Category: Theory or Theories, Applied to A Range of Subjects

Yankee From Olympus

[Please note: The word “Featured” on the left side above was NOT inserted by this blogger, but apparently was inserted by WordPress, and it cannot be removed. NO post in this blog is sponsored.]

The Book of the Week is “Yankee From Olympus, Justice Holmes and His Family” by Catherine Drinker Bowden, published in 1944. The bulk of this volume recounted the lives of the members of Supreme-Court-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ family, beginning with his grandfather.

Born in March 1841 in the Boston area, Holmes was born to the white male privilege typical of his generation. His father was a prominent medical doctor. The Protestant Work Ethic dominated the aristocracy. Due to the potato famine in their homeland, Irish families were arriving on America’s shores in droves. “Boston had developed a caste system toward them almost like the Southern feeling for the Negro.” The South End neighborhood’s Irish boys threw hard snowballs or mud at boys such as Holmes, who attended private school.

Holmes acquired life-experience in psychological and physical trauma as an officer in the American Civil War. After his military discharge, he simply went over to Harvard Law School to sign up, paid the $100 a-year tuition, and in autumn 1864, began attending lectures. There was a total of three professors at the school. He didn’t need to take any tests, or do any assignments. Yes, times have changed.

Holmes practiced debating fellow students, though, and was told to read various texts written by law students or attorneys, that expounded on contracts, jurisprudence, or jurisdiction. At that time, academic culture consisted of males who were (presumably passionate about the law) mostly self-starters, sufficiently mature and disciplined to undertake independent study. Working at a law firm after graduating, Holmes became somewhat famous for writing articles for the Harvard Law Review.

Through the 1870’s, Holmes hated the drudgery of practicing law, and basically wanted to be a one-man legal think-tank. At the dawn of the 1880’s, he presented a Harvard lecture series to lawyers and their ilk, but his new theory was heretical for his generation. He suggested that public opinion should play a role in how the law was shaped. In 1882, as a Harvard law professor, he used the Socratic method along with the newly instituted case-analysis curriculum.

In 1904, a case reached the U.S. Supreme Court that tested the Sherman (antitrust) Act. If the monster-sized Northern Securities Company of merged railroads was going to restrain trade, then it should be dissolved. President Theodore Roosevelt believed in free-market competition and therefore became known as a monopoly-buster. But he was a political hack, and aroused public opinion whichever way was expedient for himself. Holmes (by then a Supreme Court justice) believed the law should be crafted pursuant to the economic tenor of the times, without regard to conscience, morality, politics, self-dealing or art.

Holmes was a quick study. He had already formed his opinion about each case before arguments of both sides were even finished. The other justices took months to give the impression that they had spent a long time thinking about a case, so as to come to the correct decision. That’s still the situation today.

The reason some justices make everyone wait, is that they use the delay as a form of control. Or, they are putting on a show of discussing weighty issues because they have big egos– they think they’re saving the world with their decisions, though some issues are not a matter of life and death, and affect only a tiny percentage of ordinary Americans. Anyway, Holmes’ fellow justices complained that his writings were too brief, so his meanings might be misconstrued.

As is well known, in early 1932, the United State was suffering extreme economic hardships from the Great Depression, at which time Holmes humbly realized he was no longer mentally competent to do the job of Supreme Court justice. The nation shuddered at the scary prospect that President Herbert Hoover got to choose the next justice. Ordinary Americans were crying out for more regulation. The Court already had a solid conservative majority, and adding another conservative would worsen most Americans’ situations by (excuse the cliche) making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer.

Read the book to learn much, much more about the lives of the Holmes family members.

Evil Geniuses

[Please note: The word “Featured” on the left side above was NOT inserted by this blogger, but apparently was inserted by WordPress, and it cannot be removed. NO post in this blog is sponsored.]

The Book of the Week is “Evil Geniuses, The Unmaking of America, A Recent History” by Kurt Andersen, published in 2020. In this large, redundant volume, the author described how wealth inequality in the United States has been increasing at an alarming rate in the last forty years, as evil geniuses– economic royalists and self-made empire-builders (who take advantage of existing resources and infrastructure)– have rigged the system to compound their spoils and re-distribute it among themselves in a self-serving cycle.

Lots of research has shown that financial inequality in society actually hinders economic growth in developed nations. In connection therewith, in 2014, the OECD conducted a United States study that showed a 20% slowdown in economic growth since the 1980’s.

The author argued that the year 1980 was the turning point at which America’s hegemony started to decline. Both the Republican and Democratic parties’ elitists (other evil geniuses in addition to the above-mentioned) actually hurt America’s ability to remain economically dominant in the world. They brainwashed a significant number of ordinary Americans into:

  • believing that government is the enemy;
  • agreeing to tax cuts for the rich (also called “trickle down” economics);
  • favoring excessive deregulation; and
  • bashing unions

because such actions would make everyone wealthy!

The author cited ample evidence that the above actions do NOT make everyone wealthy.

The author contended that conservative Republican 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater paved the way for Ronald Reagan’s wrong-headed economic agenda (described above).

Politics cannot be divorced from economics. This is a simple idea that has been hardly ever EXPLICITLY SAID in historical, political and economic literature read by ordinary Americans, through centuries. The author calls this the “political economy” and former president Bill Clinton had the line, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Politics involves the making, monitoring, changing, and enforcing of society’s laws. The evil geniuses in the legal field who helped perpetrate the insidious brainwashing of the American masses, actually conveyed the following attitude in writing and speaking:

“So if you happen to think it’s a good idea for judicial decisions to also consider fairness or moral justice, or other values or versions of social happiness that can’t be reduced to simple metrics of efficiency,

Law and Economics [a body of legal theory from Robert Bork and his fellow Chicago School libertarians] says you’re a fool.”

That is how the 1980’s saw the American legal system start to focus on efficiency– favoring profiteers. The author argued that old men who are resistant to change are the conspirators of the current state of affairs. Well, SOMEone’s got to be oppressed.

Another indication that Americans’ attitude was becoming even more inclined toward rule-breaking greed and showing off wealth, could be heard in a 1980’s SUV TV commercial, which featured a visual of a white, 40ish male driving. The voice-over says, “It doesn’t just say you’ve arrived; it says you got there any way you darn well pleased.”

The author cited evidence that taxing the rich would be the largest factor in more evenly distributing wealth. The first Trump administration passed a tax cut for the rich that gave rise to the “…largest percentage reduction in tax revenues of any developed country on earth.” This was BEFORE COVID. And “…the federal debt increased by $1.5 trillion more than it had in Obama’s final three years.”

Nonetheless, the most hurtful president ever was George W. Bush, whose unconscionable greed and unmitigated hubris led to the crashing of the American economy and the commencement of two wars that enriched him and his cronies.

LBJ and Nixon were two other war-criminal presidents. Their war policies, too, wasted an excessive amount of taxpayer dollars on needless deaths and ruined lives. At the same time, they tried not to foul their own nest. They attempted to maintain this country’s economic dominance in the world, and salve their own consciences by funding domestic social programs. LBJ did some profiteering, but not nearly as much as Trump.

Trump is an angry, vengeful old president who, at the end of his career, is hurting not only his own political party, but also ordinary Americans. His excessive financial criminality has incalculably hurt society as a whole.

In 2018, Trump said NAFTA was the “worst trade deal ever made.” But in 2025, after all his bluster, the trade deals he’s going to make with Mexico and Canada, are going to be largely similar to NAFTA’s, all over again! And through his spokespeople who draft the words spoken by his deepfake image, he will take full credit for “great, great trade deals.”

His threats are causing a panic that certain sectors of the American economy will crash. Even the threat of a soft economy will deter some illegal immigrants from coming to this country. Given financial cycles, it is likely that some people will be hurting financially in the next few years. Trump is using a scorched earth strategy on his way out of office in order to be able to brag that HE reduced the number of illegal immigrants who are coming here. He will brainwash his base into believing that the economic downturn was all Biden’s fault!

Anyway, the author also commented that the internet changed American culture in accelerating the automation of the exchange of information, obsolescing a humungous number of jobs. Machine-learning is also making the job situation even worse. It could be said that the internet is the “new television” for the Millennial and Z Generations. However, there are major differences in the ways television changed American culture, and the ways the internet has changed it.

Television was a passive entertainment / infotainment / education source that, for most Americans, was consumed at home only, in one’s leisure time; perhaps on average, most students and workers (there were many more of those then than now) watched three to four hours a day, at no extra charge (except for electricity)– for the lifespan of the set. Then came recording of shows, but also cable TV– whose costs are many times higher for shows and sports games that used to be free.

The internet is an interactive source, and can be accessed globally, 24/7. So the younger generations are wasting so, so, so much more time obsessing over politics, than did the older generations. People have been bamboozled into paying big bucks to purchase electronic toys on which to subscribe to the internet, for which they have to pay even more!

So the amounts of time and money most Americans are spending on the internet are infinitely higher than that of television (and movies, and reading books, magazines, and newspapers). The early years of the internet (up to the single-digit 2000’s) brought emotional comfort to Americans. They flocked to websites that featured relatable, entertaining user-contributions with few or no ads that interrupted their viewing pleasure.

Once the entrepreneurial dot-commers mastered monetization and propagandizing, users became victims of their mind-control techniques. Arguably, the cultural transition from television to the internet has been economically and psychologically regressive for most Americans.

Anyway, read the book to learn much more about the depressing developments in politics, economics and culture that will eventually lead to the collapse of American civilization.

When – BONUS POST

[Please note: The word “Featured” on the left side above was NOT inserted by this blogger, but apparently was inserted by WordPress, and it cannot be removed. NO post in this blog is sponsored.]

The Bonus Book of the Week is “When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing” by Daniel H. Pink, published in 2018.

The author cited various studies that focused on timing, rather than the contents of events. The results of one study he cited, indicate a counter-intuitive aspect of human nature.

The study asked different groups of subjects to evaluate the overall moral character of a fictional man who was hypothetically their boss. Different groups were given different scenarios describing his awful and good behaviors. “Indeed, they [the subjects] evaluated a life with 29 years of treachery and 6 months of goodness the same as a life with 29 years of goodness and 6 months of treachery.” When the last 6 months were good, the subjects were forgiving, and seemed to forget the character’s past sins.

Religion might account for some of the study’s results; some evil people find religion when they have a near-death experience– like surviving a plane crash, or surviving a bullet that should have killed them. They believe that when they are baptized, all their sins are washed away. So they empathize with the aforementioned fictional character– their past criminality doesn’t count.

That could be why people elect politicians who are serial criminals, and why men in sinful or controversial fields of work– have an attack of conscience and turn traitor at the ends of their careers. Here is a little ditty about the collective mood in this country, notwithstanding the fact that the people gets the government it deserves.

ANOTHER DAY

sung to the tune of “Another Day” with apologies to Paul McCartney and whomever else the rights may concern.

Every day the media incite wrath,
at the news we glare,
politicians-wrap LAWyers ’round them.
They’re teaming up with corporate chairs.

It’s just another day.

Sidling up to donors,
they know how to schmooze,
dipping in the pockets of the taxpayers.

It’s just another day.

At the office where their powers grow,
they’re one big herd.
Doling out the Kool-Aid.
And we find it hard to trust their words.

It’s just another day.

baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa

It’s just another day.

baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa

It’s just another day.

So sad, so sad. Sometimes we feel so sad.
Unheard and harmed we dwell
till a less bad leader
comes to give us, a better sell.

Ah, can’t-wait.
Don’t stand us up.
Vote against the-bums,
but some stay,
and we continue to pay.

So sad. Sometimes we feel so sad.

As they plant another story for their favorite cause.
Their colleagues rally ’round them.
We find they don’t obey their own laws.

It’s just another day.

baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa

It’s just another day.

baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa

It’s just another day.

So sad, so sad. Sometimes we feel so sad.
Unheard and harmed we dwell
till a less bad leader
comes to give us, a better sell.

Ah, can’t wait.
Don’t stand us up.
Vote against the-bums,
but some stay,
and we continue to pay.

So sad. Sometimes we feel so sad.

Every day the media incite wrath,
at the news we glare,
politicians-wrap LAWyers ’round them.
They’re teaming up with corporate chairs.

It’s just another day.

Sidling up to donors,
they know how to schmooze,
dipping in the pockets of the taxpayers.

It’s just another day.

baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa

It’s just another day.

baa, baa, baa, baa, baa, baa

It’s just another day.

***

Read the book to learn of additional studies that show how doing certain things at certain times can make a difference.

The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty

[Please note: The word “Featured” on the left side above was NOT inserted by this blogger, but apparently was inserted by WordPress, and it cannot be removed. NO post in this blog is sponsored.]

The Book of the Week is “The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, How We Lie to Everyone– Especially Ourselves” by Dan Ariely, published in 2012.

The author presented one way human beings think about ethical behavior in a given situation: the Simple Model of Rational Crime (SMORC). It says someone would do a cost / benefit analysis in order to decide, for instance, whether to park illegally because they’re late for a meeting. Of course, a major factor in their decision-making includes how likely they are to get caught, and if they are caught, how willing they would be to bear the consequences.

The author wrote that SMORC doesn’t take emotion and trust into account, so most people wouldn’t engage in that kind of moral reasoning. With only reciprocity as the sole consideration, an individual using SMORC would require contracts for almost every ethical dilemma. He would spend most of his life in legal battles and litigation; like, Howard Hughes, Ted Turner, and Donald Trump.

Although the author failed to distinguish between guilt and shame, he cited numerous behavioral-economics studies he and other professors conducted (on mostly American subjects) to learn the causes of dishonest behavior, and ways it can be curbed.

The author realized that in a matter of weeks, even he was getting brainwashed by the propaganda of his bosses, because he was receiving generous compensation for serving as an expert witness.

Two ways to reduce cheating included:

  • Having people read or sign an honor-code document (such as the Ten Commandments, or an agreement not to cheat on an exam, or a set of rules, which, if broken, would give them an unfair advantage) before completing a particular task, taking a test, or competing.
  • Having people put their signature at the top of a document, and then fill in the info (such as on an application or tax return), rather than fill in the info and then sign at the bottom.

Read the book to learn of additional ways society can spread more ethical behavior (yes, it can be contagious!) so as to stave off the collapse of modern civilization just a little longer.

Warnings

[Please note: The word “Featured” on the left side above was NOT inserted by this blogger, but apparently was inserted by WordPress, and it cannot be removed. NO post in this blog is sponsored.]

The Book of the Week is “Warnings, Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes” by Richard A. Clarke and R.P. Eddy, published in 2017. The authors explored the concept of “sentinel intelligence” which means that certain members of humanity have a sixth sense for future dangerous occurrences. The one who issues a warning in connection therewith, is called a “Cassandra.” The Initial Occurrence Syndrome means humans find difficulty in acknowledging that an extremely improbable event could happen, simply because it has never happened before.

The authors recounted various instances in which Cassandras spoke up prior to horrible events. A few of the events they described should not count in the annals of Cassandra-warnings; wars, for instance. There are going to be needless deaths and ruined lives in any and all wars. Predicting what is going to happen when tensions are rising in the hotspots of the world is not rocket science. Those who see them are not Cassandras. People like them are basically Nostradamus. He got famous in the 1500’s for “predicting” all kinds of catastrophes that are inevitably going to happen to human beings, such as wars, pestilence and natural disasters, over the course of centuries.

Also, the authors failed to define “catastrophes” referred to in their book’s title. They might want to refine their description of Cassandra events. The difference between Nostradamus’ and Cassandra’s premonitions is in the specificity: Cassandras identify one individual and/or entities around whom or which one specialized scandal is brewing, or describe signals around which, say, a natural disaster, financial crash or pandemic is coming, within a relatively short time frame (i.e., a Jeffrey Epstein or a Chernobyl).

One good example the authors provided, was the Bernard Madoff scandal. Madoff was a specific criminal– a power broker who harmed a significant number of people in a community. The circumstances were not a general, ongoing situation like welfare fraud or insider trading.

However, the situation still all boils down to how one defines “catastrophe.” There were various Cassandras who claimed to know the different events associated with Donald Trump that have actually come to pass. If one defines his getting elected in 2016 for instance as a catastrophe because the community harmed was the entire United States, then yes, its qualifies as a Cassandra event.

Anyway, the authors explained how a Cassandra in the securities industry helped forward the women’s movement. She issued a warning before a financial crash. She garnered kudos when she turned out to be correct. At the book’s writing, though, another female Cassandra issued a warning in the field of public health. Of course, a white male made a sexist remark about her appearance in an ad hominem attack. That’s how critics seek to discredit female Cassandras.

In another of the authors’ Cassandra cases, in July 2004, the federal U.S. agency FEMA (which provides disaster assistance) and the Army Corps of Engineers held a severe-storm-drill in the New Orleans area, but didn’t take it too seriously. Insufficient funding was provided to make specific plans regarding evacuation-transportation for people who were unable or unwilling to heed the evacuation order.

Nevertheless, the Coast Guard and (federal agency) Wildlife and Fisheries did. At the end of August 2005, they were somewhat prepared when Hurricane Katrina actually hit Louisiana. But hilarity did not ensue. Many needless deaths and ruined lives did, as the aforesaid New Orleans residents couldn’t be evacuated. Of course, the exacerbated disaster aftermath was caused by honest ineptitude, profiteering and opportunism rather than malicious intent. Beforehand, there were a few Cassandras who tried to tell others that a “Katrina” was on the way.

The reason Cassandras aren’t listened to, is that they tend to be gadflies in their organizations. There are: clashing egos, jealousy, and inter-agency rivalries. Cassandras are outspoken, and their mouths get them in trouble. They begin their careers as idealists, and usually end up disillusioned, frustrated, cynical and emotionally burned out. They embarrass powerful and/or monied groups whose support they need to keep their jobs.

Read the book to learn about many more Cassandra events, and the authors’ suggestions for encouraging Cassandras to come forward (Hint: one idea is to revive the White House group from the Reagan Era that evaluated foreign policy threats– but expand it, to take other kinds of disaster-preparedness measures).

the signal and the noise (sic)

[Please note: The word “Featured” on the left side above was NOT inserted by this blogger, but apparently was inserted by WordPress, and it cannot be removed. NO post in this blog is sponsored.]

The Book of the Week is “the signal and the noise (sic)” by nate silver (sic), published in 2012. In this volume, the author described in redundant and wordy terms, why human beings are so fallible in their predictions and forecasts (and explained the difference between the two). Basically, humans get distracted by noise, so they don’t zero in on the right signals in order to tell the future correctly.

Ironically, the author used less-than-ideal language in describing the epic failings of ratings-agencies in the 2008 financial crash. He should have pointed out that they could have mitigated, just a little, their false advertising by using better risk-assessment wording.

Silver wrote, “… trillions of dollars in investments that were rated as being almost completely safe instead turned out to be almost completely unsafe.” (Never mind the awkwardness of the word “being” in the middle of the sentence, or “it” in the middle of a sentence– so many recently published books have that kind of bad writing.) The ratings agencies should describe investments as “low-risk” or “high-risk” and use the adverbs “extremely” or “very” or “somewhat” or “slightly” as applicable, but never use the word safe.

Anyway, another irony was that the author appeared to be distracted by vast generalizations that were just noise– as cherry-picked data tend to be. He provided all sorts of line graphs and scads of data on housing bubbles. He cited a study on market prices of the “American home” completed by Robert Schiller and Karl Case that created an index based on a century’s worth of data– the years between 1896 and 1996, inclusive.

The research indicated that an inflation-adjusted home bought for $10,000 in 1896 would be worth $10,600 in 1996. Is that noise or what? Silver didn’t specify what “American home” meant. Anyhow, who would buy a home in 1896, and sell it in 1996?

Silver did admit that predictions and forecasts were less inaccurate when qualitative data supplemented statistical models. Worded facts are considerations that add real-world conditions because numbers never tell the full story in complex situations, which are dynamic.

Incidentally, at the book’s writing, he had had success in making predictions in professional baseball because: 1) an excessive amount of data on it had been collected, and 2) he claimed its rules didn’t change. The latter is not true anymore. And besides, performance-enhancing drugs, not to mention new stadiums– among other factors– have put new noise and signals in baseball statistics.

The author pointed out that more data actually made for worse accuracy in predictions in many areas of life. Technology in the form of software that can process scads and scads of data in record time has improved humans’ ability to specifically forecast severe weather, but not earthquakes. As an aside– in any area that involves linguistics, technology is overrated. A chatbot cannot comprehend complex concepts and nuanced language (like sarcasm, irony and idioms). American English is especially fraught with words that have multiple meanings, so it is highly contextual.

There are still financial crashes, gamblers who lose big-time, and “experts” who can’t modify conditions to improve the economy with certainty. Incidentally, as is well known, more and more, daily life in America has been infiltrated by politics.

Read the book to learn about futuristic pronouncements of: television pundits, professional-sports commentators and gamblers, seismologists, chess software, national-security advisers, poker players, and many others.

Black Box Thinking

[Please note: The word “Featured” on the left side above was NOT inserted by this blogger, but apparently was inserted by WordPress, and it cannot be removed. NO post in this blog is sponsored.]

The Book of the Week is “Black Box Thinking, Why Most People Never Learn From Their Mistakes– But Some Do” by Matthew Syed, published in 2015. This volume attempted to answer the question: “How does failure-denial become so deeply entrenched in human minds and systems?”

The author described two ways of thinking:

1. Some people believe their abilities are fixed, so they won’t improve with practice. They have fear of failure, and make excuses and / or blame others for their failures.

2. Other people believe they can get better with practice, and they are honest about admitting they have made errors. They learn from them. Success is achieved only through trial and error, hard work and persistence.

Number 1 above is also described in the following quote from Bertrand Russell: “There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.” Yet another way of putting it is “hubris syndrome.”

Two of America’s recent presidents– George W. Bush and Donald Trump– were this kind of thinker. According to the author’s thesis, they succeeded against the odds (if success is defined as getting elected president), considering that they were blind to their own character flaws.

BUT– their common beginnings saw them through: They both began with the special advantages of inheriting money, mentors, lawyers, and valuable career and political contacts. They proceeded to fail upwards until they reached their peak “Peter principle” level, kind of like the joke: How do you make a small fortune in Israel? Answer: Come with a large one.

The author drew parallels between the topic-areas of aviation and healthcare delivery. These involve life-and-death scenarios when things go extremely wrong. However, that is where the similarities stop. People who have shaped the evolution of aviation have built up a knowledge-base that has served to produce lower and lower death tolls when catastrophes have occurred; powerful, influential people working in healthcare have been stubbornly resistant to adopting measures that would result in a drastic reduction in unnecessary deaths.

The author cited real-life examples from Great Britain and the United States. But there are other major reasons why his comparison is mostly invalid. These involve lawsuits, unions, government regulations and the political climate at the time of the disasters, and the following:

Obviously, workers in aviation have more of an incentive to improve safety, because in a disaster, many more people might die all at once in a plane crash, compared to the one patient on an operating table or examination table. Even if members of the flight crew survive a disaster, their careers are likely over. Even when doctors are at fault, they usually continue their careers.

The author discussed the pros and cons of just-culture versus blame-culture. He described the latter thusly: “It may be intellectually satisfying to have a culprit, someone to hang their disaster on. And it certainly makes life simple.”

The author recounted how a public-relations campaign can fool even intelligent people into believing a particular method of crime-prevention among young people, works wonders. The only way to debunk such a myth is through numerous Randomized Control Trials.

Read the book to learn about additional concepts surrounding psychological self-deceptions that humans employ in order to avoid admitting failures: cognitive dissonance, narrative fallacy, top-down versus bottom-up product development, various biases, and others.

Our Iceberg is Melting

The Book of the Week is “Our Iceberg is Melting, Changing and Succeeding Under Any Conditions” by John Kotter and Holger Rathgeber, published in 2005.

SIDENOTE: Candice Bergen was the daughter of the world-famous ventriloquist, Edgar Bergen, whose dummy was named Charlie McCarthy. Born in May 1946, Bergen was just as angry about what the older generation was doing with her world as Millennials are today, with what their elders are doing.

“In six months, mine [Bergen’s parents, by 1968] had seen me go from socialite to socialist; had listened to my sermonizing them on American militarism, the massacres of the American Indian, their destruction of the ecosystem, their invention of plastics and their introduction to pesticides and preservatives.” Even so, Bergen realized she still had so much to learn, even though she had all of the advantages a child of a celebrity receives from birth onward.

Anyway, despite the unrealistic title-subhead (“… Under Any Conditions”), this fable provided a simple framework of actions to take in order to effect change on a system, whether it be overturning an oppressive situation, reversing the destruction of the environment, improving a healthcare system, or protecting everyone from cyber-attackers or other social ills.

The story started when one alert penguin informed others in his colony that their lives were endangered by an environmental threat. Other penguins helped him by convincing the community that there was a clear and present danger that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible.

The colony’s leaders formed a committee (whose members had diverse talents and skills but were still able to maintain civil discourse when they disagreed) to decide what to do. They propagandized early and often, and made everyone feel empowered by getting everyone to take action. They achieved a small victory to show the colony that the problem could be solved. Then they went at the problem whole hog, and didn’t let up– kept propagandizing and empowering to ensure that the major change stuck.

Read the book to learn of specific examples of how a group of people can learn to do the same. Of course, their experience won’t be so cut and dried as this penguin fable, as human beings and their problems are more complex, and there are always going to be some who get greedy and /or power-hungry, or angry and vengeful at those who do.

Drive -BONUS POST

The Bonus Book of the Week is “Drive, The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” by Dan Pink, published in 2009.

Studies in psychology have shown that when money is offered as an incentive to do a creative activity, people are less motivated to do that activity, than when they were previously doing it for fun, for free! The reason is that it would smack of serving as a job–so the creator would have less autonomy over their product.

In the 1960’s, a management professor at MIT theorized about two types of sets of behaviors.

People who exhibit Type X behaviors:

  • are motivated externally– by money or other incentives outside themselves;
  • believe that everyone’s level of intelligence is fixed and cannot be augmented (“entity theory of intelligence”);
  • set goals that are externally determined, such as getting A on a test (“performance goals”); this way, they can blame someone else if they fail; and
  • look down upon those who exert effort to solve a problem or master a skill they’re not naturally good at.

People who exhibit Type Y behaviors are the opposite:

  • are motivated internally (“type I internal motivators”) — doing creative activities for fun, for free makes them happy;
  • believe that everyone’s level of intelligence can be augmented with effort (“incremental theory of intelligence”);
  • prefer to set goals within their control (“learning goals”) such as learning a foreign language fluently; incidentally, this way, they have no excuses if they fail; and
  • aren’t embarrassed to exert extra effort if necessary to solve a problem or improve a skill.

People who engage in Type Y behaviors, rather than type X behaviors, are growth-oriented, naturally happier, and their work-product is more creative. They are not constantly trying to live up to someone else’s standards. The Type X people (unsurprisingly!) are prone to unethical actions and addictive behaviors; they are dishonest, interested in reaping a short-term reward, and don’t care about long-term, adverse consequences.

Read the book to get more interesting theories on motivation, and insights into the behaviors of specific people who (immediately!) come to mind, and Pink’s tips for motivating people in business, education and other situations.