This Too Shall Pass

Everyone goes through the many flavours of strife in their own way. From a terrifying lack of identity, to an existential crisis, to a purely stressful situation. The way one deals with strife or difficulty, in my personal experience, is often not the difficulty itself, but the courage to find justification in perseverance. It’s not the technical aspects of a problem which trouble us, but the emotional baggage which comes with finding a solution.

A hero’s journey is based around the problem of identity. For me I sometimes suddenly feel distant, angry, my identity becomes like a cage. I recently went to a party hosted by some old friends, and came to realise that their perception of who I was, my character, had shifted completely since I last saw them. How easily they directed conversation to compensate for who they thought I was. How they reacted to me without saying a word. It made me question who I was as a person, it made want to recluse, or give up on influencing my own personal image.

When this happens I often comfort myself in the thought that I am whoever those I’m with think I am. In order for me to define myself I can either look to how others see me, or convince them otherwise. If I want to be seen as the sporty jock, slowly but surely I can converse with the key players in a friend group, talking only sport, until the thought becomes reality. If I’m struggling to see myself as a defined being, I merely have to wait and see how others finish my sentences. The struggle of identity, becomes a power, power which can be used to break free from the inaction of dealing with this disconnect, and eventually create a better you in everyone’s eyes.

When it comes to existentialism, and thoughts which drain the meaning out of life allowing for laziness and melancholy, I compare myself. No matter what happens you are as worthwhile and as worthless as the entire world combined. I find walking alone in the dark, surrounded by shadows brings this existential isolation to rest. I am, in the moment of my walk, the most living thing I can see. The most lively, thinking, active component of this tiny world. I can run along the empty streets, my decisions are unrivalled, there is no one else who can give or take my value away, just me and the shadows.

When I encounter difficulty I also like to watch Youtube videos on philosophical topics, especially the extremely well written education videos by The School of Life: https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel

There is nothing I can say that can adequately describe the comfort I can find in learning about the deep thoughts of people from history. Knowing that no one is alone in these dangerous and often debilitating ideas.

Image: Dark Street, by Nicolas Perriault,
https://500px.com/photo/466415/dark-street-by-nicolas-perriault

From these videos and their ideas and mantras, one of my favourites is simply: “This too shall pass.” Four words incorporating memory, identity and the constant forward flow of time. A beautiful reminder, that since the dawn of our existence, difficulty has been overcome. We have carried on.

Would you like to guess?

Currently the world is changing, and with change comes fear. People are naturally afraid of the new and unknown, and so they should be, change can be good, but it can also be equally as bad. And so what would be the most natural response? Quell this fear with knowledge, predictions, or better yet, complete foresight! Unfortunately in most situations, humans are not extremely good at predicting the future. Economic models are perfect examples of how imperfect our predictions can be. And so when the world needs it most, our faith in predictions becomes eroded. We don’t see them as valuable anymore.

If he’s prepared for the zombie, vampire, werewolf, anything apocalypse, we can at least prepare for climate model predictions. Image courtesy 9GAG.com

This problem is extremely apparent when it comes to climate change or more importantly, climate predictions and climate modeling. In the next 50 years it is imperative that we prepare, because if we do not, the changes in our environment could cause us to lose food, water, homes; precious resources. With the pillar stones of our society damaged, our entire world could crumble into hunger-induced rebellion, and full-scale war. Thankfully we have tools at our disposal, tools which allow us to see a range of outcomes and prepare for the worst. Whether or not Australia embraces climate models and uses their predictions to harden ourselves against a range of outcomes, will likely determine whether or not Australia exists in this new world. This eroded faith needs to be reformed in policy makers and the general public. Those among us who understand the value in climate models must educate the skeptics and remove the deniers from power, so that climate modeling can hopefully, one day, lead Australia on a smooth transition into a world strongly affected by climate change.


Here is a small video hoping to raise awareness about the importance of climate models in the future of Australian policy making:

References:

Frame Pool 2008, Stock Video # 396-375-211, An animal cemetery of walrus bones, online image, viewed 28 August 2015, http://footage.framepool.com/shotimg/qf/396375211-animal-cemetery-mass-grave-walrus-animal-skull.jpg

The Telegraph 2015, Flood Philippines 2647456k, A flooded city street in the Philippines, online image, viewed 28 August 2015, http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02647/flood-philippines-_2647456k.jpg

Tornado Facts 2002, Lightning and tornado storm, A lightning strike next to a tornado, online image, viewed 28 August 2015,
http://tornado-facts.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lighting-and-tornado-storm.jpg

Westmount Wire 2015, Melting ice polar bear on, A polar bear standing on a piece of floating ice, online image, viewed 28 August 2015,
https://westmountwire2014.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/global-warming-is-causing-polar-bears-to-shrink-in-arctic-canada/

Blake, M 2014, Namib desert, The dry landscape of the Namib desert in Africa, online image, viewed 28 August 2015,
http://www.beautifulworld.com/images/africa/namib-desert/small/namib-desert.jpg

Bush Fire Front 2015, Vic23, Fire engulfing a farm in Victoria Australia, online image, viewed 28 August 2015,
http://bushfirefront.com.au/1a/pic/2010/03/vic23.jpg

NASA 2001, Blue marble, A composite image of the earth as seen from space, online image, viewed August 28 2015,
http://solarviews.com/raw/earth/bluemarblewest.jpg

Prydain Wiki 2014, Llawgadarn mountains, A scenic image of a lake surrounded by mountains, online image, viewed August 28 2015,http://prydain.wikia.com/wiki/Llawgadarn_Mountains

Pretentious

An idea leaps forth from my mouth into the crowd of my friends, something new and different, an observation previously unobserved. Just as the words start to echo inside their ears, the delicate flame is quickly snuffed out. I might have spoken too confidently, used some exaggerations, and yet I do this all the time. Confidence and exaggeration are imbedded into the art of smalltalk. However this time it is different, this time the phrase is slaughtered and branded with a disfiguring seal. Labeled as pretentious.

This has happened far too often. It is as if there is a law against mixing philosophy with conversation, people seem genuinely fearful the two substances will combust on contact. The word 'pretentious' is almost like an ultimate weapon, the phrase is always seen as derogatory and yet it is not directly insulting, a silent weapon. I have been called pretentious more than a couple of times in my life, but there are those in particular who use the power of this phrase against me in what I feel is excess.

But first, like any good discussion we must define the subject. According to many dictionary definitions someone is pretentious if they “attempt to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.” Or if they “try to act like they are more important or knowledgeable than they really are.” As it turns out the difference between being pretentious and being a showoff is separated by the thin divide of context. While being pretentious requires one to have a visible sense of superiority in their assumed knowledge, a showoff has a visible sense of superiority in something else such as athleticism.

Which of these two words is considered more derogatory? Personally I feel that being called pretentious is more potent than being called arrogant or a showoff. Its as if exaggerated intelligence is more aggravating than exaggerated talent in other fields. Though when I am part of a culture where the two exist, this bias, to me, seems completely unreasonable.

One of my friend groups has an attitude of butting heads. Exaggeration is rampant with people trying to best each other in the arena of wit and humor. Stories are thrown around, people laugh, cut others off and someone always comes out on top. Phrases obviously said in jest such as “Too skilled for you mate!” and “You’re terrible!” are everywhere.

In this environment, no deeper conversation is ever brought to light. No politics, no religion, no news, nothing. We exist within our own little bubble with no way of escaping. I like to think of it as if we were a civilization without maps, without any way of looking at what we have, where we are going and where we came from. Except it is worse than that.

Any attempt at creating a map of the surrounding area. Any attempt at questioning the dynamics of this friend group, even labeling such things as the war-like nature of our conversations is seen as sacrilege. The maps are burned when created. The high priest of this little tribe labels them as ‘pretentious’ and thus they are turned to ashes.

What is causing this? Is attempting to think deeper, only permitted when one has lost all arrogance and become a humble hermit? Well then why are we allowed to show off our achievements in life, arrogantly talking about exciting things we got up to on the weekend? I don’t know, but with the many situations I have learnt from, I can plant a couple of good guesses.

My father, the one who taught me to be cynical and skeptical, during one of his minor rants about the horrors of modern day capitalism, also labeled me as pretentious. He had just previously announced that there was no hope for humanity, when I made an attempt at sitting half way towards his view of the world. I told him that our culture and ideas of justice and equality might die with our society, so one can't say that the death of our way of life is objectively bad. I thought I had a legitimate argument, a way to think of the situation which may lead rise to other solutions. The though that maybe appealing to the greater good in a situation where none exist is not very effective at mobilize people. I did say it with confidence, I said it how I would say anything else, I said it in the same way I would talk about a social event I had been to. But no, he shut down the idea without any debate using the simple phrase "Now that's just pretentious."

Another example.

My friend was complaining about a unit he was doing at university called “Dangerous ideas” claiming it to not include the subject matter, that is, he was not learning about dangerous ideas. Just as I would add my own experience on top of someone else’s in normal conversation, I myself claimed to have a ‘dangerous idea’. I recited something which was a debated topic within my university science cohort, the claim that “the objective truth of reality is subjective,” the idea that truth itself is in the eyes of the beholder. Another friend in the chat decided that this wasn’t and dangerous idea. Fair enough, each to their own. But then he decided to kill the debate right then and there by calling me pretentious.

Do I really come across as an arrogant prick when I try to talk philosophy? But not when I talk about wicked parties, girls or personal achievements? Is exaggerating and romanticizing philosophical thought in general conversation socially illegal?

Or do people feel threatened?

Well the two instances labeled above, the two people who decided to kill a conversation with the word pretentious could very well have felt threatened. My father has always been above and beyond me, so it would be logical the he would attempt to cut the tall poppy by using that word. And that particular friend who labeled me as such has always been my rival in a multitude of ways. We are almost enemies. I have found from my personal experience that the achievements of my enemies always feel more artificial than the achievements of my friends. Maybe because of the history with us, anything I do or say to harmlessly start an intellectual conversation, he sees as an attempt by me to one-up him.

Though in the end, I don’t particularly care about conversations being killed with that word. All I can do is weep for the missed opportunities, the civilization without maps may never find their way, may never care for what is beyond the horizon. But I still can, at the risk of being passively insulted.

And so from all of this, I've pretentiously condensed my thoughts into a simple statement:

I believe that the difference between a pretentious youth, and invocative philosopher lies with the people who are listening.

Thoughts on Authority, Leadership and the Wild Youth

China is on pace to become the global leader in renewable energy (Worldwatch 2015). Iran’s Supreme leader refuses access to military sites and scientists (Euronews 2015). Wife of Islamic State leader Abu Sayyaf captured in Delta Force raid that killed her husband (News Limited 2015).

Strewn throughout the media, the word ‘leader’ is being used to describe a wide variety of people and organizations. These ‘leaders’ are often self-proclaimed, or described as such for some political or social benefit. To be called a leader is to be isolated from the masses, to be seen as more valuable, more capable. I am sure the morale boost in the American army increases greatly when an ISIL ‘leader’ is killed in combat. To use the word ‘general’ or ‘captain’ in place of ‘leader’ makes the threat seem more structured, and the target less valuable. There is this sense that commanders admirals and other authority figures can be replaced, they are merely components of a greater whole. Whereas leaders are those who inspire and empower, and as such, calling the higher powers of an enemy army ‘leaders’ makes them special. When they are gone, they are gone forever.
 
More permanent change is often more celebrated, such as birth, marriage, graduation. Calling someone a leader is almost like advertising, a shiny coat on an otherwise dull affair, drawing in people’s attention.Is the word leadership being used as it should? It is really truly valued? Or has this phrase been reduced in importance to sit with other words such as ‘ultra’ and ‘perfect’ or titles such as ‘the honourable’?

The disparity between what the word is used for and what it should mean has been covered in a variety of session at university as well as in books on leadership theory. The common view on this matter is quite simple; exercising authority and leadership are opposing activities, in fact leaders do not exist, leadership is a verb not a job (Heifetz et al. 2009). Leadership is not about meeting or exceeding your authorizer’s expectations; it is about challenging some of those expectations, finding a way to disappoint people without pushing them completely over the edge (Heifetz et al. 2009).

At first I was very open to the idea. A simple dichotomy, it was so neat and tidy, there were those who exercised leadership and diverged from the status quo, and those who exercised authority and maintained it. This view was particularly appealing to people like me; the young and energetic, the protestors and activists, those who would sometimes find themselves fighting against authority just for the sake of it. In this way, the wild youth are almost encouraged to stand up and practice leadership, to disrupt the status quo, to fight against the nemesis of authority. Examples were thrown around, Stalin was an authority figure, Nelson Mandala practiced leadership. A policeman is an authority figure, an innovator practices leadership.

Leadership was out there, away from the formal authority which politicians and policemen possess, and informal authority which celebrities and venerated individuals have (Heifetz et al. 2009). However, Glenn L Barnes, the Chairman of Ansell who came to talk to us about leadership, particularly leadership in business, thought of leadership differently. He claimed that leaders possess all the traits of authority figures, exempt that they have the will to “step down from their position when it is best for the company.”

Realizing that there were differencing views on the subject spurred the start of my disagreement with the models I had been given. After discussing my ideas with some friends I decided to make my own ‘bigger’ and ‘better’ leadership theory.

Music: Piano Concerto No. 2 Sergei Vassilievitch Rachmaninov

References:

Worldwatch Institue 2015, China on Pace to Become Global Leader in Renewable Energy 2015, viewed 23 May 2015, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5497

Euronews 2015, Iran’s Supreme Leader refuses access to military sites and scientists, viewed 23 May 2015, http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/20/iran-s-supreme-leader-refuses-access-to-military-sites-and-scientists/

News Limited 2015, Wife of Islamic State leader Abu Sayyaf captured in Delta Force raid that killed her husband, viewed 23 May 2015, http://www.news.com.au/world/wife-of-islamic-state-leader-abu-sayyaf-captured-in-delta-force-raid-that-killed-her-husband/story-fndir2ev-1227359660758

Heifetz, R Grashow, A Linsky, M 2009, The practice of adaptive leadership, Cambridge Leadership Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.

The Currency of the Entrepreneur

We all see people rise up to become leaders. All of us have heard of those self-made men and women who climbed the ladders of power. These individuals, at least to me, often seem almost unreal, not plagued by the trials and tribulations of us ordinary folk. Last Monday I was lucky enough to interview such a person, the esteemed Australian doctor and biotech entrepreneur: Hugo Stephenson.

Hugo has founded and cofounded a number of organisations, particularly in the field of biotechnology and pharmacology. He is known for creating the companies: MediGuard, Quintiles Transnational and Health Research Solutions. Hugo is best known for his work promoting research into drug safety and more consumer awareness, but is also a supporter of internet startups and entrepreneurialism. He is currently the Executive Chairmen of the clinical trials company DrugDev, though he is also working on other, smaller projects.

Hugo Stephenson, Executive Chairmen of DrugDev
Image courtesy of Eyeforpharma © 2015
http://social.eyeforpharma.com

My interview with Hugo was long and detailed; we talked over a light lunch at Giorgois café in Armadale. I asked him about his journey, his motivation, and what he felt about the science-entrepreneurial course I am currently a part of. From all the points he shared, one story in particular resonated very strongly with me.

I asked Hugo specifically how he created all of these businesses. How he got these great projects off the ground without much capital at all. For Hugo, the answers lay in his tale of two cafés:

Café number one says, “I’m going to get this place on High St because there is a lot of foot traffic. But I’m not very confident in myself, so I’d really like it to look really good so I can capture the interest of people who come past. In that situation what am I doing? I’m taking on a high rent and I’m asking for a lot of capital up front, bank loans, friends or family, to fit out the restaurant. So I sit inside all day and I polish the tables waiting for people to come in. The people will come in eventually, but it will take a lot longer than you ever think, for real revenue to come in, regardless of what business you are.” So you’re in an environment where you’ve started from behind.

In the second café, the guy turns around and says, “You know what, I’m going to get a much cheaper rent café, off the main strip. I may get one which has some pre-existing materials in there, may not even look that good. I’ll spend a bit of time putting a lick of pain on it but I’m not going to get a commercial fit out, absolute bare minimum. But every single day in the morning when its not busy, I’m going to walk to every business, knock on every door, stand at the train station with some flyers, offering free coffee to anyone who comes in. Coffee doesn’t cost much, it’s just your time. And I’m going to learn the name and record everybody that comes in, what their phone number is, start a loyalty card for them, if I haven’t seen them for a week I’ll text them.” The second café doesn’t need as much time becoming cash positive because this guy’s basically said, “What I lack in terms of location and in terms of set up, I’m going to make up for in terms of my time, and my energy. You know what, I’ll offer a dinner service, I’ll do whatever, I’ll just do everything but I’ll trade my time for something.”

I found this story extremely profound. It had a moral applying not only to business but also to leadership theory and problem solving in general.

Problems exist in two main forms: Technical problems can be resolved through the application of authoritative expertise, through an organization’s current structures, and ways of doing things. Whereas adaptive challenges can only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits and loyalties (Heifetz et al. 2009). To put it simply, a technical solution would be to change the product, but an adaptive solution would be to change the buyer.

Café one, in Hugo’s story, attempted to solve the problem of too few people entering their café, using technical means. Better location, a higher quality interior, and a more attractive exterior. This problem, however, is not really about the product, but more about the people buying it.

Café two attempted to solve this problem through adaptive means. By sacrificing time and effort, the café owner connected with people, encouraged them, and changed their habits. By offering loyalty cards, and becoming more human in the face of potential buyers, the owner of the second café was able to change how the people felt about the cafe, change their loyalties and excel.

There is also another aspect to this story, the difference in confidence. Confidence is one of the keys to effective leadership. Having confidence sets up the active side of your self-esteem, providing you with energy, inner strength and power (Avolio & Luthans 2006). A lack of drive and energy from self-confidence can cause time to so easily be wasted on trivial things, such as monotonously polishing the tables in a café, waiting for people to come in. With real confidence and drive, businessmen, entrepreneurs and leader can engage better with their audiences, buyers and team members and eventually lead to accelerated success as they tackle problems in a more adaptive way.

This concept was just one of many touched upon by Hugo in the wonderful interview I had with him. This experience has taken me to a new place on my journey, as I’ve come to realize that in the hands of those who wish to lead, time and human interaction are priceless gifts, more powerful than gold.

Find out more about Hugo Stephenson here:

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/hugo-stephenson/3/57/b33

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Stephenson

DrugDev executive team leaders page: http://www.drugdev.com/about-us/leadership/#hugo-stephenson

References: 

Avolio, B Luthans, F 2006, The high impact leader, New York Publishing, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Heifetz, R Grashow, A Linsky, M 2009, The practice of adaptive leadership, Cambridge Leadership Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.

Hanlon's Razor

Currently, as part of my tertiary education, I am required to read a fantastic book titled: The Practice of Adaptive Leadership by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow and Marty Linsky. This book is filled with practical models and methods for carrying out acts of adaptive leadership, and discusses interesting concepts such as the use of an artificially created disequilibrium in order to nurture innovative change within a system (Heifetz 2009 p30). From this book, one particular segment jumped out at me: ‘The Illusion of the Broken System’ (Heifetz 2009 p17).

The reason this particular portion caught my attention was initially because I strongly disagreed with the subheading. I wholeheartedly believe that some systems can be broken, but this is not what this subchapter is truly about.

“Any social system is the way it is because those with the most leverage in the system want it that way” (Heifetz 2009 p17). This is the main thought this subchapter explores, and it terrifies me in its obvious simplicity. Famine, war, instability, terrorism, all issues which cannot be solved with resources alone, but require the mobilization of people, may exist solely because there are those among us who want them to exist.

This terrifying idea reminded me of a philosophical razor, often overused in my household:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" - Robert J. Hanlon

Oh I wish I could comfortably live by this law. My mother would often say this to me when I would whine about current affairs. When America's bloody wars in distant lands sparked terrorist action against their citizens. When Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers caused suicide to become a preferable escape route from detention. When planes were shot down over lands occupied by fascist puppets and autocratic rebels. As if it was my duty as a reasonable human being to forgive these people, to dismiss their actions as merely the products of our broken system and their inability to 'think'.

If all these things are not caused by a broken system just as this book suggests, then there are perpetrators of these crimes. Those who strive for progressive change have enemies actively seeking to undermine them.

The enemies of progress, and their loyal army.
Image created by Andrew Jones, http://androidjones.com

Is it safe to assume that our world leaders, those who we entrust with the power to literally wipe out civilisation itself, are "stupid" at times? Or would it be wise to attribute their destructive actions to malice, not stupidity?

This is one terrible dilemma, one terrible challenge, which I believe is faced by all those who wish to change society. Difficult questions need to be asked, and answers need to be found. Are the resisting factors, those who create and extend the problems faced by this world, merely sheep? Or are they shepherds in their own right? How should a leader, one who seeks to improve the situation through transformation and recreation of the system, identify these people? Should they be treated as enemies, their actions attributed to malice alone, or should they be forgiven and dismissed as merely products of the broken systems they so valiantly defend?

If Hanlon's Razor holds true, then this problem is more of an adaptive challenge (Heifetz 2009 p19), one involving the minds of people, steering them onto your path through incentives, persuasion and appealing to their personal desires. If these resisting factors are lost sheep, then all they require is a shepherd to guide them.

If The Practice of Adaptive Leadership holds true, then this problem becomes more technical. These resisting factors are shepherds themselves, they have their own sheep, their own ideology and their own goals. They are an opposing army. Diplomacy becomes ineffective as both forces want to impose their beliefs onto the entire world.

There will be war.

The question remains, who is right? Hanlon or Heifetz? Does the system corrupt the people, or do the people corrupt the system? Or is it some intricate mixture of the two? I may find answers to these questions one day. But for now, I feel it is safest to assume that malice is the driving force of all these problems, that there is no broken system, only those who wish it to remain in the same form forever. But if I assume this, then I must also submit to the idea that there are those amongst us, in powerful positions, who in the name of progress, must be toppled from their high towers. Leaders must rise to the top of those vacant castle spires, and from there, pull the world up to new and amazing heights.

But for now, we must watch and wait.

References:

Heifetz, R Grashow, A Linsky, M 2009, The practice of adaptive leadership: tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world, Harvard business review press, Boston, Massachusetts.