fighting each other – because the truth tends to get obscured in these sort of debates.

So what's the solution? Is there a solution?

One thing we can probably all agree on is that all parties would need to work together to find a real, lasting solution – but we can’t do that until all sides have access to all the information.

It might be helpful to ask, what are the secrets that each side is hiding, or not acknowledging (including my own side)? What secrets cause me to look at others with distrust, and keep us from building a truly cohesive agreement?

Farmers like to say that their mass produced birds are just as good as any other bird.

Is that true? Most people agree that the majority of mass produced birds have less flavor. Cooks Illustrated did a taste test on this subject, and found that to be largely - although not entirely - the case. We also find that in mass produced slaughter operations, there is often a much higher possibility of ammonia contamination as well as bacterial contamination

Many people also find that mass production operations are more cruel to animals

Citizen groups like to say that mass produced birds are completely inferior, and actively dangerous to our health

Is this true? There are benefits to cheap food that we would be foolish to deny. Single mothers straining to feed their family can not be blamed for purchasing low cost ingredients - especially when they choose a mass-produced chicken over a meal of fast food.

Also, it is important to acknowledge that there have been cases in the past when the negative health effects of mass produced foods have been overstated by citizen advocacy groups.

Politicians like to say that people have all of the power, and that it is the politicians job to listen to the people.

But how true is this really? Wouldn't it be more true to say that there is a give and take between politicians and their constituents? Wouldn't most political office holders acknowledge that their office carries with it a responsibility to try and educate the voters about what is best for them?

It is also important to acknowledge that political officials are responsible to the people who elect them to office, and that it is occasionally necessary to create rules that protect the powerless.

Consumers like to say that they make well informed purchasing decisions

In truth, we consumers can become overly reliant on government programs like the USDA to ensure our food is safe. It was actually discovered during the egg recall that government regulators had never visited the operation that produced the contaminated eggs. We consumers need to be aware that our reliance on USDA stamps may be hiding dangerous situations from our conscious awareness.

It is also important for us as consumers to be honest about the fact that we can often become overwhelmed by the masses of conflicting statements about health and food. From fad diets, to overly hyped new products to miracle supplements, to the dangers of fast food and eggs, It can be very difficult to tease out the relevant, important information, and keep it top of mind when we go wandering through the grocery store aisles. It is important to find unbiased sources of information we can rely on.

Food businesses like to say that consumer demand drives corporate decisions

Is this always the case? There may be many decision that are not driven by consumer demand. Once a corporation gains the majority of market share, they begin to gain pricing power and can dictate terms to grocers, shippers and farmers. These effects are most clearly seen in monopolistic situations, but it's important to realize that they exist in many other situations as well - when just a few major players hold the majority of the market. These effects may be known as cartel effects, and they can result in grocers being forced to remove competing products from shelves, shipping companies being prohibited from transporting competing goods, and cost prohibitive USDA or other local or federal government regulation being enacted to keep smaller operations from entering the marketplace. (To become a USDA certified dairy, for instance, and offer products in most markets would cost an astounding $100,000 - well beyond the reach of most family farmers).

Additionally, corporations may often hide profit driven decisions from consumers . For example, consumers still aren't being told that genetically modified corn is being used as an ingredient in many of their purchases, and were initially unaware that bovine growth hormone was treating their dairy cows until legal actions were pursued.

Consumers, for their part, like to say that Corporations are corrupt, and that they don’t care about our health or the environment.

Let's be honest though, corporate executives are people too - I was one - and many of us have relatives, parents or spouses who work for large corporations. There is nothing inherently evil about a corporation - and almost no one wants to think of him or her self as evil. It is important to remember that the problems that come from corporations are structural and can - with great effort and understanding, be changed.

Additionally, we should realize that consumer demand does drive a number of corporate decisions - this a great source of strength, and makes it possible for us as consumers to influence the decisions of large corporations that we feel most strongly about. Voting with our dollars, educating others about important issues, and speaking out against injustice are powerful allies.

Ocassionally, a consumer, or political group will say that a truly free market will take care of everything.

Unfortunately, we don't have a truly free market. People need information to make good decisions – and our laws allow important information to be hidden from consumers.

Additionally, monopolistic practices create massive opportunities for bad behavior. And when corporations funnel billions and billions of dollars into changing the laws to better benefit their shareholders, the system can become dangerously unballanced, or even corrupted. It is important to realize that as long as markets are not free, we need to keep a watchful eye over any entity that controls massive amounts of resources.

Sometimes we may see communities fighting for employers - even when they have been treated poorly by those same employers. Often, these community members don’t want to lose their jobs.

This is a difficult situation, and a moral individual must acknowledge these fears. It is imperative that anyone seeking to make a change in a system, also takes action to anticipate and assist those who may be hurt. Remedies may include bringing in new jobs, providing for community assistance, or helping to relocate those willing to move. Ideally, living conditions will dramatically improve for all affected in the area, but in the short term, those who will be hurt, must be helped.

None of the statements above are revolutionary. None of these ideas are new. The difficulty in creating sustainable change – change that continues after the initial push is over, and after the good work of understanding the problem has been done, lies in changing the underlying system itself. This includes helping people and organizations to change their self-destructive beliefs as well.

Each side must be listened to. Each side must be respected. Each side’s opinion must be seen as important by all the other members committed to creating a change.

When we see, we see from our own perspective. This is right, and good – for no other person can see from our perspective. But that’s only a part of the responsibility. Everyone should be aware that each person who is engaged in a system – who works there, who shops there, who makes money there, who is elected from there - is important and owns a part of the solution.

Most of us agree that it is wrong to force someone to do something he or she doesn’t want to do. If we want to change a system, before it comes to a place of violent or destructive disagreement, we must have the courage to face our own fears, admit our own weaknesses, and listen to others. We must listen to the fact that we might be wrong – we must accept that our solution will need to be amended.

And we must have the courage to bring the other members of the decision to the table.

Uncertainty

There’s an idea I was introduced to in my college humanities class; Tolerance for Ambiguity. One might say that almost every aspect of human life is ambiguous. The few areas that can be said to be least ambiguous might be mathematics and physics, but even those disciplines, with the rise of modern “M theory,” have areas sometimes referred to as “Murky” and “Magic” by their leading scientific proponents.

Politics is steeped in ambiguity. Climate change scientists will admit, that they have great chasms of uncertainty.

Those who search for certainty in religion are likewise left to dangle without firm foundation.

About the only thing that I can say with any confidence is that life seems to operate in a regular way. Apples fall down, electricity travels through wires, food is turned into energy, the sun rises and sets (or the world keeps on spinning). And while seeking knowledge is a noble activity, I am against a certain trait that exhibits itself in many who do the seeking...

It seems that unfounded certainty obscures clarity.

Socrates stated often that he knew nothing. If we look deeply enough, it appears that every field of human endeavor rests upon a mystery.  It seems that every person who claims “ultimate knowledge,” has, within a few years had the theory struck down, revised, or thrown out altogether. In fact, the current theory of how the universe works is so completely complex, that if it were clearly mapped out, and the ultimate theory of the universe were spread in front of our most brilliant mathematicians, they would still not be able to intuitively comprehend the 11 dimensions, alternate universes and other weirdness within it.  They would probably be able to work the equations, and maybe even get some useful understandings, but at the end of it all, it’s like an ant watching a square dance. The mind is probably not capable of conceiving 11 dimensions.

I think it is noble and good that our leading minds are trying to shed light on the deepest mysteries of our existence. I hope they do find a useful Theory of Everything.  All I'm saying is this:  In order to be truly honest, truly in integrity with our minds, our hearts, and our society, shouldn't we have the courage to admit what we do not know – even when it is at the very core of our being?

I’ve looked long and hard at society – and one of my only remaining beliefs is is that claiming certain knowledge leads to mistakes and sometimes to suffering.  It is not ignorance that leads to suffering – far from it.  Acknowledged ignorance can be a spur to our actions and a benefit to mankind.  Unacknowledged ignorance, or wrong certainties that lead to pain and suffering.

Yes, we can drop an apple and be relatively certain it will fall to the floor. But we had best be absolutely certain, as physics teachers, that we’re not guilty of telling our students that we understand exactly why it happens. Let them know there are unanswered questions, or you may doom them to a life of arrogance and alienation to themselves as they proselytize through life.  Our children are certain enough, already, without our adding to it. If you fear for their fragile egos, perhaps you haven’t heard what goes on in the halls between classes, they would probably welcome a bit of uncertainty and mystery in their studies as well.

And those of you who feel that certainty in education is the only way to fight the soothing balm of certainty some of those who have less integrity  may offer, I say be cautious.  If you don't want to be a hypocrite you mustn't step on the slippery slope.  If the only way that you can entice minds away from the lulling effects of certainty is by artificially creating your own, you will certainly lose your sheep to the next peddler of placebos.  Children are no more blind to contradictions than they are to the motivations of their teachers, or we are to the motivations of our leaders.

So say it with me, I don't know. We don't know.  Maybe nobody knows.  Who knows?
It should be hardly necessary to point out the inconsistencies and deep uncertainties in psychology, politics and economics but interestingly enough, that's where we find some of the most vehement proponents of certainty.  If we can agree that science and religion have mysteries at their core, how much more obvious must it be that the foundations of the more complex “softer” sciences are also incomplete?  Who has not seen the vehemence of two “colleagues” arguing over Freud versus Jung, Efficient Markets versus Random Walks, Marxism versus Capitalism? And what is obvious to less partial observers is that neither one is correct.

We just don't know. Say it with me:  We just don’t know.  Make it your mantra:  I don’t know.  Get comfortable with it:  We just don’t know!  Be happy about it:  We just don’t know!  Embrace the mystery, Who knows?!  I don’t know.  Revel in the possibility of it all.  Teach your children.  It’s freeing, it’s calming and it’s obvious. We just don’t know  :)

Please forgive my pedantry!  I guess I’ve become a little frustrated by the repeated claims of certainty and the endless search for the truth at the base of these claims.  I suppose I’ve let my emotions run a little high. That’s okay, I’m human. It’s normal to be frustrated.  And we often encounter people who want us to buy into their world view just so they have someone else to reinforce their certainty upon.  We know, they're just lonely.  Deep down, don’t we all know that’s what’s happening when we get into one of those arguments with a passionate believer?  And haven’t most of us been guilty of being that true believer too?  If you think back to the last time you were involved in one of those haranguing arguments, that smidgen of doubt you were trying to force out of the other person may have actually been inside of you all along.

So let me end with an apology. I realize that this has become a bit of a tirade. I have become guilty of the very thing I was railing about. I suppose that, if I’m honest with myself, in all of this trying to convince you that “we just don’t know,” perhaps there was a little bit of my own doubt that I was trying to convince out? Possibly I was trying to erase that nagging suspicion that maybe someone out there really does know.

Oh well, it's just one more uncertainty.  I’ll learn to live with it. It’s kind of fun once you get used to it.