The Next Major Epidemic in America – The Inability To Express Ideas

Those who cannot understand how to put their thoughts on ice should not enter into the heat of debate. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain

As was to be expected last night, the President’s State of the Union address produced mixed opinion.  However, I didn’t see clear lines separating the two sides as I would have expected, especially the line allegedly dividing the left and the right.  (I say allegedly because I often see people arguing for the same idea when they believe they are representing opposite sides to an issue).

The line I saw represented the difference between people willing to give the President a chance or to at least analyze the data / fact side of his proposals before commenting versus those who wanted to hate or trash him simply for the emotional sake of doing so.

I was discussing his speech with a friend of mine and the importance of fact checking his speech without blindly discarding it when a person I have never met tossed this interesting statement into the conversation, claiming that President Trump’s policies will adversely impact women’s health as well as clean air and water.

The statement in itself is fair enough – someone is using their right to express an opinion.

However, as past and current teams who have worked with and for me know, any statement or position provided to me will always be responded to with:

Why do you say / do / recommend / believe this?

How do you know?

In fact, they know that they should have the answers to these questions before presenting any statement or solution to me.

And so in that spirit, I responded with a request for data.

One never knows what one will receive on social media when requesting facts but I will always give a person a chance to explain themselves and their positions.

The person responded by saying that that President chose an EPA Administrator who wants to get rid of the EPA.

Fair enough.  When I again asked for evidence that this was the case and for evidence that women’s health issues would arise from the POTUS’ policies, this person responded that they feared the total elimination of the EPA.

Ok – we’ve already established that this is her fear but she cited the problem itself as evidence to justify the reality of the problem.

So after I requested proof that the EPA would be eliminated (her words), she indicated that no one could predict the future (but she had already done so by predicting the elimination of the EPA) and that asking for data was a ridiculous standard.

When I asked her why asking for data was a ridiculous standard, she fell back on an old trick, turning the debate around so suddenly I was supposedly the one who had made a statement that required supporting evidence.

So now I need to prove she is wrong, even though she hasn’t proven that her large claims have any data or evidence to support them.

But it was the final part of the conversation that caused me to realize that this “discussion” wasn’t really going anywhere useful.

When I pointed out that she had claimed that the EPA was dead (eliminated was her exact word), she responded with a denial that she had ever said such a thing.

When I sent her a screen shot where she contradicted herself by claiming it would be eliminated and that we were now in a circular argument, she vanished.

Meanwhile, someone observing the interaction sent me a private note telling me that perhaps I should stay off social media.

To this person, I ask this question:

Why – so that emotion-laden, rhetoric-armed, fact-less people can roam around, inject themselves into conversations, attempt to whip up hysteria / fear and then vanish when presented with a request for facts or proof that their alleged reality is mine also?

In other words ….

So that opposite sides to every issue will be eliminated by being whipped into silence?

I was curious who this person was and so I looked up her personal persona.

It turns out that this person is the Senior Director of International Compensation and Benefits at Visa (a very credible, respectable organization).  She was educated at Cornell so lack of education is not the issue neither does she represent the “bored unemployed directionless” group that some people suggest represents the bulk of anti-Trump folks.

So she has influence – the question then became “does she use this influence in a useful, effective way?”

In exploring her other public sharings about how happy she was to be marching against President Trump, I came upon this nugget that she shared

And so as I looked at her Facebook posts about all the marches she is participating in, her drive-by argument with me that produced nothing of any benefit to anyone and this cartoon, I realize that she is representative of something that is killing America:

The lack of ability or interest to use facts and data in the form of a compelling discussion that convinces someone else that their position / belief is worthy of exploration with an eye towards convincing someone else to change their position or at least encourage people to find middle ground on something being explored.

After all, that is how we grow, teach, learn and become better as a species and as a society as we seek common ground to make the world a better place.

When instead, we use emotion, fear (and for some, intimidation) only, we are less likely to convince anyone of anything and will produce little of any real, tangible value.

Meanwhile, the things we fear will continue to grow, either in reality or in our mind, since we are not actually offering solutions to problems real or imagined.

As for this person, if a person wonders out loud whether they are creating or destroying today, then I know what kind of person I am dealing with.

It’s a “my way or the highway” person.

The last time I checked, I haven’t discovered too many people who created a better world because they wondered which of two choices was best – creation or destruction.

How about you?

I prefer creation and collaboration towards a solution – perhaps I’m misguided.

The Bottom Line

The noise that surrounds the POTUS is not “his fault”.  America has been forgetting more and more over the years (and across many administrations) that we solve problems by offering a hand instead of a fist, by offering facts instead of emotion, by suggesting a position instead of playing “king of the mountain”, by listening instead of just talking (or shouting) and that respectful, fact-based, collaborative dialog is FAR more likely to produce a better world than merely folding our arms defiantly and telling everyone else they are wrong “just because”.

If we allow current trends to continue, where rhetoric-laden, fear-based shouting carries the day, we may at some point create a world that actually embodies everything that everyone fears.

And if that happens, shouting won’t matter then.

If that happens, we may not have a government that allows the sharing of opinions towards common goals.

In fact, we may not have a government at all.

And by then, people who like to complain can complain all they want.

The rest won’t listen – they will be too busy just surviving.

Is that the best we can create and the best way we can create it?

Is that the best role model we can present for our children as to how a better world gets created?

I don’t think so.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS People protesting against the POTUS’ policies “just because” like to quote people like Hillary Clinton or Nelson Mandela.  Perhaps these two quotes would serve of value to those people.

A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger. You don't have that idea when you are arrogant, superficial, and uninformed. - Nelson Mandela

What we have to do... is to find a way to celebrate our diversity and debate our differences without fracturing our communities. - Hillary Clinton

We need to take the high road together lest we all end up somewhere far less desirable that we want or deserve.

But to deserve better, we must prove it and work together towards it.

Otherwise, we do get what we deserve but it’s often far less than we desire.

Whose fault is that?

Terrorism and the Ignorant Mind–The Other Soft Target

To deny that human beings are filled with anti-social passions betrays a denial of reality and a lack of self-awareness. One has to be taught nonsense for a great many formative years to believe it. - Dennis Prager

Political correctness is about denial, usually in the weasel circumlocutory jargon which distorts and evades and seldom stands up to honest analysis. - George MacDonald Fraser

I think the greatest illusion we have is that denial protects us. It's actually the biggest distortion and lie. In fact, staying asleep is what's killing us. - Eve Ensler

How often it is that the angry man rages denial of what his inner self is telling him. - Frank Herbert

<< Yeah, I liked all 4 of them … sorry :-) >>

As the world continues to sort through the terror of Friday’s attack in Paris, with mourning, anger, fear, revenge and every other feeling sweeping over and through many people around the world, there is another interesting element developing.

It is the exposure of the uninformed mind, the mind that makes choices based on emotion and not data and then feels emboldened to step on anyone who dares to disagree.

A couple of examples ….

The press is reporting today that the mother of the three of the suicide bombers claims that her son did not intend to hurt anyone, even though he was wearing a bomb belt, was armed with an AK-47 and was with other individuals equipped in a similar way who had stated intentions to kill people.  When I shared the article (which is here Suicide bomber 'blew himself up because of stress', says Ibrahim Abdeslam's family), people on social media told me that it was clear that I didn’t have children (which is incorrect) because if I had children I would understand the mother’s statement.  Some people went on to tell me that I was wrong when I stated that the data implies that he entered the situation with intent to hurt people and they concluded by saying that we should sympathize with the mother and the bombers.

I don’t know about you but if I walked down a street in any major city in the western world wearing a bomb belt and carrying an assault rifle, I can’t imagine any police force assuming I was out for a day in the sun.

And whether or not he recanted once everything started is something only he will ever know as he died in the event.

What was interesting in the interaction with all of the people, some in public messages and some in private ones (the latter being examples of the lack of courage to share their venom publicly lest someone see them for who they are) is that they were so passionate about it.  In essence, the mother was right, they were right and I was wrong when the argument itself was irrelevant and doesn’t change the result.  None of us with the exception of the mother are even connected to the event but the passion and emotion of the uninformed and misdirected was drawing them into a fight not worth fighting and more dangerously, was inviting them to take a semi-defensive, semi-supportive stand in support of the terrorists.

Meanwhile ….

Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan recommended to Primer Minister Trudeau via a tweet (and attached letter) that “refugee initiative cannot be data / quota driven. Safety must be priority”.  The tweet is here (image of it is below).

He didn’t say no to refugee admission – he said we need to apply appropriate levels of prudence as we honor our Canadian tradition of helping those in need.  Whether this is purely political, is meant honestly or is a combination of both, I agree with executing prudently while helping those in need and so I tweeted the Premier that I agreed with his prudent statement and position..

John Riche apparently took umbrage over my support (as if I matter at all) and immediately began to taunt me over what “I was afraid of”.  Mr. Riche is a businessman in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland according to his Twitter profile:

His opening taunt to me is a tried and true technique for bullies and intimidators who use emotion over data in an effort to accomplish their objectives.  While most “normal” people wouldn’t argue with prudence as long as we honor our obligation to serve others, the misguided and uninformed have a translation problem – either what they read gets distorted before it enters their brain OR the translation arrives in their brain correctly and they intentionally, wilfully and forcefully argue using an invalid representation of it.

After a few exchanges, where Mr. Riche cited irrelevant data such as American refugee studies showing no terrorists were amongst them (which has nothing to do with the present situation, is not entirely true as presented and is an irrelevant position within the context of Canadian immigration) and where he again demanded to know what I was afraid of, I told him to go lead by example, adopt a refugee into his home and then lecture the rest of us to do more.

He disappeared after this but out of curiosity, I wondered who this was who had attempted a courage-less drive-by tweeting and so I took a look at his Twitter stream.  It proved to be informative as to the MO of the individual.

A tweet that he issued (not a retweet of someone else) stood out.  Here it is – incredibly disrespectful to a Premier – original tweet here unless he deletes it and image below:

It appears to me that insulting and taunting is his MO and that discussing things rationally, calmly and using data within the context of our present situation is not something that is of interest to Mr. Riche.  Frankly, not only would I never issue such a tweet, I would fear that issuing such a tweet to a public official would get me put on a watch list of some kind.

It also reflects poorly on organizations that he works with.  I can’t say I would want to do business with anyone who shares such opinions in this way lest I be on the receiving end of such ignorance in a business context.

The Bottom Line

While I’m not picking on Mr. Riche, the interaction I had with him highlights an important problem that we have in the western world.

How do we EVER hope to solve the problems that affect us collectively if, when differences of opinion occur, we attempt to solve them in this way, with the winner being the loudest or the person who wields the most heavy-handed communication.  I wonder also if Mr. Riche would have the courage to say the same thing while standing right in front of Premier Wall.

Civil, rational, data-centric, fact-focused dialog is essential to solve the difficulties of the world including terrorism.  The world is a beautiful place and human beings have phenomenal potential but there are some stupid, dangerous and ugly problems present that require a lot of dialog amongst a lot of great people in order to make those problems go away.

We will all live or die together on this lump of rock floating through space and so we all have a say in what happens here.  In addition to our opinions, we also have gifts, talents and strengths that can and must be brought to bear to make the world a better place.

When invited to share your mind and your ideas, bring your passion to the table as well as passion can prove to be a great motivator and convincer.

However, don’t use your passion as a hammer, otherwise you may discover that few people care about what you say ……

…. and someone may bring a larger hammer to the table.’'

And in some cases, you may merely be putting the Twit in Twitter in an ignorant, cowardly way that doesn’t bring us closer to bringing the world into alignment with its potential.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

For a little fun, I offer this whimsical piece for those who love to troll others. :-)

This Time It’s Different - The Crippling Effect of the Internal Narrative

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones. - Bertrand Russell

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

In the years leading up to the financial collapse of September of 2008, home buyers snapped up properties with the belief that as informed buyers, they had done all the research necessary to assure themselves that their investment was a safe bet.

Many self-described experts would explain that interest rates were at all time lows, banks were practically taking all the risk with their no-money-down mortgages and property values always go up, providing a much better return than other investment vehicles and with practically no risk.

They had done some research, enough to convince themselves that they were an informed investor and the more they told themselves they were informed, the more they believed it.

Meanwhile, they did not notice the fact that many investment institutions were shorting the economy (thus predicting a fall in the market), that the projected returns on property investment were in some cases double those as promised by Bernie Madoff in his massive investment scam (making them too good to be true) and that their understanding of investing violated the rule of positive correlation – that higher returns require higher risk (not lower risk as people had convinced themselves to be the case).

They had succumbed to the dark side of the internal narrative, that a story told enough times, reinforced with insufficient or incorrect data, eventually becomes believable (at least to themselves).  Their flawed understanding was reinforced by banks (“if I was wrong, the banks wouldn’t lend me so much money”), realtors who promoted a healthy real estate market (for their own gain, of course), the Federal Reserve itself which touted a strong economy and the other self-taught investors who were telling the same story.

Their internal narrative was so strong that it convinced them that they were right, blinding them to the cognitive dissonance clearly present – that their facts and desires were not in congruence.

And yet when everything hit the fan, everyone acted surprised or claimed victimhood when in fact they had helped architect the collapse (not to look past Wall St.’s contribution to the debacle), thus proving the adage that:

No water droplet believes it is responsible for the flood.

Strong beliefs, faith and hope are powerful motivators and many times are necessary to carry one through difficult times.

But the next time you are evaluating a politician or political party, a business opportunity, a potential investment, a new project or a relationship or you are about to embark on a repeat pass in any of these areas, pay attention to your internal narrative.

If you are totally and utterly convinced that you / they will be successful or that you / they are right “just because” or because someone says “this time it’s different” (or the ever popular “trust me” or “it just feels right”), it may be that your internal narrative is shouting so loudly that you are unable to perceive the cognitive dissonance that exists between facts and reality.  If you can’t answer questions such as “why” and “how do I know” objectively, it is highly possible that your internal narrative is guiding you in the wrong direction. 

In such situations, it might be useful to either find yourself an objective observer or explore the theory of the Socratic Method (or do both) to stimulate the process of critical or self-critical thinking and to confirm that your internal narrative is whispering truths instead of shouting lies. 

Once truths have been ascertained, then the internal narrative becomes a powerful, positive force, since one can then truthfully and objectively answer the question “How do I know I will succeed with …….”.

Unfortunately, many who are lazy, dishonest or who prefer fantasy over reality prefer to not embrace such a process because there is nothing that bothers them more than the inconvenience of how reality interferes with a good dream.  Also unfortunately for them, failure to honor and respect reality unleashes the potential to manifest a nightmare instead of a powerful dream for themselves and others.

What is your internal narrative telling you?

Is it whispering truths or shouting lies?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Let’s Play Fact Or Fiction

No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious. - George Bernard Shaw

There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. - Arthur Conan Doyle

The #1206 “fiction” series continues …….

---------------------------------------

The brilliant, hot studio lights dazzled him as he waited for commercials to finish airing.  As the host of “Fact or Fiction”, the outrageously popular new Internet and television game show, he continued to be intrigued that the show, while having an ulterior motive, continued to grow in popularity.

Suddenly, he could hear his producer’s voice in his earpiece, “Stand by. Ok. Back on in 3, 2, 1 ….”.

Game time.

His adrenalin surged in synch with the cameraman’s gesture to “go” and a broad smile lit up his face.

“Hello and welcome back to Fact or Fiction, the informative game show where we take actual news events and attempt to figure out what is real and what is not.  Our next contestant has already been introduced to the audience so let’s get started.  Are you ready, Tom?”

Tom thumped his chest in classic, coached, game show style and yelled, “Bring it on.”

“Very good”, said the host.  “Let’s plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay Fact or Fiction.  All of the following items but one have appeared in the news in the past 12 months.  For 10 points, can you identify the fictitious item?”

1. All of the nuclear power plants in the United States were identified in a study within the last year as being totally vulnerable to a terrorist attack with no current plan in place to prevent it or to deal with the ramifications of such an event.

2. A growing trend this year is to perform exorcisms via a Skype video call.

3. An unknown number of shoulder-fired missiles (possibly in the hundreds or thousands) that went missing during the invasion of Libya and which can take down a commercial jetliner may be in the US because of the limited searching of inbound shipping containers.  As a result, a planned time-on-target attack could take down any number of commercial aircraft simultaneously within the US or anywhere in the world and there is currently nothing that can be done to prevent it.

4. The US is built upon 18 key infrastructures, but 17 of them rely on the 18th, electricity – an infrastructure vulnerable to compromise through a number of man-made or accidental means.

5. China has developed jets and missiles (both of which it will soon be exporting to other nations) that are capable of penetrating US defense systems , thus requiring the US to reverse previous spending cuts on military technology in response to the perceived threat.  Russia will follow suit, fuelling a new global arms race.

6. The President will make more use of Executive Orders this year than ever, passing laws without Congressional / Senate oversight or approval and with unknown long-term impact.

7. Executive Directive 51 remains on the books, providing a means to dissolve Congress and the Senate at the will of the President any time he / she chooses.

8. The NSA, although chastised for its alleged overreaching surveillance and despite assurances from political leaders that it will have its wings clipped, is actually seeking ways to expand and hide its operations at the same time, including being beyond oversight by those same political leaders.

9. The NSA has learned how to harvest useful information out of smartphone games such as Angry Birds and others.

10. The Facebook app on your smartphone now reads every SMS to and from your phone, possibly contravening your privacy as well as the privacy of people and organizations that you interact with.

11. Many US government systems continue to be hacked and compromised on a regular basis, with US officials indicating that a total compromise, possibly including defense systems, is a when and not an if.

12. Many brokers on Wall Street have confirmed that an end to the current bull market is now on the visible horizon and investors should be intelligent about what this means.  They won’t talk about this too loudly because they need a few more people to enter the market first.

13. Aviation authorities have issued two warnings, one from the FAA that terrorists appear to be doing dry runs in preparation for some type of aircraft takeover within the US and the other noting that increased pilot stress levels need to be investigated before passenger safety is compromised.

14. The sale of personal lubricant products is soaring to record levels.

15. Alien abduction claims are on the rise.

16. Points 14 and 15 are interrelated, with some people fearing that aliens are insisting that a medical examination include a BYOL designation to help make the event more pleasurable.

17. A number of senior ranking officers in the US and Russian militaries are spending millions of dollars on defense against extraterrestrial invasion and the development of telekinetic abilities to be used as both a weapon and a tool of espionage.

18. The President of the United States claimed that he was not aware of the level of NSA surveillance being conducted, implying that he is not the highest authority in the nation.

“Whew”, said the host as he caught his breath, “That’s a long list.  Take your time, Tom.”

Tom smiled broadly and said proudly, “That was pretty easy. Number 16.  Final answer.”

“You …. are …. right!”, exclaimed the host. “Well done!  You are on the board with 10 points.”

Turning to the camera, the host said “Do we have the makings of a champion here?  I sure hope so.  But for now we are out of time.  Tune in next week when we will play another round of Fact or Fiction.  God Bless and sleep well.”

Hearing “We’re off” in his earpiece, he turned to Tom and smiled.

Tom returned the smile, exchanging an unspoken message.

To be continued.

-----------------------

© 2014 – Harry Tucker – All Rights Reserved

Background:

All of the items noted have appeared in the press within the last year although many disappeared quickly after being initially reported.  As for answer 16, maybe we should all carry a tube of lube ..… just in case. :-)

We have a lot of things to fix (or at least do better with).  Maybe global warming and the like serve as convenient distractions …… diversions that help us not pay attention to the fact that our to-do list is long (and growing). 

We have two choices – find better ways of dealing with “stuff” or stop acting surprised and outraged when events occur to our detriment.

Transparency, information dissemination and collaboration are keys to achieving better results in these areas.  Unfortunately, the cost and political risk necessary to achieve better results are so prohibitive that we settle for “good enough”.

The question becomes:

Is that good enough?

Series Origin:

This series, a departure from my usual musings,  is inspired as a result of conversations with former senior advisors to multiple Presidents of the United States, senior officers in the US Military and other interesting folks.

While this musing is just “fiction” and a departure from my musings on technology, strategy, politics and society, as a strategy guy, I do everything for a reason and with a measurable outcome in mind. :-)

This “fictional” musing is a continuation of a series noted here.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

The World As Seen By The Objective Observer

Dispassionate objectivity is itself a passion, for the real and for the truth. - Abraham Maslow

A creation needs not only subjectivity, but also objectivity. - Stephen Chow

I receive thousands of emails from people asking me how I am able to quickly predict success or failure of governments, politicians, businesses, etc.  Many times when “interesting events” are afoot, I am asked to choose which way I think a particular event will finish.

Many people who are on the receiving end of good news from the models I use are grateful that I was able to ferret out details that they had overlooked or had not even thought about.

Many who are on the receiving end of bad news or whose passion is not in congruence with the reality of my models get very angry that an absolute stranger can spend a little time with them and identify their pain and its source or predict their demise (often within a very specific timeframe).

And a few have voiced the opinion that the use of such models makes me more machine than man.  Such assertions by carbon-based life forms seems illogical to me but that’s only after a first pass through my analysis of such statements.

In the spirit of sharing and for the thousands of people who have emailed me (thank you) and accepting that I cannot reply to everyone individually, I offer this explanation of what my Tarot cards, tea leaves or “insert your favorite divination form here” looks like.

Welcome To My World

Everything I do professionally (and sometimes personally) is through the lens of a model.  The models you are about to see, expressed as mind maps, have corresponding math models that I apply to various scenarios, the output of which is used for the specific situation I am analyzing.  The following models are simple on first blush, obfuscating the complexity of the math models underneath.

For example, this is one of the lenses through which I analyze companies and governments:

 

Which is validated using this methodology (click on the image for a readable version):

 

This is one of the lenses through which I examine the world that employees live in (click on the image for a readable version):

 

This is one of the lenses through which I measure someone’s level of authenticity, a means of measuring how congruent their thoughts, words and actions are (click on the image for a readable version):

 

And this is one of the lenses through which I analyze how governments and companies need to work with the people, not against them or in spite of them (click on the image for a readable version):

 

These are the simple models.  The scenario analysis, result prediction and risk assessment models are more entertaining (and shareable if one has an interest in exploring them). :-)

I seek the answers to many questions via the execution of these models but two questions are the most important to me and which seem to create the most difficulty for people. The two questions are:

Why?

How do you know?

Three things become apparent when I use my models:

1. They are not perfect, although I trust data over emotion and find that it is far more reliable in predicting the future (or analyzing the past).

2. People love or hate my models depending on which side, the good side or the bad side, they find themselves on.

3. I am unable to build a winning NFL fantasy team no matter how hard I try.

All that being said, the use of the models reveals a deep-rooted passion within me that is best explained by Helene Deutsch when she said:

After all, the ultimate goal of all research is not objectivity, but truth.

This simple statement best describes why I do what I do for who I do it for.

And while human beings are fascinating in their complexity and diversity (and maddeningly complex to model), isn’t that what we all seek – truth in business, in government, in our relationships and in ourselves?

In a world filled with complexity, uncertainty and unlimited potential, the ability to discern truth is more important than ever and will determine the future of this planet – good or bad.

All things being equal, I would rather let facts speak for themselves rather than risk myself, my family, my clients, my country and my world to someone’s aggressive, loudly-shouted assertions or opinions (which they mistakenly or intentionally misrepresent as facts).

How about you?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – January 22, 2014

I sometimes share the results of my models on my blog as I did in March of 2008 where I predicted the financial collapse of September of 2008 (Financial Crisis) or November of 2010 where I noted that Premier Danny Williams’ sudden resignation left a leadership void in the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador that could potentially bring the party and his successor down (Premier Williams and His Legacy).  The latter was proven today with the resignation of his successor, Kathy Dunderdale, over leadership concerns as expressed inside and outside the PC Party.

Models and the data that feeds them are rarely if ever perfect (have you listened to an economist or weather forecaster lately?).  However, there are times when data sees obvious things that emotion or ego refuse to acknowledge.

On a separate note, here is a great article in the Economist  (Who’s Good at Forecasts?) for those fascinated by the art of using models for predictions.

Final Thought - Why Data Matters

On a clear sunny morning some years ago, Kermit Tyler received a telephone call from a radar operator who informed him that he was seeing a larger radar return than he was used to seeing on his equipment.

Since it was a quiet Sunday morning and since he knew that a flight of aircraft was expected at a nearby airfield, Mr. Tyler told the radar operator “not to worry about it”.

It was the morning of December 7, 1941.  The radar operator was observing the arrival of the attacking Japanese planes as they prepared to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Mr. Tyler ignored the data and the rest is history.  In his defense, he was cleared of any wrongdoing as noted in this excerpt from Wikipedia:

Tyler had been assigned to the Information Center with little or no training, no supervision, and no staff with which to work. Tyler was subsequently cleared on any wrongdoing by the Board and no disciplinary actions were taken against him.

Ignoring data because one is not trained to process it or to dismiss it because it seems unimportant are common mistakes made in business and in Life.

Do you want to be remembered as the person who was responsible for the result that followed?

I didn’t think so.

Neil Young–Hypocrite or Democracy Champion?

Sincerity makes the very least person to be of more value than the most talented hypocrite. - Charles Spurgeon

We ought to see far enough into a hypocrite to see even his sincerity. - Thomas Fuller

The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy. - William Hazlitt

Neil Young is riding into Calgary today to wrap up his anti-oil sands tour.  There is no irony lost in recognizing that Calgary for the most part is built upon the revenue from the petroleum industry.

To reinforce his anti-oil sands message, he and his entourage will be arriving via wagon train instead of fuel-burning vehicles, his instruments will all be hand-carved out of eco-responsible materials and no semblance of any petroleum-based product will be allowed in the presentation of his show. 

Oh and I forgot, I have just been named the President of the Pan Galactic Council For Indigenous Alien Life Forms – Milky Way constituency.

Yup – bullshit all around, if you ask me.  :-)

I believe Mr. Young is a hypocrite, having been happy enough to leverage “the system” for years and having made himself a success, is now happy to turn on the system and tell the rest of us we are hypocrites.

But there’s a larger issue in my mind than the musings of a drug-fried, bitter has-been in the music industry (although I profess to like his early music).

And that issue is this.

Mr. Young is entirely within his right to voice his opinion about the oil sands.  That is a foundational element for democracy that we insist separates us from the rest of the world.

However, I do object to two things in how his opinions are being expressed.

1. Stick with the facts.  Deliberately presenting false, out-of-date or misleading information in a hateful, demeaning, insulting, intimidating way, as PETA does, as the “save the seals” crowd does, as Mr. Young does and many other groups do actually negates the opportunity to engage in an intellectual discourse that might actually be able to find compromise.

2. Allow expression of counter opinion.  When Mr. Young expresses his opinion and some of us counter his opinion with our own, we are immediately beset upon by his minions who tell us that we are not entitled to our opinion.  

Because problems, if real, get solved when we get together as responsible, respectful adults and we solve them using the best, most reliable, most verifiable data that we can find.

For those who believe that people like me are not entitled to a counter opinion to Mr. Young’s fact-less, emotion-laden rants, I have three suggestions:

1. Divest yourself of anything that can be traced back to alleged “dirty oil” and live without it.  This includes your home, your car, the electronics you use to bash others and anything that could be remotely associated with oil.  Give it a year (if you last that long) and let me know how it works out.  Please shower before you approach me.

2. If you believe that Canada or the US should be a country where only one opinion is allowed (in this case, yours), find another country to live in where the concept of expression suppression is embraced.  You may be surprised to learn that the one opinion that is allowed there is not your own and you will have to resign yourself to perpetual silence.  Maybe then you will appreciate the power and potential of two-way dialog where the mutual right to express opinions is respected.

3. Remember that we receive what we give.  When we treat others with disrespect or we attempt to steamroll over them with emotion, that is what we receive in kind.  Feigning surprise when this happens makes you look less intelligent than you believe you are.  You may also find that what comes back is more powerful than what you dished out and you may be swept away in the process.

Bottom Line

I believe Mr. Young is a burnt-out hypocrite.  The upside is that he is in good company, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with many politicians and other powerful people who are not doing the right thing, the right way, right now, for the right reasons.

But what makes “this place” work is that despite the hypocrites, the greedy, the selfish, the hate-spreaders, the bullies, the intimidators, the uninformed and the ignorant we also have the intellectual, the learned, the respectful, the collaborators and the solution-finders.

And we live in a place where all opinions, even the ones that hurt, are allowed to be expressed.

But what also separates us from other places in the world is that the opinions of the weak-minded or misinformed eventually fade into obscurity, a meaningless, entertaining but sometimes painful anecdote that people forget about as they move forward.

So Mr. Young is making a lot of noise but this too shall pass.  As he himself wrote, “It’s better to burn out than fade away.” 

Maybe he’s in the process of accomplishing both.

And in the meantime, “keep on rockin’ in the free world”.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – January 19, 2014

In an interview given Sunday evening in Calgary, Mr. Young indicated that his tour was not an anti-oil sands tour but in fact was a pro environment / pro First Nations treaty tour.

If that’s the case, he needs to hire a new head of communications as his message up to now has been very specific regarding the oil sands as has been the message by his minions. 

As he recently noted:

"Fort McMurray looks like Hiroshima. Fort McMurray is a wasteland," said Young, 67, during a National Farmers Union conference.

"The Indians up there and the native peoples are dying. The fuels all over — the fumes everywhere — you can smell it when you get to town," he said.

"People are sick. People are dying of cancer because of this. All the First Nations people up there are threatened by this. Their food supply is wasted, their treaties are no good. They have the right to live on the land, like they always did, but there’s no land left that they can live on. All the animals are dying."

This looks and sounds like an attack on the oil sands to me with a lot of emotion but little (or no) verifiable data. 

As a matter of fact, when you look at where his focus started in this statement, it almost looks as if the First Nations people are brought in as “supporting data” to his primary issue which is the oil sands.

<<Whisper>> By the way, Mr. Young.  A lot of my First Nation’s friends don’t like to be called Indians. But I guess if you are in the business of insulting people without thinking and then expecting cooperation later, your inner monologue might have come out into the light by accident.

Rex Murphy offers up similar analysis in classic Rex Murphy fashion in his article “Neil Young’s oilsands stance is unfair”. In addition, this article by the Calgary Herald, where Mr. Young notes that he keeps 5 mammoth tour buses idling all the time when on tour (whether occupied or not) and that he likes to travel by private jet on occasion, also highlights a message not in congruence with action.

If Mr. Young really wanted to solve alleged First Nation’s problems, there are smarter, more strategic ways to accomplish it.

When I want to resolve an issue with someone, I don’t kick them in the head first and then expect them to be cooperative or collaborative.

How about you?

My Life In The CIA

It's part of a writer's profession, as it's part of a spy's profession, to prey on the community to which he's attached, to take away information - often in secret - and to translate that into intelligence for his masters, whether it's his readership or his spy masters. - John le Carre

It has come to my attention in recent days that a certain percentage of my network have come to the conclusion that I belong to the CIA or some other covert organization.

They base this revelation on the nature of the projects I have participated on, the nature of segments of my network, the subjects I write about (especially my #1206 series) and my way of analyzing the world around me.

But it was a tweet by Newfoundland political activist Brad Cabana (@BradCabana) to a third party that made me realize that it was time to come clean regarding my background.

Here is the tweet.

As the impact of private and public accusations sinks in, I realize I can’t deny my past or present any longer.

With a heavy heart, I release this letter from my superiors.

Anyone who understands the file # at the bottom will appreciate that I have a sense of humor. :-)

In a world where social media, the news media (being an entertainment industry and not an information one) and Hollywood weave fantasies to relieve us of the pressures of reality for a little bit, too many people have trouble separating fantasy from reality.

Unfortunately, this disconnect between fantasy and reality also applies to many people when it comes to solving problems.

Reality: To get things done, coherent strategy built upon solid data matters. A little paranoia can be healthy.  Too much is a disaster.

The ability to use strategy, facts and data, fuelled by appropriate levels of passion and emotion (not excessive levels of either), will mean the difference between whether your objectives produce any positive, measurable results at all or whether you serve as an example to others (or a source of mild entertainment at your expense).

So to all those who try to move the world in the direction they believe is right by using taunts, intimidation, bullying or paranoia instead of service to others via appropriate, measurable strategy and appropriate, verifiable data , I have a warning for you.

You are about to be left behind.

You just don’t know it yet.

Or as Despair.Com notes:

As for my real background, I offer the following training film.

In service and servanthood,

██████████████████

Quantum Physics and Problem Solving

I have always been fascinated with the double slit experiment, one of the fascinating elements of quantum physics where an electron acts as a particle or a wave depending on whether it is being observed or not.

For those of you not familiar with this principle, the following video explains it nicely.

Many people in the business of solving problems would do well to understand the double slit experiment.

Oftentimes when someone is asked to solve a problem, the necessity to observe the problem actually alters the problem or the factors contributing to it.  When people are being observed, they may accidentally or purposefully change their behavior to please the observer or to hide something from the observer. 

The observer in turn may intentionally or accidentally offer information that enlightens or discourages the observed, also changing their behavior and perhaps causing an accidental solution (unlikely), the hiding of the original problem or the creation of a new one.

Add as well the notion that for human beings, unless we rely on appropriate data obtained before the process of observing the problem began, our previous experiences and emotions may taint our view on what we are observing.  This may cause us to possibly see the wrong problem, the wrong solution or not be aware that our participation may have altered the problem.

This of course creates an additional recursive dilemma – it is not always easy to gather data created before observation begins. :-)

The fact is that once the observer begins to participate in the problem solving exercise, they become part of the observed system, thereby influencing it.  This  participation influences the current direction of the observed system before any recommendations can be made to solve the original problem, potentially creating a moving target in relation to problem definition / solution.

And if we continue to attempt to solve the problem without the use of appropriate data, we will likely make choices based on what we already know and will therefore likely get the result we know (which may not be right).

Meanwhile the original (or a new) problem remains, buried in obfuscation, theory and a lot of activity but not the productivity necessary to solve the problem. 

Finding the right data – difficult albeit essential

Selecting the right data to analyze, knowing how, where, when and why to obtain it, with minimal impact on the observed and accepting the same limitations of human behavior to avoid selecting “the data we know” isn’t easy.

In fact, it’s the holy grail of problem solving.

And while it is difficult and complex to identify and select the right data, doing so produces a more powerful solution than to rush into immersing one’s self into the problem, redefining it by the mere insertion of one’s self into the system being observed.

Knowing how to do use  the right data, the right way and at the right time will make the difference between solving the original problem or solving (or even creating) a different one.  And if the new problem is the one that gets solved, there’s a high likelihood that the original problem remains in the same form or a different one when the observer leaves, inviting the problem solving process to repeat itself ad infinitum.

Do you know how to identify and use appropriate data in an appropriate way when solving problems?

Are you sure?

How do you know this to be the case if the system you are observing is changing merely because you are observing it? :-)

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

I had a humorous incident about an hour after this blog was released that reminded me of the difference between using facts and using “what we know”.

Exiting a bathroom in a coffee shop, I was confronted by an angry woman who demanded to know “What the hell I was doing in the lady’s room”.

I pointed to the sign by the door that indicated that the bathroom was for men and women to which which she replied “The sign is wrong.  Everyone knows that the bathroom on the left side is the lady’s room”.

I replied that she could have used the bathroom opposite which appeared to be vacant and which also had a sign indicating that the bathroom was for men and women.

She pushed past me with a harrumph, bringing this Confucius-like thought to mind:

Always strive to leverage the data right in front of you lest what you know leave you in a pi$$y or crappy mood.

Sorry – I couldn’t resist. :-)

Finding Answers–Less Emotion and More Data

I wrote a blog over the weekend entitled Politics and the Fortuitousness of Calamity where I discussed the unfortunate habit of some politicians to use disaster as an opportunity to promote their own brand.  In the process of doing so, most politicians like this are smart enough to mix in some benevolent actions in order to keep their followers blind regarding their leader’s intentions.

While I haven’t had an opportunity to respond to the 843 emails I have received as of the posting of this blog, there is one thing that I have noticed.

Of the approximately 8% who disagree with me, 95% of those, including public dissenters such as Vitor Marciano, the Press Secretary for Opposition Leader Danielle Smith, have responded with taunts, insults and attempts at intimidation to convince me to take the blog down.

I could have directed them to blogs such as Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation, Asking Questions That Get Answered or Solving Puzzles–Follow the Breadcrumbs but such blogs only make emotion-laden / fact-less taunters more angry. :-)

It appears that they believe that strong (ala intimidation-based), emotion-laden actions are enough to convince someone to change their actions or to take different actions.

It reminds me of this story.

A teacher was giving visiting parents a demonstration of the acumen of his students and selected a student named Billy for the demonstration. 

“Billy”, said the teacher, “If Jane gives you two cats, Bob gives you two cats and Fred gives you two cats, how many cats do you have?”

Billy responded quickly by saying “I will have seven cats.”

The teacher smiled patiently and then repeated the scenario to Billy, to which Billy gave the same answer.

The teacher cleared his throat, somewhat embarrassed before his audience and then said “Billy, if I give you two apples, Jane gives you two apples and Bob gives you two apples, how many apples will you have?”

“Six”, replied Billy.

“Correct”, replied the teacher, now speaking sternly “and so why ….”

At that moment, one of the exasperated parents yelled out “For God’s sake, kid, why do you think you have seven cats then?  Are you an idiot?”

“Because”, replied Billy calmly, “I already have a cat at home.”

Such stories serve as a reminder that when we seek answers to questions, kindness, respectful dialog and seeking to understand the facts will go a lot further than merely assuming we know all the answers (or that the other person is automatically wrong) and subsequently using intimidation tactics to prove it.

When anger or other emotions rule the day we also tend to make additional mistakes.  Mr. Marciano made the additional error of attempting to guess my motivation for writing the blog by attempting to extrapolate an intention from my business background instead of looking at some glaringly obvious data points.  If he had conducted his research into my background in a methodical, fact-based manner (with the necessary data plainly described on my website here , here and in other places) instead of in a rushed, anger-laden manner, he would have uncovered some insight as to why I wrote the blog and how to approach me about it.

And there’s nothing more frustrating to an emotion-laded person than a fact-based person who won’t rise to respond to taunts and intimidation. :-)

Guessing or totally ignoring the facts rarely produce desirable outcomes unless one is incredibly lucky or the target in the dialog is susceptible to being bent by the intimidation of others.

When seeking to understand the intention of another, do you engage that person with fact-based dialog in a respectful way or do you assume you already know the answer and attempt to bend the other person to fit your “answer”?

And … what happens if you “win” and then suddenly discover you are wrong?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Explanation:

In my line of work as a strategy advisor, very large-scale IT architect and investment capital generator, I am highly sensitive to the importance of authenticity, transparency, character, strategy and legitimacy in leadership.  However, I am most sensitive to these attributes when it comes to political leadership regardless of political stripe. 

Why?  It is because when we get it right in the political arena, most of society thrives but when we get it wrong, everyone in society suffers.  I believe that how well our politicians are enabled (or not) is far more pervasive, important and impactful than is the case with most business leaders.

Polls and Surveys–An Insult To Your Intelligence

I am amazed at how many people allow their opinions and their passions to be directed merely because someone stated that “poll x claims that x% of people feel / believe ___whatever____”.

It seems that a majority of people cite these polls without ever understanding what went into the poll, how the questions were directed and what the ultimate intentions of the pollster / media were.

While many pollsters and media claim to be belief-agnostic (whether in politics, business, religion or anything else) if we believe that they can turn off their own feelings as they direct the course of their business then we are also acknowledging that they are not human.

Consider this hypothetical poll.

Let’s assume that I am conducting a survey in your city in which one of two choices must be made.

Scenario: I am driving down a steep hill when suddenly my brakes fail.  Ahead of me is a sharp curve and I know I can’t make the turn.  A crash is imminent and I have been given a choice as to how the crash will manifest.

Choice 1. There is a five-year-old child on one side of the road, playing happily and I will steer my vehicle onto this side of the road.

Choice 2. There are ten five-year-old children (including your own) on the other side of the road, also playing happily and I will steer my vehicle onto this side of the road.

I have seconds to choose which side of the road I am going to crash into and must choose one of them.

In my hypothetical poll, 85% of people choose the lesser of two evils, steering the vehicle onto the side of the road with the lone child.

1% choose choice 2 because they are not taking the survey seriously and want to see how I will react.

14% get so incensed over the survey that they walk away and refuse to answer.

Now, depending on my intention for conducting the survey, it would be completely honest to make this headline announcement.

85% of people in the city of ___your city____ would wilfully take the life of a child if they had the chance to do so.

It’s a pretty outrageous statement, isn’t it?  However, while you don’t really feel this way, the poll can be demonstrated to prove this point.

Now the pollsters conducting the survey don’t tell people taking the survey whether or not steering onto either side of the road automatically means the death of whoever is on that side of the road.

The survey results also don’t state that people taking the survey were forced to choose a choice that had the potential for death; that there was no option 3 which would have produced no deaths at all to innocent children.

But that’s not the point.

The point is that I will have made a statement using a “trusted” survey source with irrefutable mathematics citing that the poll is accurate within 98% (plus or minus 2 percentage points) 19 times out of 20 and so it must be accurate.

And yes the stated poll results will be accurate, in a twisted sort of way.

But while technically accurate, does it tell the truth?

Does it REALLY summarize what you or the average good person actually believes?

Probably not.

The bottom line is this.

Do you prefer to be informed based on how others want you to think or do you prefer to be informed based on your own assessment of knowledge, data and facts?

The answer to this question determines whether you are a leader in this world or you are one of the many sheep.

The answer also identifies whether you are living your life to the fullest or you are a stepping stone for someone else who is living their life to the fullest.

Which do you choose to be?

What are you doing about it?

Or are you waiting for a poll result to help you answer these questions also?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Facts: Requiescat In Pace

As many of you know, my personal and professional Life is wired around knowledge, data and facts and the appropriate application of each.

I grow concerned in the modern era when people who are not armed with facts use innuendo, intimidation and personal attacks to “persuade” people to see their side of things.

While many people who employ these tactics find it works for the easily intimidated, usually by the time they get to me, they find their “irresistible force” has met its match in the immovable object that is me and the question “How do you know?”.

When the world becomes governed by the loudest or the biggest bully on the street and not by knowledge, facts and the intellectual exchange of both, then it diminishes our claim to be living in the knowledge and information age and in fact, has the potential to set our world backwards in development and evolution.

All that being said, I read an article today published on April 19, 2012 by Rex Huppke, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

It’s title and tagline are:

Facts, 360 B.C.-A.D. 2012

In memoriam: After years of health problems, Facts has finally died.

The article is funny and disturbing and is highly recommended.  I couldn’t say it better than Mr. Huppke has so aptly done – please check out his article here!

Maybe now it’s time for me to believe in reincarnation.

After all, if Facts has died, what hope do we have on this world unless Facts will somehow return? 

As Mr. Huppke notes in his article:

“Facts is survived by two brothers, Rumor and Innuendo, and a sister, Emphatic Assertion.”

Disturbing indeed!

What is little known about Facts is that he was also a leader in the fight against three dangerous diseases in the world, namely the diseases of Indifference, Apathy and Ignorance.

The big question is - without Facts, who will save us now?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Data Alone Doesn’t Make You A Genius

The daughter of a friend of mine was assaulted early on Sunday morning past.  When a devoted father goes to bed on Saturday night, looking forward to Father’s Day with his children the next day, the potential for such a nightmare is the furthest thing from his thoughts.

When it was carried by the local news media on various websites, some of the commentary was very disturbing.  People extrapolated that given the hour, she was probably returning from some seedy establishment and if so, she must have been dressed a certain way and if that was the case, perhaps she invited the assault (or deserved it).

Since I know this young lady, I know for a fact that none of this is true.  Even if it were true, a woman should have the right to be anywhere she wants and be dressed in any manner she chooses without the fear of being assaulted.  Unfortunately, such a right only exists in the perfect world.

As I read how these “geniuses’ reconstructed the crime scene without being there and with minimal data, I remembered the following story.

There was once a researcher who was researching the impact of loud sounds on insects.  He devised an experiment with an insect, a drum and a ruler to measure how high the insect would jump when the drum was struck.

He struck the drum and noted that the startled insect jumped 4 inches into the air.  This observation was carefully written down.

He then tied the insects front legs together, struck the drum and noted that the insect jumped 2 inches into the air.  This observation was also recorded in his journal.

Untying the front legs and tying the back legs produced the same result.

Finally, he tied all the legs together and struck the drum.  The insect did not jump into the air.  He struck the drum louder and then a third time but the insect still did not move.

Excited by his discovery, he recorded the following in his journal.

When all the insect’s legs are tied, the insect is deaf.

The Value of Data

Data is only of use when we interpret it correctly.  Interpreting it without context or in ignorance of other important, supporting data, is a waste of time in the simplest case and incredibly dangerous at other times.

And so whether one is judging my friend’s daughter’s situation or we look down upon the toothless, homeless person who smells to high heaven as they approach us on the street or we are preparing to launch a multimillion (or multibillion) dollar project, the same adage applies.

Just because you have some data doesn’t mean that you have the facts.

Without facts, knowledge cannot be created.

Without knowledge, understanding cannot find a home in our minds or our hearts.

And without understanding, the ability to help people overcome their challenges or to manifest one’s intentions (whether personal or professional) becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I think we should make it a practice to think about this before demonstrating our level of genius … or lack thereof.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum: After I posted this, someone shared this picture with me that I thought was appropriate to share on this blog.

The Automatic Mouth–As Dangerous As Automatic Weapons

Watching the Trayvon Martin case develop, it is easy to see how so many challenges have developed in America and around the world.

Many Americans, before even knowing the facts of the case, are demanding that charges be filed against the alleged assailant while holding emotional memorials across the country for the alleged innocent victim.

The challenge is that they are doing this without having any facts, allowing emotion, rhetoric and a few public figures to fuel their anger.  They are demanding that the keepers of due process jail the shooter otherwise they will take matters into their own hands.  Of course, we can’t deny the race card that has been played also … sadly.

These people have already imposed an emotional conviction before waiting for all the facts.

As they get overwhelmed by their emotion, they forget one of the key pillars of American society, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, has been buried under a mountain of venomous emotion.  It almost seems as if such a pillar is not a right but a matter of convenience, to be determined valid or invalid based on each person’s own beliefs of a given situation.

Even President Obama stirred the pot, saying that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.

I wonder how many of these people would feel if someone important to them was the alleged assailant.

In my many years as a strategy advisor, I have observed that the people who don’t like facts, the people who find that obtaining facts is too inconvenient or the people who discover that facts prevent them from carrying out their agenda are easy to pick out.

Not only are they easy to pick out, oftentimes they are also the most dangerous.

They are the ones who can’t discuss or debate issues calmly.  When they realize that facts and data are going against them, they resort to attempts of intimidation, shouting down their opponent or making the attack personal since that is all they have left to “debate” with.

And people allow it, bow to it and fall for it all the time.

When the Martin case was first developing, I made an observation to some people that we should allow due process to fill in our gaps of knowledge and understanding before making a judgement.

I was surprised how many people disagreed (some with venomous, hateful language), that as far as they were concerned, this was a clear-cut case of a racially-motivated killing and that there was nothing to discuss.  Justice must be served, they cry.

Fascinating – they weren’t there, they don’t know either person personally and based on a few tidbits of information, they have committed themselves 100% emotionally to instinctively knowing, judging and convicting someone while shouting down anyone who might suggest that complete knowledge of the event might be useful.

Curiously, they demand that Trayvon Martin’s voice be “allowed to be heard” while at the same time, they shout down everyone else’s.

Now other details appear to be emerging.

I classify these details as “alleged” …. details about Trayvon’s alleged gang connections, alleged small-time drug dealing, alleged suggestions of violence potential and the difference between the original picture issued (clean cut and innocent from 3 years ago) versus a recent picture with tattoos, gold teeth and such.

His suspension from school was as a result of drug possession on school grounds and “behavioral” issues.

Even the original photos of the two people involved suggest that the alleged shooter seemed much more physically intimidating, when in fact, Trayvon Martin was an in-shape, 6’3” young man while the alleged shooter was an overweight 5’9” individual.

If, and I say if, these details are true, then perhaps a different picture would present itself as to what may have happened that night.

But until then, it is important that we have calm, that we not be influenced by hate-laced comments and that we not assume we know the answers before people have had a chance to gather all the facts.

Because as long as we shoot our mouth off before we have armed our minds with knowledge, data and facts (trusting experts to gather this together), our world becomes one ruled by intimidators and bullies and not one guided by the best information at hand.

I hear lots of talk about reducing bulling in the schoolyard and in the workplace.

Let’s lead by example, showing future generations that we really believe that brute-force intimidation in society-at-large is not the way.

After all, if truth and facts don’t matter anymore, let’s bring back the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts and everything else where emotion and influence matter more than truth.  We can jail the scientists and other information seekers while we’re at it since their data and facts are inconvenient also.

We might as well dismantle our school system as well and instead, train children in the art of shouting, bullying, intimidation and discrediting.  Throw out the books of knowledge – we don’t need them anymore.

We should just allow the world to be guided by those who shout the loudest and the longest.

Sound ridiculous?

I don’t think so - it’s what we’re demonstrating in cases like the Martin case.

Passion is important but it is far more valuable when enabled and combined with knowledge instead of ignorance.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS After I posted this, the news reported that Spike Lee had posted the home address of the alleged shooter.  This is shameful behavior on many counts – the alleged shooter is a private citizen, he has not been formally charged or convicted AND he has a price on his head by some vigilantes.

Here’s the best (or worst) part.

Lee posted the wrong address, identifying the home address of someone unrelated to the matter, potentially putting the resident there in mortal danger at the hands of vigilantes.

This is what happens when hate and a desire to put passion before facts dominates someone’s thoughts - the risk of innocent people getting hurt increases significantly, complicating things instead of providing an opportunity to get to the bottom of a matter.