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?

Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson and Ignorance Run Rampant

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John F. Kennedy

A couple of days ago, I walked into a “well known Canadian coffee chain” wearing a very offensive hat.

Here is a photo of the hat that I was wearing.

I didn’t think it was terribly offensive.  However, the lady serving me made an observation about my hat that surprised me so much that I tweeted the following:

Some people in my place might have stated that they didn’t understand why a woman in a free country still needed to wear a hijab.

Some might have pointed out that if this interaction were taking place in her country of origin, that she could be flogged for speaking to a man in such a manner.

However, I’m mature enough to know the difference between an opinion that doesn’t matter to me versus something worthy of my attention. 

I’m also mature enough to know that this opinion does not represent the majority of people of her belief system.

And finally, I’m mature enough to know that words alone do not represent a threat to my state of physical or mental well being.

Frankly, the expression of opinion is something that we champion as a reason why the western world is allegedly superior – that our right to express an opinion is protected under law .

So when I hear the outrage expressed by people about Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson and his expressions of his beliefs, I can only shake my head and ask these questions:

Is your Life that empty (or completely fulfilled otherwise) that all you have left is to be angered by his beliefs?

Who has appointed you as the Master of Opinions, giving you supreme power to label opinions (not facts) as right or wrong?

If you believe that such beliefs are evil and must be punished, then you might as well fire or jail almost every evangelical leader, every Catholic priest and everyone else who shares the same opinions.  Frankly, whether you agree with his beliefs or not, such beliefs are held by millions of people in America alone.  Should they all be jailed, fined or punished in some way?

If we are going to be offended and punish people whose opinions offend us, then let’s pick a committee and allow them to define what we are not allowed to talk about anymore to avoid any confusion in the future.

Here are some items they might come up with, depending on who sits on the committee:

1. Vegans will have the right to have meat-eaters mulched and used as fertilizer for growing more vegetables.

2. Meat-eaters will have the right to grill vegans (I’ll take mine blue-rare please).

3. Anyone who criticizes a government leader will automatically be assumed to be doing so for racial reasons and should be jailed immediately (although shooting them will keep the prison population down).

4. Adults who don’t praise the book Fifty Shades of Grey as the best book they have ever read will be labeled “sexually repressed” and will be subjected to “sexual abandon” therapy.

5. Specific colors that make people feel bad will be banned.   Some suggestions:

Blue – because it reminds people of depression

Yellow – because it reminds people of cowardice

Red – because a non-Aboriginal person might think that it offends Aboriginals and that they need to defend people who are quite capable of defending themselves

Black – because it is racially loaded

White – see the previous point

6. When someone wishes you Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Holidays, etc., if they inadvertently guess your faith wrong then you will have the right to feel offended and punch them in the mouth in order to protect the sanctity of “the season of peace and goodwill”.

7. Blondes will be forced to change their hair color, since although they are considered to have more fun they will also be discovered to be intellectually inferior and the combination of having more fun while being less intelligent will be considered as a threat to everyone else’s safety.

8. Anyone weighing less than 300 pounds and not up to their eyeballs in credit card debt will be jailed (or shot) since they would be considered anti-consumer and thus anti-capitalistic, thereby representing a threat to our economy and in turn, national security.

9. To settle the dispute over global climate change, we will shoot supporters of the theory during the odd years while shooting the skeptics during the even years.  The last one left standing will be considered to be right and supported by “irrefutable facts”.

Choosing our fights

It’s funny that when the idol of many of our children does this ….

we think it’s entertaining while reserving the right to be horrified if our child grows up and does the same thing in public.

When HBO shows this on TV …

we dismiss it as entertainment although if you tried this at home Child Protective Services would kick your door in pretty quickly.

And yet when Robertson expresses an opinion which really has no direct influence on our Life, an opinion which he is legally entitled to regardless of whether you agree with him or not, then all hell breaks loose.

I’m sorry – does my use of the word “hell” offend you?

Too bad.

And so I asked my gay friends what they thought.

The vast majority shrugged it off as not affecting them, their families or their Life.  They are used to opinions that don’t align with their lifestyle but they are too busy creating a Life and contributing to society to worry about someone else’s opinion.

Their response raises an interesting point:

If we choose to be offended by everything, pretty soon our Life will be consumed with defending it instead of living it.

Personally, I’m offended with people who don’t care about others, especially the downtrodden, the homeless, the hungry, the war-stricken, the abused and the many who suffer in silence.

I’m offended by greedy, selfish, self-centered people.

And truthfully, I’m offended by people who are constantly offended.

But what’s more ignorant – telling someone that their opinion is ignorant or telling them that they are not entitled to have an opinion?

Because telling people that their opinion is not allowed is a slippery slope, feeling just fine until one day you find out that some belief that you cherish cannot be expressed publicly anymore because someone else is offended by it.

Bottom Line:

If we choose to focus on fighting those who offend us, then we will spend all of our time doing that instead of focusing on doing what we can to create a better world, especially true given that there is no shortage of things to be offended by if we allow it.

I think focusing on creating a better world matters more.

What do you think?

By the way, it’s ok to disagree with me. 

After all, this is just my opinion - but just between you and me, we both know that your opinion is wrong :-).

Rumi once noted:

If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?

How well are you polishing your “mirror” today?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

GLAAD, the gay and lesbian anti-defamation group that led the charge against Phil Robertson, promotes a pro-gay agenda under the auspices that everyone should be accepting of everyone else’s lifestyle.

When one demands acceptance of a particular lifestyle while condemning another, one has to be careful about the inconsistent message that this sends and the potentially unwelcome attention that it attracts.

Addendum 2 – December 22, 2013

While the Cracker Barrel Old Country Store originally pulled many of the Duck Dynasty products in protest of Mr. Robertson’s comments, they reversed that decision today.

Whatever the reason, I think it was the right decision and congratulate Cracker Barrel on making it.

What do you think?

Closing Thoughts – December 28, 2013

A little over a week later and everything is back to the way it was.  Phil Robertson is back on the program and A&E has backed off on its original intentions.

More than likely the thought of losing the “golden goose” that Duck Dynasty has become for A&E was the major reason for A&E reversing its original decision (probably true for Cracker Barrel also).

However, it is a reminder that when one is preparing to take bold action that it is extremely important to understand the potential impact of such a decision before actually moving forward.

Not everyone gets the opportunity to have a “do-over” as happened here.

Whose Eyes Do You See the World Through?

I remember a comic strip years ago where a fraudulent evangelist was hosting one of his high-energy church services.  His altar was at the top of 10 or 15 steps and he invited people to climb the steps to be healed by him.

A man who had spent his entire life walking with the aid of crutches came forward and with great struggle, ascended up the stairs to the altar and begged for his legs to be healed.

The phony evangelist spread his hands, yelled “Be healed” at the top of his lungs and kicked the crutches out of the hands of the man.  As the man stumbled, tumbled and fell down the stairs, arms and legs going everywhere, the preacher yelled out “He’s not only walking, he’s dancing” to which the congregation responded with cries of “Praise the Lord”.

The congregation saw what the evangelist wanted them to see - they were seeing the world through his eyes.

The man with the crutches saw a different reality.

The danger of seeing the world through the vision of others

Sadly, many of us spend most of our lives looking through the eyes of others.  We seek to live values as defined by others.  We choose to accept the “knowledge” of others instead of learning it for ourselves.  We allow people to make sure that their needs are met before considering our own.  And then there is the most insidious form of opinion-forming of all; when we allow others to form our opinions of ourselves.

People in the business of manipulating others count on these things, whether they be people like the fraudulent minister described above, a corrupt business person, a politician serving his or her needs instead of the needs of their constituents or any self-serving individual.

They make it look obvious to everyone that what they proclaim is the truth and if we disagree with the truth, then there is something wrong with us.  Even worse, they convince many around us to think the same way such that eventually, many are afraid to think for themselves with the fear that their idea will be alone, defenseless and considered incorrect at best or idiotic (potentially treason-like) at worst.

What triggered this thought was President Obama’s announcement the other day that all the troops in Iraq were coming home by the end of 2011.

He reiterated that he had kept a campaign promise made during the last election to bring the troops home and now Democrat supporters are rallying around the fulfilled promise of the Commander-in-Chief.

The only problem is that this isn’t quite what happened.

The truth is that the US was negotiating with Iraq for American troops to remain in Iraq (counter to the President’s election promise), some of whom to serve as advisors to the Iraqi military and some to serve as a deterrent in case Iran wanted to cast a covetous eye in the direction of Iraq.  With the failure of the negotiations and the demand by Iraq that the soldiers leave practically immediately, the President is spinning the diplomatic defeat into “bringing the troops home as promised”.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan announced this weekend that should the US take a strong stand against Pakistan for perceived “lack of support in the war against terror”, then Afghanistan under President Karzai would immediately side against the US to defend Pakistan.

With friends like these …….

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the US taxpayer an estimated $1.3 trillion with more than 4,00 killed-in-action and 32,000 wounded.

And at the end of the human and financial sacrifice, we are being asked to embrace the positive results that the politicians see.

The only challenge is …. are there really any positive outcomes to see as a result of these actions?

Yes, Osama Bin Laden is dead, something President Obama noted as a victory the other day.

And yet, if this is the primary victory that we cite after all of the sacrifice, surely there has been no more expensive manhunt in world history than this.

Looking through different eyes

If you are a politician, you tell us that Al Qaeda’s ability to wage war has been practically destroyed while asking to be reelected as a protector of the people.

If you are military leader, you tell us that we shouldn’t be so confident, that the enemy is more complex than ever which is why you are asking for permission to build better weapons.

If you are the Department of Homeland Security, you tell us that never before have we been in greater danger at home, thus justifying the need for sweeping changes in personal and physical privacy to assure the safety of the public.

If you are someone on Wall Street making millions each year in salary and bonus, you tell us that bailouts and such are necessary to preserve the American (and in fact the global) system while tightening the screws on the average citizen who can barely survive from one day to the next.

With these and other concepts, many Americans fight each other in coffee shops, the media and lately, with #OWS, in the streets over the truth of these and other statements and their ramifications.

But whose opinions are being used as the basis for the debates?

I find when I discuss these and other issues with people, they often can’t give me their own opinions.  You can usually pick these people out – when they state an opinion and you ask “how do you know?”, they usually get very angry or frustrated and rely on intimidation instead of logic and knowledge to make their point.

In the end, many of them don’t give me their own opinion but rather, they give me someone else’s …. the world as seen through the eyes of the people striving to direct them toward someone else’s preferred outcome.

We can do better – an informed opinion is a powerful one

As long as the best opinion we have is someone else’s, we will never have a chance to create a better world.

If instead, we look through the eyes of the downtrodden, the impoverished, the homeless, the hungry, the abused, the war widow, the fatherless / motherless child whose parent was lost in war, the hardworking person who lost everything through no significant action on their part, etc. , we have an opportunity to see a different world.

Once we truly see it, only then we can change it.

It is true that everyone’s perception is influenced and tainted by their own life experiences.  However, if we are going to allow our opinions to be formed through the eyes of others, then let’s choose the eyes of people whose vision reflects a greater sense of reality for the average person.

And maybe then, even if we insist on not forming our own opinion, we can at least form an opinion of greater value than many of the opinions we are forming or that are being formed for us.

A Great Correction is sweeping through the world, carrying with it a momentum that cannot be stopped.

While it has a life of its own, I believe the result, whether negative or positive, is still within our ability to direct.

Whether we choose to make it a positive or negative result depends on whose eyes we are looking through.

Which in turn determines whether we will truly be dancing at the foot of the stairs or lying at the bottom of the stairs in a crumpled heap when the Great Correction reaches its climactic conclusion.

If nothing else, look through the eyes of our children and then ask ourselves if we are making the right choices.

And then go make them.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

If I Wanted Your Opinion ….

… I’d give it to you.

So goes the phrase, often expressed and laughed over.

The only problem is … it’s not funny anymore.

I’ve found myself in a few interesting debates as of late, discussing some heated subjects with others.

What I have found interesting is that in many of these debates, there were a couple of things prevalent:

1. There was anger on the part of the other person (sometimes a lot more than the subject warranted)

2. There weren’t a whole lot of facts being used to defend the other person’s position, just the afore mentioned emotion.

I found this intriguing and puzzling (and frustrating, to be honest) to observe until one person finally enlightened me yesterday when he said:

You have no right to say this.

It finally hit me.

We weren’t taking opposite sides in the debate I thought I was participating in.

I was in fact, defending my right to have a contrary opinion at all.

I just didn’t realize it and hence I had brought the wrong facts to the table. 

Many cultures in the world have developed and flourished because of the open exchange of ideas.  Such exchanges are often passionate and sometimes anger filled as people agree and disagree.  However, we have always embraced the right to the exchange and we grow as a result of it.

When we lose the ability to explore all sides of something, when a particular side is automatically right “just because”, then one of the foundational elements of our culture is lost.

And as with any structure, when the foundation falls, the structure won’t stand for long.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi once told Americans that if they disagreed with national healthcare then they were un-American.

President Obama recently told a number of college students to stop paying attention to social media as the opinions being circulated around were creating too much confusion.

That is their opinion.

However, the truth is that your opinion matters also.

So does mine.

And when we embrace this belief, we embrace making something better.

Any idea that is properly debated will be stronger as a result of the vetting and exploration process.

I would rather my idea be made stronger through such a process or proven that it is a bad idea, so that I can abandon it before I waste too much of my time or someone else’s.

What do you think - do you agree or disagree?

Or do you think I’m not entitled to my opinion at all? :-)

In service and servanthood.

Harry

To see my Musings-in-a-Minute version of “If I Wanted Your Opinion …”, please click here.