Drivels by Kurt Theobald

An excerpt from my book:
"...
But as I said earlier, healthy desire is cultivated through healthy vision, and if the highest level of existence is self-actualization, then our understanding and vision of True Self is quintessential and paramount.  (from earlier in the book:  Maslow was right about self-actualization, but he fails to mention who "Self" is, a rather stark vacuum in his theory.)  No matter how true this is, though, it is a very difficult idea to institute into a business team because of the vastly differing views on who True Self is.  However, as long as True Self has a fixed Source or Origin defining a fixed value, alignment is possible.  But if an individual believes they define themselves or some other variable source defines them, such as society or other people or horoscopes, alignment is impossible and the individual is, at their core, a vacuum.  These are high-risk people because they have no fixed point of reference for their being.  They are floating, truly aimless.  For if identity is variable, it truly does not exist except as a figment of imagination, and if identity does not exist, purpose does not either, for purpose is derived directly from identity.

I hope you can see that freedom is only accessible within a fixed structure, for without a fixed structure, the very idea of freedom becomes variable and vacuous.  Who or what gives “freedom” its root meaning?  Is it society?  Then it is variable.  Is it Self?  Then it is variable.  Is it instinct?  Then it is variable.  And if it is variable, it doesn’t actually exist anymore than a phantom or a dream exists.  In the same way, Self attempting to define True Self is an act of ignorance as the only fixed definition for anything is found in its Origin, and we did not originate ourselves.  Self defining True Self is as coherent as a note on a sheet of music deciding what it is.  It is what it is because the composer gave it that identity.  So if it says it is something else, it is merely incorrect.  But if identity is variable, there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect.  It is all simply empty.

This emptiness of meaning or purpose is the only end of Origination by Chance.  If we occurred merely as a result of atoms randomly bouncing around, our Origin is nothing, or Identity is Vacuum and our Purpose is physical death.  But we cannot even be certain of that; our very consciousness comes into question when Chance is our Origin.  As I stated before and I will say again for emphasis, such a Self-view is very high risk.  These people can be tossed to and fro, depending on what scruple of reality they have attached themselves to.  Some are more dependable than others from a practical standpoint depending on how tightly they have attached themselves to a mode of operation, but all are unfounded and floating at their core.  They have no rational foundation for their existence nor for anything they do with their existence.  And these people are fully self-serving; they cannot be anything else.

When you dig down deep enough, you find that there are two roots of belief in every person.  There is the root of their head and of their heart, the former founded on rational thinking and logic, the latter on emotional experience and conditioning.  Both of these roots come together to deeply influence everything we think and do.  They feed us the information we use to make decisions.

If these roots so deeply affect everything a person thinks and does, don’t you think it is important to identify these roots before inviting them onto your business team?  Most of you are probably uneasily shifting in your seats right now, but do not get this confused with identifying a person’s religious beliefs.  While they may mention their religious beliefs in explaining their roots, you are only concerned about what mode of operation their roots predicate.  Obviously, if someone’s religious beliefs predicate that they should kill anyone who offends them, you don’t want them on your team.  Is it their religion that causes you to reject them?  Certainly not!  It’s the practical predicate of their belief that justifiably raises concern.  So stop squirming in your seat.  I’m not suggesting that you base your hiring decision on a person’s religious affiliation.  I’m suggesting you consider the natural predicate of their head and heart beliefs about themselves and the world around them as a hugely significant aspect of their productive capacity.

A very interesting truth about these two different sources of belief is that they often do not agree with each other.  I’ve spoken with dozens of people who believe that their Origin is Chance, and yet they defend their love for their children as being rational.  In a Chance context, there is no rational foundation for anything, not even consciousness itself.  When I ask them, “Why is family important?” there is no credible answer in their context because “important” is a judgment of value, and there are no fundamental values in a Chance context, which means that “important” doesn’t even exist except as a figment of society’s joint imagination.  Often times, the response is something incredulous like, “Well because they’re my family!”  It’s as if it doesn’t even require explanation.  And in truth, it doesn’t because they are speaking from their heart’s worldview, not their head’s.  There is no rational explanation for it; it just is the way it is.  Naturally, I don’t stop asking for a rational explanation, and in the end, they simply cannot produce a single rational cause for the importance of their family except that it serves their interests, and even that is not really rational as Self is no more significant than an atom floating in the emptiest vacuum in the universe (in the context of Chance, of course), so why serve Self?  Clearly, the dominion of Chance is devoid of Reason.  But find where Chance is thwarted, and there also find Reason.

It is essential to identify both the rational and emotional worldviews in every person you’re considering for team membership.  One may be completely suitable and sensible while the other may output obscenity.  If you can clarify the form and content of the roots in each person, you will have learned how that person operates and why.  With enough clarity, you can even accurately surmise how they will respond to different stimuli and circumstances, a very helpful ability in evaluating team members and potential team members, indeed.

This approach will likely be deeply uncomfortable for you, but that is simply because it is so far outside of your comfort zone.  You likely don’t seek out these things in your closest friends much less colleagues and applicants.  Well, I hope it is clear by now that just because something exists outside your comfort zone doesn’t make it bad.  Essentially, by pursuing these things in your team members and applicants, you are merely getting to know them in a real and deep way, which is strongly recommended considering each team member has a very significant effect on every other team member, the team as a whole, as well as clients and customers.
..."

Comments please!

True productivity should not be measured by the consumption of goods as is generally posited by traditional economics.  It should be measured by the improvement of the quality of life of people.  This is an important difference because far too many things are added into our national productivity that shouldn’t be because they are unproductive or counterproductive in reality and far too many things are excluded.

To be clear, I understand this is an impractical ideal because it is based on the relative standard of quality of life.  Our current productivity calculation is based entirely on the assumption that someone who commits financial resources to something else knows that “something else” will bring them a higher quality of life.  But they could misperceive how the “something else” will actually affect their life, and it could end up being a detractor from their quality of life rather than a contributor.

But I do not mention this ideal definition of productivity to engineer a change in the way we calculate it, but rather to challenge your mindset to think in a different context:  Just because someone pays for what we offer doesn’t mean we’re serving their best interests.  Sometimes, people don’t know what is good for them and what is not.  Sometimes, what one person purchases to increase their quality of life has the opposite effect on another person, possibly to a greater degree (e.g. selling weapons to guerrilla warlords).  Other times, a person purchases something to increase their quality of life, not know that it will have a negative effect or no effect at all on their quality of life. 

Adam Smith surmises in Wealth of Nations that any time an exchange or transaction occurs, there is a net increase in value, based on the theorem that both member of the exchange must believe that what they are receiving is more valuable than what they give up, so they both end up with more perceived value than they gave up.  Our modern productivity calculation model is founded upon this theory by gauging productivity through consumption.  But we know from experience that this theory is not always practically true.  It must be true at the moment of the commitment to exchange; otherwise both parties wouldn’t agree to it; but thereafter, the buyer or seller can experience remorse, even before fulfilling the contract and executing the exchange and certainly afterward.

To illustrate this very important diversion from standard thinking on productivity, imagine a salesperson who sells coffee.  He finds those who are willing to sell it because they have more than they want, and he finds those who are willing to buy it because they have less than they want.  Ultimately, he is performing the service of distribution, and there is typically a net gain in objective value.  Those who didn’t want the coffee have money or some traded good they want and those who wanted coffee more than money or the traded good have their coffee.  Good deal for everyone involved.

Contrast that with a salesperson who sells pet snails.  He somehow manages to convince a man that pet snails can bring abundant happiness into his life and he could possibly experience untold joys as a result of owning numerous pet snails.  Three days later, the snail owner begins to realize that the snails really don’t do anything at all.  Sometimes, he notices that one of them has moved overnight from one side to the other in the aquarium he purchased for them.  He loathes his decision to purchase, and he quickly realizes that the perceived value of the snails at the moment of purchase was not a rational evaluation, but an emotional evaluation manipulated by the slick salesperson.  The snails simply are not worth what he paid for them, nor was the aquarium he bought for them. 

According to Smith, the snail salesperson is engaging in productivity, but it is unquestionable that the snail salesperson is actually counterproductive.  While he is definitely receiving more nominal value (cash value) than he is giving up, the snail owner has lost just as much nominal value and certainly has experienced a decreased quality of life as it feels terrible to be taken advantage of.  And we must also consider all of the time and effort that the salesperson spent sourcing the snails, crafting their convincing presentation, and giving the presentation to the now-remorseful snail owner.  Likewise, the snail owner will never regain the time he spent listening to the presentation or evaluating and executing the aquarium purchase.  Furthermore, while this is perhaps speculative by definition, I think it is reasonable that the salesperson engaging in such injustice will experience negative effects in his life as well, leading to a further net loss in quality of life.  And even beyond that, the question still begs:  Did the aquarium seller produce a net gain in value?  Unfortunately, no.  Without having anything to do with the malicious circumstances and while genuinely seeking to offer quality, useful products, the aquarium seller accidentally produces a net loss in quality of life as well, all because the snail salesperson chose to gain nominal value through manipulation.

There is a ripple effect from our actions that very few stop to think about.  We have been educated into this mentality that if someone pays us cash for the good we offer or accepts our cash offer for their good, it’s a “fair deal.”  It’s even gotten to such a height of imperfection to where we strive to draw as much as possible from clients and customers without compromising their patronage.  At present, most lenders do not provide consultation to the borrower to determine whether taking on the debt is a wise financial decision; they merely ensure that the borrower will be able to pay back the loan with interest on time.  Do you attempt to ensure that what you offer is going to be truly valuable for the buyer? 

But here’s the good news for people who take this seriously and the bad news for those who don’t:  Slowly but surely, the market blows away the chaff.  Eventually, those who more thoroughly and proactively ensure the buyer’s interests will supplant those who do so less thoroughly and proactively.  From a business growth perspective, it is better to ensure value to buyers in the long run than to turn a blind eye to their long-term interests.

Don't fake it. Be transparent and let others know that you're a business babe and that you need help. Seek out those that have the kind of success you want. Be persistent. Find good mentors and listen to them. Prioritize them. They will save you from much pain!

Commit to success. Cut away all other options and dive in. It's too difficult a journey to give yourself temptations to quit. It's not even an option.

Serve others as the end itself. If you're focusing on getting rich, all you'll have in the end is money, and maybe not even that.

Build a team. It's quintessential to success. You can't succeed by yourself. It's impossible. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll actually start your journey towards success.

I was asked this question today:  Attachment & emotions are considered non-performing burdens in professional lives.  Why?

While this ideology has probably been alive for millenia, I believe it's recent popularity advented in the industrial revolution, especially as a result of mass production in factory settings.  People became viewed as machines completing a narrowly-defined task repetitively as quickly and precisely as possible.  Any interference with that focused effort was considered counterproductive, and likely was.

Knowledge workers outside of a repetitive, manual job description, however, are also asked to leave attachments and emotions out of their work, which is often directly oppositional to their productivity as their attachments and emotions are what give them the ability to relate to their clients and customers, which is how most productivity actually occurs.

In both cases, however, this detachment sterilizes and dehumanizes the workplace.  Productivity should promote higher quality of life in aggregate, but if the very engines of productivity are opposing quality of life internally, a systemic flaw is created in which the internal lack of quality of life will unavoidably combine with the productive output.

We must remember:  Productivity is not the highest value; it is a means to an end.  Regardless, I believe that productivity is accelerated when humanity is maintained in a productive environment.

I have decided to get help from my online social network in writing my book.  I'm going to be asking numerous questions to my network as I write to get feedback and expand my context as I write about it.  And yes, I fully expect many of these pieces of feedback will get published with full credit in my book.

As I was writing about the virtue of openness in the workplace ("the ability to openly give and receive suggestions for improvement") earlier this week, I recently posted the following question on my social networks:

"Which is harder: Giving or receiving constructive criticism and why?"

Here are the responses I received:

Dee Dee Jacobs, Springfield Business Journal via Twitter: “Giving. Tough to prepare for how all personality types will react. If receiving, ur in control of your own reaction.”

Les Palmer, Dale Carnegie Performance Consultant via LinkedIn: “Actually, Kurt, we teach that there is no such thing as constructive criticism. To the receiver it is still criticism. Criticism tears something or someone down and coaching either redirects or elevates performance. While at first blush it might just sound like semantics, it really does make a difference in perception. Would you rather be coached to a higher level of performance or criticized to a higher level of performance? Would you rather jump out of bed in morning for a day of constructive criticism or jump out of the bed for a day of performance improvement coaching?”

Joe Gidman via Facebook: “so I think its harder to give constructive criticism than to [receive] it. Most criticism you receive is rarely constructive. Its usually given with some sort of malice and not truly intended to make you a a better person. You can always choose to take any criticism and turn it into some something constructive. that is what i think any mature self confident person would choose to do, but it still does not make the criticism in and of its self constructive. Real constructive criticism is that given with out any sort of malice involved. It is criticism given to someone because you truly care for them and want them to be the best they can be. In order to give that kind of criticism you have to carefuly sift though your own prejudices towards the person, your own hurts you may feel related to the subject being criticised, and any irritations you might feel towards the person you are critiquing. then you must be able to balance that criticism with compliments so that the person feels capable to follow through on the criticism and examples of how the critism will actually benefit them. It takes a very well thought out poignant yet subtle tounge to really give CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. unfortunately very few people are really capable of this.”

Tony John, Spherion via LinkedIn: “Getting "constructive" criticism is usually going to be more difficult, but that is a difficult question because giving purely objective feedback can be very difficult. "Constructive" criticism is often codeword for negative feedback. Human beings have a natural reaction to negative feedback. They often feel threatened and our natural "fight or flight" response is kindled. That response can manifest itself in resistance or hostility. But those reactions can be curbed by designing your organization and crafting its culture to be one where negative feedback does not mean your job is on the line. There are ways to create a culture strong enough to balance out our natural negative emotions associated with receiving negative feedback.”

Thanks for the feedback!

To become part of the discussion, subscribe to this page's RSS feed, and/or follow me on Twitter and watch the topic #kurtbook, and/or follow me on LinkedIn and watch my status updates.

Feel free to answer the question yourself by commenting on this blog entry!