Disruptive Catalog®

Okay I just sat down to write a response to this question which I posed a while back.

“Do you know something you should probably change about yourself but are resistant to change because you are afraid you will also lose something else core to who you are?”

…and the essay turned out to be much longer than I expected. But I think it turned out very well. If this is a question that resonates with you, I encourage you to read it all the way through.

—-

So that thing about yourself that you know you should change, but don’t because you are afraid if you do, you will lose something core to who you are…yea that story…that story isn’t the real story.

Let’s take closer look…and find out what’s really going on.

The voice in your head probably goes something like this:

“There are some areas where my life isn’t working as well as I want it to work”…After some introspection and self reflection…”Oh it’s probably this thing X that is holding me back from the life I want.”

“Do I really want life to be better? Yes I do. Ok, I will work on changing or improving on X…”

Then the doubt sets in…”Oh wait, should I really change X? I think if I change X that could make me lose Y, which is core to who I really am. And I really don’t want to lose Y. I like who I am. I may not be perfect but I would never change who I really am.”

That’s a pretty damn good reason for not changing isn’t it? Not losing who you really are.

Why would you give up the small thing X, if Y is much bigger than X?

That’s not a good deal.

But there’s a catch…Y is just an illusion.

A trick. A trick that your deep, dark seated fears play on you, so they don’t have to come out into the light and open themselves to rational challenges. So they continue running your life, hidden from view, unbeknownst to you.

And these deep, dark seated fears, man, they’re just so…they’re just so damn effective! That’s why so many people never escape the fear that runs their life. The fear that keeps their life in the cage they call home.

I mean you were all pumped up about changing X in your life. You were all pumped up about the bigger, brighter future waiting on the other side of your improvement. And then fear told you a story about how you’d lose Y and stopped you dead in your tracks. And the deadening normalcy of the status quo persisted. And persisted. And persisted. And you didn’t even realize all this stagnation was just the result of succumbing to fear’s clever illusion.

What is this illusion?

Changing X won’t actually cause you to lose Y.

If you’re changing for the better, you ARE NOT going to lose anything that really makes you who you are.. If you pick X correctly, you can’t possibly lose something core to who you are. Anything that melts away wasn’t the real you. It was a false identification with socially constructed identity you created to cope with the demands of the world. Anything melting is not you, the real you can’t melt. The real you is the light, the fire buried underneath all that ice. When false senses of self melt away, the real you only shines brighter.

Ok…back to the game fear is playing.

Why does fear tell you you’re going to lose Y when that isn’t actually what’s going to happen?

Because this fear is coming from a primitive part of the early reptilian brain and its goal is simply to keep you physically alive, so you can pass on your genes. Anything beyond that is unnecessary risk, but more on that in a bit…

So what is this primitive part of yourself really afraid of, if the idea that you would lose a core part of yourself like emoticon is a fictitious notion?

– Fear of the unknown.

The unknown is unpredictable. You might get eaten.

– Fear of being in pain.

Why would the primitive part of you which sees the world in black and white, want to be in pain?.

And you can be in pain for a myriad of reasons:

1) Finally taking a break from suppressing and disassociating from your emotions and taking an honest look at yourself and seeing all the things in your life and about yourself that you’re unhappy with.

2) The inevitable discomfort that comes from pushing past your comfort zone (analogize from the soreness of lifting weights).

3) Fear of actually trying and failing.

Fear of taking responsibility for your life, relinquishing victim status and then failing and feeling powerless as result. (You think you still have your power if you don’t try, because then you can still believe you would succeed if you actually did try). The truth is success is a long journey marked by the willingness to continual fail and improve from failure.

So there is plenty to be afraid of. But remember these fears are generated by a part of the brain, designed just to keep you alive to reproduce.

But your life should be about more than surviving and reproducing right? You don’t just want to be a penis or vagina with legs, do you?

You want to thrive, right? To become your higher self, right? To live with love and purpose and give your unique gifts to the world…every goddam day!

If you really want that, you have to realize that your potential and fear are directly at odds. And the ONLY road to your potential is to have the courage to stare fear in the face and keep moving forward, putting one foot in front of the other.

Nelson Mandela said that., “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

So what type of life do you want to live?

A life of fear and smallness or a life of continual growth and ever deepening unfolding of your true nature?

The path looks something like this:

1) Nurture the desire within yourself to reach your full potential. Nurture this desire until it burns hot like indistinguishable ball of fire.

2) Learn how your mind actually works, its primitive functions and its more evolved, and how the primitive functions are continually preserving the status quo.

3) Learn how to overcome these primitive programs.

4) Commit fully to the practice of overcoming your limitations as if your life depended on it. Because your life actually does.

So now, I have shown you a little bit of what step 2 looks like.

I’ll continue to fill out the other steps as we go along :-)

The time is now.

If the Universe-as-a-Simulation Hypothesis is correct…or the very least where we are somewhere not near the beginning of a chain of intelligent civilizations then the theory that some part of Consciousness does not wholly reside in the brain but rather comes through us like a radio receiver is also probably correct…because the same thing is now happening in our current technology landscape where data and processing increasingly live in the cloud and are downloaded onto the hardware on an as needed, just in time basis.

This follows because the universe shows the pattern of self-similarity all the way up and all the way down (the most popular example of this being Fractals). So the developmental design patterns we converge on as optimal for guiding our technological evolution are very likely the same design patterns present in the evolution of consciousness and humanity.

Having said all that I’m not sure I’ve found anyone’s writing who I believe as the optimal balance between information processing of Consciousness “in-the-cloud” vs. “on-the device”. Almost everyone I’ve read are on the extremes of the path.

I curiously came across this article. http://maximiliankiener.com/digitalprojects/time/

However I think it’s Bullshit.

The creator of this project is relying on a theory of perception that Time Flies because we experience life as a fraction of total life experience.

Or Perception of Time flying by = Amount of Life Experience / Total Life Experience.

However, I would argue the experience of time flying is more likely a function of novelty or lack thereof.

Interestingly, these are correlated. Everything is novel when you’re born and most adults fall into patterns of stasis and experience little novelty. So this theory would seem to be correct for most boring adults, which are most adults.

But if you are continually challenging yourself and growing, time will not speed up.

Your adulthood will not flash before your eyes and be over in an instant.

And even that is just from the perspective of what Daniel Kahneman would call the Remembering Self.

Every moment can be experienced afresh and anew as the Experiencing self.

That is what emptiness practice in meditative traditions train you to do: Recognize that Self, Emotions, Thoughts, Time, are all a construction of mind that you can deconstruct and experience each moment anew as Fresh and Simple.

They call this the “Child in a Temple” or “Child’s Gaze”.

After the look of wonderment on a child’s face after they see the temple for the first time.

Anyway, growth begets novelty which begets a full life.

Don’t let your life flash before eyes because you’re comfortable.

Don’t be deterred by the feeling of smallness that results from expanding your knowledge. As you learn more you will inevitably realize how much you don’t know.

This may even make you feel stupid. But don’t let it stop you.

Life is not about protecting your ego from any sign that it might be overinflated.

Again, the process perspective is a big part of the solution for forward progress. The other crucial part is to recognize the whole dynamic of why of learning more can overwhelm you.

Let’s create a diagram in our heads to make sense of this.

Draw a circle. Fill it in black. Everything in that circle is what you know.

It is your knowledge.

Extend the radius of the circle a few inches beyond the perimeter of the circle and shade this area grey.

This is everything “You know you don’t know”.

The reason you feel stupid whenever you learn something new is because the grey area always expands faster than the black area.

Or in other words, your awareness of your “un-knowledge” always expands faster than your “knowledge”.

And although this may feel disheartening it really shouldn’t.

Why?

1) Knowing you don’t know something isn’t a bad thing, it’s actually a really GOOD thing.

Knowing “you don’t know something” prevents you from being blindsided by it.

If you don’t know anything about asset allocation you might decide to invest your entire net worth in the stock market because it feels right, and foolishly expose yourself to so much risk you lose all your money due to inability to withstand natural volatility.

But if “you know you don’t know” anything about asset allocation you can hire a money manager to properly balance the risk in your portfolio.

If “you know you don’t know” something you can ask for help.

The real evil is not “knowing you don’t know” something.

It’s “Not knowing you don’t know something”.

Or, in other words, “What you don’t know you don’t know”.

Scholar Umberto Eco famously had a library with 30,000 books, most of which he never read. This he called his “anti-library”

Nassim Taleb highlighted this story of the Anti-Library as a way of reducing exposure to Black Swans. Big disastrous events hardly anybody saw coming like 9/11 Terrorist attacks, Katrina and the broken levees, and 2008 financial crises.

Let’s return to the diagram of the circle.

The black area is “what you know”. The grey area is “what you know you don’t know”.

The rest of the empty space is “what you don’t know you don’t know”

Whenever the circle increases. The black increases. The grey increases more. But the white area shrinks.

2) The more you know the more you can do.

How could this possibly be a bad thing. So what, if you can’t learn EVERYTHING?

Get over your omniscient God Complex.

Life is about learning, growing, adapting and creating. The more you know the more you can build.

You’ve learned how to walk, how to speak, how to read, how to write. Don’t stop there.

You can learn to create products, services, and theories that CHANGE PEOPLE’S LIVES.

That DRIVE HUMANITY FORWARD.

But not if you stop learning because it makes you feel stupid and uncomfortable.

“We’re here to put a dent in the universe. Otherwise why else even be here?”

– Steve Jobs

3) No Man is an Island

“No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” – John Donne

Our circle of knowledge does not stand alone and isolated in this world.

Our circle of knowledge is connected in some sense to every single human on this planet.

Furthermore, our circle of knowledge can be seen as connected to every single human who has EVER LIVED!

We are all part of one vast evolutionary tree.

Yet the process of knowledge acquisition begins not just with humans, but 13.75 Billion Years ago with the singular big bang of energy that gave rise to the known universe and has been creating more order, more complexity, more syntropy more sentience and more beauty ever since.

Our circle of knowledge does not stand alone. Our circle of knowledge is one continuous patch of a universal quilt that is always expanding.

Lest the grandiosity make you feel insignificant again, it need not.

Throughout history, humans have pushed their individual circles farther than anyone in human history ever has before.

This story points to the great spiritual truth of the relationship between the “ONE” and “THE MANY”.

We do not stand alone. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

When we reach new heights, this is called discovery.

And the global quilt of human knowledge grows because one individual was brave enough, determined enough, to venture into the perilous clouds of the unknown and extend their circle of knowledge farther than anyone had before.

But discovery isn’t the only thing that matters.

There’s also invention.

Invention occurs when we combine our circles of knowledge and abilities in new ways, often in collaboration with other people and their complimentary circles of knowledge, to create artwork, objects and tools that push new boundaries, expand human consciousness and amplify human potential.

In fact, discovery and invention are inextricably intertwined like the double helix of DNA.

The discovery of knowledge enables the creation of new tools that enable the exploration of the world in new ways, which in return let us acquire new knowledge about the world.

So goes the emergent self-propagating cycle autopoiesis

And lest you think it’s all an exterior process, we must not forget the role of art, poetry and metaphor which expand consciousness in ways that let us ask questions we never dared to ask before.

Return once more to the diagram of the circle.

Why do questions matter?

Questions are what drive the vast barren landscape of white into grey

So in turn they can made black

And stitched into the fabric of the known universe.

I will leave you with a few quotes on the primacy of questions:

To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science. -Albert Einstein

Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers. -Voltaire

 The Full Nietzche Quote I used as inspiration for this note: A traveller who had seen many countries and peoples and several continents was asked what human traits he had found everywhere; and he answered: men are inclined to laziness. Some will feel that he might have said with greater justice: they are all timorous. They hide behind customs and opinions. At bottom, every human being knows very well that he is in this world just once, as something unique, and that no accident, however strange, will throw together a second time into a unity such a curious and diffuse plurality: he knows it, but hides it like a bad conscience why? From fear of his neighbour who insists on convention and veils himself with it. But what is it that compels the individual human being to fear his neighbour, to think and act herd-fashion, and not to be glad of himself? A sense of shame, perhaps, in a few rare cases. In the vast majority it is the desire for comfort, inertia – in short, that inclination to laziness of which the traveller spoke. He is right: men are even lazier than they are timorous, and what they fear most is the troubles with which any unconditional honesty and nudity would burden them. Only artists hate this slovenly life in borrowed manners and loosely fitting opinions and unveil the secret, everybody’s bad conscience, the principle that every human being is a unique wonder; they dare to show us the human being as he is, down to the last muscle, himself and himself alone even more, that in this rigorous consistency of his uniqueness he is beautiful and worth contemplating, as novel and incredible as every work of nature, and by no means dull. When a great thinker despises men, it is their laziness that he despises: for it is un account of this that they have the appearance of factory products and seem indifferent and unworthy of companionship or instruction. The human being who does not wish to belong to the mass must merely cease being comfortable with himself; let him follow his conscience which shouts at him: “Be yourself! What you are at present doing, opining, and desiring, that is not really you.”… 

As much as i'm a student of philosophy, I find many of Nietzche’s thoughts hard to relate to due my unfamiliarity with the time period he is writing in, but I found the above paragraph rich with enduring ideas.

Nietzsche’s basic argument here is that human beings are fearful and lazy. They hide behind tradition to disguise their lack of individuality. They look to blend in it to hide their laziness for in a sea of laziness they can’t be picked out. Men know they only have this one life to live, yet they are scared to make the most of it. They are afraid of taking an honest look at themselves for fear of what they might discover. The philosopher despises mankind for opting for this life of convention rather than a life of individuality. Only the artist seeks to reveal man as he truly is. It is not hard for man to break this cycle. All he must do is find dissatisfaction in conformity and dare to be different, dare to be himself.

The scary thing is that this rings almost as true as when Nietzsche wrote these words over a century ago. There are signs we may be on the verge of a creative awakening. But currently a very small population attacks life with a fervent passion, seeking self-discovery, self-improvement and a life of creative contribution.

What fear could be so strong that it represses our individuality?

This fear must cut deep to deprive us of the only thing we’ll ever have. Everyone knows we have only this one life, yet most choose to live as if this wasn’t the case Nietzsche is confounded that so many are persuaded by a little discomfort to abandon the pursuit of individuality. Failing to individuate is failing to live. You’d be living a life that has already been lived. We are all given our own unique genetics and our own experiences. We all have the capability to dare to be different and carve out our own unique identity in the world. Why do so few make the most of this truly once in a lifetime opportunity?

Our paralysis comes from our fear of rejection. Many of our biological instincts evolved when the sole goal of life was to survive. In tribal culture, where humanity existed for so long, the best way to ensure survival was to stick with the tribe. If you were ostracized your chance of surviving went down drastically. Naturally, we evolved an aversion to putting ourselves in situations where others might reject us and kick us out of the tribe. But times have changed. Few would argue today the sole purpose of life is reproduction. Organized human society affords us something new. A life that transcends basic survival. A life where meaning is created by what we do with our minds. A mind with boundless potential if only given the chance to explore. And this what causes Nietzsche to have so much disdain for man. Everyone is given this gift, redeemable only once, yet so few embark on this journey.

Short Term Pain For Long Term Gain

It is a journey not without hardship and not without sacrifice. Nobody is claiming finding the resolve to grow is easy, but it is the only choice we have. Almost anything worthwhile is worth fighting for. The alternative is a life of boredom and regret. When you look at life as a journey of improvement and exploration, struggle isn’t something to fear it is something to embrace. Failing after we’ve given our all is when we learn the most because we are given timely feedback about what we did wrong. If you learn from failure it really isn’t failure at all.  What is perceived as risky really isn’t that risky. If this journey is accepted and risks are taken, success and failure are both wins. It is with this knowledge that you realize the ultimate risk is to do nothing at all.

It is not just fear that arrests our individuality but universal forces that resist halfhearted momentary courage. The good news is that if you break the inertial forces that compel stillness, it becomes easier and easier to keep going. Nature is full of examples that support this. The energy required to lift a spaceship out of the atmosphere is greater than in the thousands of miles it travels to the moon their after. Static friction is greater than kinetic friction. Newton’s first law of motion says an object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion. These forces form the protective shield that keeps the sphere of the extraordinary smaller than the ordinary. But these forces are far from insurmountable and all Nietzsche is asking for is a little determination and little perseverance to pursue a life of uniqueness.

Perhaps this is a good thing that nature restricts the extraordinary. A meritocracy is built right in. But my frustration with humanity is that the circle of the extraordinary doesn’t need to be so small. The barrier to entry is far from insurmountable and the reward is more than worth the pain of admission. The first step is recognition that the only way to truly live is to board the train of self-discovery. The only way to fail is to do nothing. If you accept this, the willpower to take the first step is just around the bend.

Out With The Old In With The New

The resolve to be different does not get us out of the woods yet.  There is one other very important condition for sustainable growth. Painting your unique picture requires more than blithe commitment. Self-discovery entails the bravery to take an honest look at ourselves; and this usually not without considerable pain. Men are afraid of becoming completely honest with themselves because a look in the mirror might reveal a ghastly sight. This will be true for everybody. Self-improvement never ends but if you’ve never started then invariably there will be resistance to admitting change is necessary. But getting stronger almost always involves some short-term pain. The athlete slightly tears his muscles everyday and comes back stronger the next. But why are there so many more athletes than self-discoverers? Both involve in short term pain for long term gain. Perhaps it is because there is a greater risk in engaging in battle with your core identity than with your body, but there is also greater reward.

In order to grow, we must uncover the things we buried long ago in order to avoid dealing with them. Admitting our flaws is unquestionably uncomfortable. And will undoubtedly be avoided unless it is recognized that our only option is to board the train of self-discovery. If there is not this burning desire to change and a palpable sense that improvement is possible then our recognition of our flaws would merely cause us to wallow in self-pity. Absent of this desire to change we cover up and rationalize our troubles, letting them fester, eroding our effectiveness and happiness.

The Journey Forward

Resolving to change is unbelievably gratifying and opens up new dimensions of life over the long term. Nietzsche finds contemptible the man who prefers comfort in rationalizations to the man who finds the resolve to endure short-term pain for a chance at creative contribution and perhaps enlightenment.

Nietzsche says only the artist seeks to expose man as he really is. Artists have a penchant for creations that are able to identify our pain, inadequacies, and frustrations in concise visceral way that reeks of truth. But I find contemptible the artist who illuminates flaws with no move towards resolution. What Nietzsche does not say is that true artist is the man who accepts this pain and takes action to change. For these actions are the brushstrokes of a life that is a true work of art.

In conclusion, personal growth invariably involves a temporary but necessary pain. This should not cripple but inspire change. What irks Nietzsche and so many other philosophers is that so many are deterred by a small dose of pain from pursuing a lifelong journey of understanding of self, of pursuit of knowledge, of self improvement, and maybe some day enlightenment.

The most sustainable way to grow seems to be first, have a solid grasp of ideas intellectually. Ideas are cheap. And then focus a majority of your efforts on making these ideas a reality. This note is my quest to understand ideas intellectually. But the implementation is a much more turbulent journey.

..................................................................

I realized I never published this note that I wrote in March (2011) in response to 

a project that was inspired by Seth Godin’s 'What Matters Now'. The idea was to gather perspectives from 25 young scholars about the emerging trends they see changing the world over the next decade. I picked picked Engagement.

................................

I have news for you: The world’s biggest problem is probably not on your radar. It’s not disease, poverty or climate change.

The world’s biggest problem is that not enough people are working on the world’s biggest problems.

Human drive and ingenuity is the lever that moves the world, but the complexity of the challenges we face has grown, and we need a longer lever.

But increasing the number of people working on solving the world’s most important problems is no easy task. Even the most developed societies are pervaded by apathy and escapism.

I think escapism is our unconscious response to dissatisfaction with life in the status quo, when people are unaware of any options for improvement. This rampant disengagement in workplaces and educational institutions is characterized by two primary symptoms: 1) people doing work they don’t care about just to pay the bills or get a good grade and 2) hating Mondays because they live from weekend to weekend. The culprit is immersion in organizations that haven’t adapted to the 21st century, engendering learned helplessness by putting impressionable people in roles that systematically stamp out inspiration, creativity and passion. The urgency of solving disengagement is such that we cannot wait for incremental change. Rather than trying to improve old systems our best bet is to make something new that makes them obsolete.

The solution to disengagement lies in the cultivation of innovation, entrepreneurship and encouragement of entrepreneurial lifestyles. Entrepreneurs can create highly idiosyncratic, meaningful lives, by making an impact on problems that matter to them. Additionally, entrepreneurs aren’t dependent on bureaucratic approval, so new organizations can be erected quickly and thrive in any place where there is a big enough need.

Its been a crazy couple of weeks travelling around the world #MediciMasters , especially with the just ended tour of Latin America, and just got home in readiness to head out to Asia in a few days, only to find there's an interesting blog post kicking around the internets this week titled "why i quit my job to start a tech company". It follows the path to start-up success taken by a former wall streeter who, at age 25, decided to change his career after seeing the power mark zuckerberg wielded in a room full of media executives.

The blog post has been particularly popular with stanford and harvard MBAs, many of whom hope to follow a similar path. i agree that we need more capable people actually building companies that solve problems as you might have noticed in my earlier postings, but i'm troubled by what appears to be an obvious omission from the story.

Although i appreciate the post's sentiment, let's not overlook how much easier it is to embrace this type of advice ("be bold! take risks! follow your passions!") when you have savings from your private equity job to fall back on. The luxury of start-up capital is a very real factor in one's ability to pursue a dream.

There's a saying that it's easy to hit a home run when you're born on third base. Similarly, many of the struggles that crush budding entrepreneurs (like overwhelming debt and limited access to talent and partnerships) are greatly ameliorated by access to capital.

      (SWITCH: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard by Chip Heath & Dan Heath)

In a world that is becoming increasingly complex, it was a welcome beacon to read the title of Chip and Dan Heath’s new book: Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. With great anticipation I turned to the introduction, where the authors promised to teach me how to change things at the individual, organizational, and societal level.

The book’s premise is straightforward—successful change occurs when people change their behavior. A person’s behavior is driven by three factors: his logic and rationality (what the authors call the “Rider”), his emotions (the “Elephant”), and his environment (the “Path”). The best way to create change, say the authors, is to “Direct the Rider,” “Motivate the Elephant,” and “Shape the Path.”

Most of the book is divided into three sections, each exploring one of these principles. Although the introduction provides the logic behind the principles, I sometimes found it difficult to bring them together into a coherent whole. For example, I found the second principle of change, Motivating the Elephant, insightful, but felt the need to return to the first section on the importance of Directing the Rider so that I could get a better perspective on the dynamic relationship between the two principles. Once I understood where the Rider was taking the willing Elephant, I found that unless I also focused on the barriers in the environment—the Path—neither the Rider nor the Elephant would see the change happen. Is it any wonder that most change efforts fail to deliver their full value?

After having gained an understanding of the three principles of change and seeing that there were only a few pages left in the book, I thought I was going to read a concluding chapter that would tie the thesis into a neat knot. Instead, I found myself reviewing 11 common problems people face when driving for change with advice on how to overcome them. Although this last chapter provides several insightful suggestions, I was disturbed that the authors chose not to bring together what is a very creative and insightful perspective on change.

So what can a reader take away from Switch? First, the book presents a number of interesting stories that clearly demonstrate that successful change requires us to look for new behaviors. In addition, we are shown that if change is to succeed, logic, emotion, and the environment need to be properly balanced in order to get stakeholders to exhibit the right behavior. This, as the authors point out in countless stories, is true regardless of whether the change occurs in the public, private, or educational sector. The final takeaway, which is shared throughout the book, is the dynamic nature of change.

There are a few things I would have liked to have seen more of in the book. First, although the “Clinics” (short case study exercises) in each of the three sections were a great idea, they lacked the depth and breadth needed to make them truly memorable. I would also have liked the authors to provide more direction on how to use several of the techniques (such as Solution-Focused Therapy) when working through a change project. Last, it would have been helpful if the authors had developed a few practical tools or templates that could be used when undertaking a change project.

“They’re telling you questions, Asking me lies”—The Replacements

“Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.”—Henry Adams

With the most punishing economy since the Great Depression, and severe budget challenges at the federal level and in 48 states, now is a critical time for nonprofits seeking to protect the vulnerable and to promote a fairer, more just society to win people to their cause. Unfortunately, appeals to caring for the needy or increasing fairness are likely to backfire unless advocates are careful to acknowledge and avoid inflaming passions that stem from other powerful moral values.

Our attitudes on issues and situations are affected instantaneously by intuition and emotion, as Drew Weston in The Political Brain, Malcom Gladwell in Blink,and others have taught us. There is tremendous potential power in understanding such “intuitive primacy.” Indeed, putting our pre-rational selves to work may be the key to effective change, as Chip Heath and Dan Heath convincingly argue in their book Switch: How to Change When Change is Hard. InSwitch, they make the point that big changes can start with very small steps, provided that we can align people’s aspirations—speak to their emotions—and help direct them with simple, clear directions. Their framework for change is built on research from moral psychology and is framed around a metaphor posed by Jonathan Haidt, a professor at the University of Virginia. Haidt illustrates the primacy of intuition by describing our rational minds as a rider sitting astride an elephant. The rider may be able to control the elephant with reason for a brief while, but eventually the rider gets tired or paralyzed by too much analysis, and the elephant in the end is only going to move when it is ready, toward what its gut wants. The Heaths provide a persuasive theory of change: 1) Direct the Rider, 2) Motivate the Elephant, and 3) Shape the Path (set up the environment to make doing the right thing easier). Switch is a fantastic, inspiring book and should be read by anyone concerned with changing communities and organizations for the better.

The primacy of intuition and emotion can be so strong that it determines what people see as a fact. A recent article by Chris Mooney, “Rapture Ready: The Science of Self-Delusion,” provides an excellent overview of moral psychology. Mooney concludes: “You don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.” (emphasis added).

But which values? And how do you speak to people who hold values different from than the ones you are trying to advance?

Jonathan Haidt’s research into moral foundations can help direct our riders here. Research shows that while people are nearly incapable of seeking out evidence that might contradict their beliefs, they are wizards at finding evidence to justify their beliefs and actions. Haidt emphasizes that we use our reasoning powers primarily to justify decisions that appeal to us for emotional and gut reasons—“moral reasoning is for social doing”—and therefore cautions that it is nearly impossible to use reasoning to persuade people to believe something they don’t want to believe.

Further, since our social evolution has grown out of competition among tribes, Haidt postulates that the power of religion and morality may be viewed as an adaptation for binding large groups together: “Morality binds people together and then blinds them to arguments and appeals from outside of their group.”

In his forthcoming book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Haidt describes five moral foundations, based on years of research he and his colleagues have conducted into the moral preferences of over 126,000 people across multiple countries. These are: • Care/Harm: evolved from the human need to care for vulnerable children with longer development spans than other mammals. • Fairness/Cheating: evolved from the challenge of reaping the benefits of cooperation without being exploited. • Ingroup Loyalty/Betrayal: Stemming from the challenge of forming and sustaining coalitions, this foundation leads us to trust and reward “team players” and to punish, ostracize, or kill those who betray the group. • Authority/Subversion: grew from the challenge of creating mutually beneficial relationships within hierarchies—necessary as cultures and societies became more complex. • Purity/Degradation: enables people to attach sanctity to objects, like the human body, beyond what is merely rational. This is also thought to have come from the challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites, evolving into part of the “behavioral immune system,” and binding people across different tribal groups through shared beliefs about the sacred and profane.

Haidt’s research indicates that people at the liberal end of the spectrum value Care and Fairness much more than Loyalty, Authority, and Purity, while people in the middle and at the conservative end of the spectrum respond more to appeals to all five moral foundations, as shown in the table below (from a 2009 paper “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations”).

Haidt emphasizes that this dynamic exists across many very different countries and cultures.

In The Righteous Mind, Haidt observes that these dynamics give conservatives an advantage in the political and cultural sphere—they speak to all five moral foundations, while liberals primarily appeal to care and fairness as freedom from domination.

It can be tempting to discount opposition to appeals for social and economic justice as motivated by ignorance, fear, or even bad faith. Haidt cautions all of us instead to first assess whether opposition might be motivated by sincerely held but different moral beliefs, and to be humbler about our own values when trying to persuade others.

In my experience, the secular nonprofit sector is dominated by people who prioritize the Care/Harm and Fairness foundations much more than Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Nonprofit leaders already rely too much on appeals to reason, but even when we do speak to people’s emotions, we would do well to follow Haidt’s advice:  • Approach each issue by running through all five moral foundations.  • Don’t expect good factual arguments to change any minds on their own. • Prepare the emotional ground first; try to trigger positive intuitions before stating a point likely to trigger positive emotions.

The next time I am working on a Care or Fairness issue, for example, I hope I remember to try to enlist another foundation, too, such as Loyalty (e.g., “These are our people, our friends, and neighbors…”).

In this chapter of the book, i have laid bare the gaps in our knowledge of poverty, but we must go much further to fill those gaps. i use data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in eighteen countries to show that many of our assumptions about the poor and poverty are incorrect. I call for a “enduring understanding” and argue that we must “listen to poor people themselves and force ourselves to understand the logic of their choices.”

My achievement is two-fold. First, i present the behaviors of the poor with minimal interpretation. By contrast, previous characterizations of the poor have been used to critique social welfare programs, as in the case of Scott Beaulier and Bryan Caplan’s finding that the judgment errors described by behavioral economics are especially pronounced among the poor. Second, i challenge the argument against doing for the poor what they should do for themselves by suggesting that the poor lack the “mental space” to take a longer view of their lives. At first glance, this resembles Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” in which meeting a low-level need (such as shelter) frees one up to pursue a higher-level need (such as intimacy). But “mental space” may go further. As i write, “Perhaps [the] idea that there is a future is what makes the difference between the poor and the middle class.”

This insight becomes more powerful when placed within a larger framework that includes developmental psychology, which describes the stages through which people pass as they go through life. Psychology also tells us that people raised in unsupportive environments may be constrained in this development. Interestingly, the behaviors often observed among the poor—such as impulsiveness, passivity, and short-term thinking—are also associated with the early stages of children’s development. Harvard psychologist Robert Kegan echoes this  statement when he writes that at early stages of development the future can only be conceived of as the “present-that-hasn’t-happened-yet.” I offer countless examples of poor children who are stunted physically, medically, and even economically. Might they be stunted psychologically as well?

To answer this question without being dragged into a “sociological determinism”  that decrees the poor to be beyond help, we need not just a new theory, but also a new epistemology. Our current thinking on poverty is rooted in a deterministic view of the world. In this view, Cause X leads to Effect Y, and correlation between two variables implies a causal relationship in one direction or the other. I personally wrestle with this: Does improving education lead to economic growth, or does a growing economy drive improvements in education? Do poor people have more children, or does having more children make you poor? These questions are at the center of many policy debates between i've referred to as “supply demigods” and “demand demigods”—debates that largely miss the point and do little to reduce poverty.

To understand poverty, we need a more complex epistemology that allows for the interdependencies which correlation often implies. One interdependency that is central to a “patient understanding” of poverty is the relationship between a person, and his or her environment. In supportive environments, people tend to grow. The adverse environments of poverty, war, and disease, however, may stunt this growth. If we understand this, it opens up new opportunities to reduce poverty by creating the environments in which people thrive. To do otherwise would be both illogical and inhumane.

Back To The Future: A New School of Thought In Redressing The Global Development Challenges Of The 21st Century

.....................................

The T Model is a framework I made to describe how to most effectively approach learning, work, and non-linear career progression.

In the T Model you alternate between a broad, horizontal phase and a deep, vertical phase, (though it’s actually an upside-down T because starting with the horizontal phase is a must) . In the broad, horizontal phase the goal is to try as many things as possible, and in small doses to maximize variety. You want to continue experimenting until you find many things you are passionate about and also accumulate many reference frames to better categorize and make sense of new experiences and information.

Once you have a huge pool of things that excite you, look to switch to the vertical phase, where you will hone in on a few specific passions and combine them, to do something tangible. (This tangible thing should be something you can point to quickly and say, “I did this” and the word “project” could be considered loosely accurate).

Going through this cycle is very simple conceptually, but rarely executed. But if you look at most successful people they’ve usually followed a path similar to this. This is because in order to be really successful at something you need to be passionate, you need to be able to focus, and increasingly you need to be interdisciplinary. Success without passion exists, but those people are usually severely unhappy and prone to burn out.

Often completing this cycle even once sets off a positive feedback loop, marking the start of a lifetime of engaged pursuit and contribution. On completion of the first cycle an internal flame is lit, that once ignited is very difficult to put out. John Seely Brown former head of Xerox Parc describes this phenomena as such, “Very often just going deeply into one or two topics that you really care about lets you appreciate the awe of the world … once you learn to honor the mysteries of the world, you’re kind of always willing to probe things … you can actually be joyful about discovering something you didn’t know … and you can expect always to need to keep probing. And so that sets the stage for lifelong inquiry.”

Many people don’t complete the T cycle because they get stuck in one phase or the other. People who get stuck in the horizontal phases are people who are very creative and always have lots of little side projects going on, but they suffer from a lack of “big wins”, that provide the reputation and credibility that lead to greater opportunities and chances for financial sustainability— not to mention that gratification that comes from pulling off something big. People stuck in this mindset are resistant to focusing on a particular project because they can’t bear the possibility of turning down an interesting opportunity. They fear picking only one thing would put them in a box, vaporizing their multi-facted identity they associate so strongly with. The lives they lead are very unique, but by not reaping the rewards from alternating into cycles of focus, they strongly limit their ability to realize their potential.

Many people also jump into a focus phase prematurely, spending all their energy on something they aren’t passionate about. This is more dangerous than being stuck in the creative phase because the extrinsic reward will be there for focusing even if the activity is done without passion. This often fools people into believing they are headed in the right direction for themselves. But people who make this error frequently end up suffering from burn out, hitting midlife crises or working tirelessly to reach the top of their field only to be left wondering why they are so unfulfilled and whether all the sacrifice was really worth it.

There’s also a large sector of the population who isn’t in either the creative or focus phase and are resigned to getting by with whatever pays the bills. While the onus is on the individual to find their passion, trying to do so in our education system is like swimming upstream against a level 5 rapid. And most people just get swept away. (Even at the better public and private schools, you’re still swimming upstream, just against a lighter current).

If you can complete even one T cycle, the rewards will start rolling in. Executing a project you’re passionate about is rare, and separates you from a cacophony of wannabes. Everybody talks about things they want to do, but few people have the self-discipline and initiative to make projects come to life. This scarcity of executors, makes people pay close attention to you if you are one, and opens up a whole new set of opportunities unavailable before. Opportunities will start chasing you down instead of the other way around. When this happens the second T cycle has begun. You now have the chance to explore horizontally again, this time with more freedom and opportunity.

The exploration here is much richer. You’re a more developed person. You have access to more people. You have more financial freedom. You get flown places to speak and are invited to contribute to more interesting projects. You have more influence, and as a result, people listen to what you have say and want to support or join your cause. This more intensive exploratory phase should lead to a new point of focus, where you can again combine your rapidly growing pool of knowledge, experiences and passions to build something new, likely more ambitious than your last.

As you turn the corner towards your second focus project, true interdisciplinary thinking begins to emerge. You can combine your breadth of knowledge on many subjects with the depth of your previous focus, charting new territory from a variety of informed perspectives.

All in all, a cycle probably takes anywhere from 2 to 7 years, so you have the opportunity to pursue both learning and doing many times in your life. And the T cycles start linking up very naturally. When they do that they begin resembling something like a series of s curves— a natural evolutionary growth cycle with some intriguing implications (to be explored later). Strictly interpreting the analogy of the T implies alternating between stages of being 100% horizontal and 100% vertical. But it is probably not realistic nor optimal to be one phase 100% of the time. A good rule of thumb is to allocate 80% of your time to the designated phase and 20% of your time to the other phase, i.e. 80% Creative & 20% Focus or vice versa. This allocation will also give the T smoother curves if graphed, creating a more natural looking S curve.

This model can be used as framework for decision making and allocating priorities in almost any field of interest. I’ve shared this model with numerous friends the last few months and many have appreciated the insight and clarity it has produced.

Every few months, I get obsessed with the idea of happiness and planning for the future.  What do I want to do when I grow up?  Throughout my entire life, I've seen school as simply a means to an end.  Graduate from 2nd grade, move onto 3rd grade.  I would be one year closer to becoming a real adult, and one year closer to making real money running a real company and completely changing peoples lives

Now that I'm doing just that, my idea of progress has been turned onto its side.  I no longer live my days as means to an end.  A few years ago, I thought that selling a company for millions of dollars would be the ultimate dream.  But I've since realized that finding liquidity probably wouldn't make me happier.

I was having dinner with my partner-in-business Morgan this evening, and asked him how likely it was for us to be running AMPG Group and iPhilanthro 10+ years from now.  He suggested to me something among the lines of, "Most entrepreneurs go into business thinking they're going to build something huge.  You have to be naive to think that there isn't a chance that we'll end up selling."

My next thought to myself was "would I actually be happy being a serial entrepreneur?"  Investors continue to assume that I'll build numerous companies over the course my lifetime, and at one point, I did too.  But I'm sick and tired of thinking that everything I do has to lead to an ultimate outcome, and it's taken a toll on the way that I think about my own happiness.  Why does there have to be an end-goal when I find myself enjoying life day-by-day?

We continue to run AMPG and iPhilanthro as if there will be no ending.  Being conscious of this fact means that I can figure out a better, more fulfilling way to make myself happiness in the long-run.  In fact, my "ultimate" career goal is to build a lasting company that has no ending (and hopefully, that company happens to be the aforementioned).  Many organizations, companies, and empires have had extroadinary influence on the world, but very few have survived for more than a few hundred years.  Building a company that's built to last won't only satisfy my ego, but force me to find happiness in building a company where people look forward to coming to work everyday, without it riding on the hope of finding liquidity in its stock and while doing so, creating a lasting and meaningful impact in peoples lives across the world.

THE BLUE SWEATER: Bridging the Gap Between Rich and Poor in an Interconnected World by Jacqueline Novogratz

  If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there, the Cheshire Cat tells Alice when she asks for directions in Wonderland. But what if Alice had known exactly where she wanted to end up, and just didn’t know which road would get her there? That is the challenge that entrepreneurs with a social mission face every day.

In her autobiography, The Blue Sweater, Acumen Fund founder and CEO Jacqueline Novogratz engagingly captures one such mission in need of the right road. In her case, she hopes to use the power of markets to achieve social transformation, primarily through providing economic opportunity to the poor and marginalized. Through the course of the book she proves herself one of the increasing number of “ordinary” people who accomplish the extraordinary through sheer courage, fortitude, resilience, and the pursuit of a mission much larger than any one person could ever accomplish in a lifetime. And her story might also provide the missing piece for those struggling to change the world: her great willingness to listen to, and learn from, all those she comes across during her journey.

Novogratz’s journey begins as a new college graduate, when she joins Chase Manhattan Bank and flies around the world to review the bank’s loans. She loves banking, but as it turns out, she loves the idea of lending to the poor even more, and Chase is not about to do that—this is the 1980s, after all. So despite the personal validation, prestige, and security offered by such an institution, she resigns to accept a position at a nonprofit that uses the platform of the African Development Bank (ADB) to foster local organizations that promote economic development in West Africa.

With no ability to speak French or knowledge of the region, and a huge dose of naïveté, she lands in Africa—first in Kenya, then on trips throughout the region. We follow her as she is rejected by the African women leaders who disapprove of having a young American woman in a central position at the ADB, when it should have been one of them. We accompany her to Rwanda, where she works alongside Rwandan women leaders to set up a microfinance organization and struggles to get borrowers to take their responsibilities to repay seriously.

It is this section of the book that probably most endears us to the author. There is her downright funny depiction of her “too American” attempts to convert shy Rwandan women into forward, aggressive sales agents at a local bakery where she was consulting. And she clearly shows us how she herself was transformed by the process of seeking to transform others, despite her admission that “we were getting our feet wet and didn’t know exactly what we were doing.” (How many times have we ever felt that way?) She comes to understand that economic development and social change cannot be imposed from without. They must be sought and grasped by the individual pursuing opportunities for self-realization.

After her two-year sojourn in Africa, Novogratz returns to the United States for a stint with the World Bank in Washington, D.C., ending up back in Africa, this time Gambia. And here begins a tragic subplot, the massive waste of financial and human resources channeled by well meaning development agencies. Novogratz’s experiences show, governments too often derail the money intended to help the poor so that it ends up padding civil servants’ pockets instead. This part of the book is not a surprise, unfortunately. That’s because we have heard of—and many of us have witnessed—the outrageous corruption that occurs in the name of development.

The most gripping part of Novogratz’s story comes next—after she has gotten her MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business ( hollerrr. lol) and made her first official foray into philanthropy as a Rockefeller Foundation Warren Weaver fellow. She returns to Rwanda post-genocide, to the aftermath of the civil and ethnic war in which close to a million people lost their lives over a period of three months. Her efforts to discover for herself the fate of each of her Rwandan colleagues is simultaneously riveting, wrenching, and uplifting.

Novogratz’s creation of the Acumen Fund is a logical next path in her quest to apply business principles to social change: The venture capital fund invests in social entrepreneurs working to help the world’s poor. In this section she highlights the early years of the fund, its underlying principles, and her exposure to Asia, specifically to remarkable entrepreneurs who are my heroes, too: the late Dr. Govindappa Venkataswamy, founder of Aravind Eye Hospital; Satyan Mishra, founder of Drishtee; Amitabha Sadangi of IDE-India; Tasneem Siddiqui, founder of Saiban; and Roshaneh Zafar, founder of the Kashf Foundation.

And there the book ends, its readers left wondering what path this “ordinary” extraordinary woman will take next.

I believe underneath every art is an undiscovered science. And beneath that assertion I believe there is a more fundamental truth that the universe is an evolving set of patterns.

Most people see a chaotic reality of luck and fortune, filled with unknowable complexity and mystery. They move around the world unaware of what pushes and pulls them, or why they do things.

Furthermore, many people relish the uncertainty and think reality is too messy to possibly have any pattern or order to it. They take pleasure in people being unable to describe what they do, believing they are above any pattern or classification. As if to be described was to be devalued, crippling their identity, which stood tall on the grounds they were one of a kind, like a snowflake. They describe their understanding of reality as an intuitive knowing. But ironically intuition is yet another pattern unaware of the process of its own creation.   In today’s interconnected world where unmet challenges pose increasing global risks, there is danger in ignoring that intuitive competence is based on a pattern. By denying this truth, we hinder discovery and delay the progress that would result from dissemination. Denial causes stasis around current levels of performance because it is difficult to improve something you can’t define. But it can be even more damaging to the next generation because the honest path towards skill acquisition is concealed. For example, athletes frequently misattribute their triumph to their belief in god or a lucky charm, when their emphasis should be on their ability to maintain focus, develop supremely high self-confidence, and prepare through incredible work ethic. While it’s true that superstition can be an effective placebo, there is little room for progression unless the true source of empowerment is discovered, acknowledged, and honed. When we understand the pattern behind how self-confidence works we can learn how to increase its intensity, and control its activation with more precision than by activating it indirectly through something else. Even worse, until we figure out the pattern, it actually perpetuates superstitions regarding the causes of competence, because many assume that the beliefs and desires of the people at the top of a meritocratic pyramid must be right. So myths and superstitions get propagated, while the true causes of success like focus and hard work get devalued, because the winners couldn’t consciously articulate their importance.   In order to progress, we must escape this cycle by discovering why things really work. Once a pattern can be consciously articulated, it can leave the mind of a few and enter the minds of many, where it can be discussed, tested, and analyzed with much greater scrutiny. The pattern not only can replicate and evolve but it can be combined with other patterns. These patterns create interdependencies and feedback loops, and as they continue to intermingle systems begin to develop. Where others see indiscernible chaos and mystery, the pattern seeker discovers order and clarity, and can support the evolution of the pattern by communicating it in a language others can understand.   As a teenager I let my curiosity carry me to a diverse array of subjects such as cosmology, psychology and business. As I read more I noticed that concepts in one field could frequently be applied through analogy to understand another. Furthermore, I noticed myself often applying the same set of patterns to understand new phenomenon. I began to see the complexity of reality as the interaction of a comparatively small set of patterns. Intuitively I was building up a library of patterns that described something fundamental about how the world works. From a macro perspective some frequently repeating patterns were centralization vs. decentralization, exponential vs. linear progress, power laws, evolutionary vs. developmental processes, system incentives and partial perspectives that grew in completeness. At a more micro-human scale, some of the repeating patterns were us vs. them, emotional vs. logical decision-making, habits and limited will power.   These patterns stacked on one another in my head, creating a model of reality. Every subsequent interaction presented itself as an opportunity to parse the world through this model. When I couldn’t explain something and my model broke, it was an opportunity for growth. This systematic testing of assumptions and the iterative improvement of my model was itself a pattern used throughout the universe. Self-similarity was everywhere.   If I had to pick one pattern as the mother of discovery, it would be the act of asking questions. I believe that most people have roughly the same mental capacity, but the primary reason some people acquire more wisdom than others is that they ask more questions. I believe that if we graphed the number of questions people asked per day over their lifetime the differential in our abilities would be illuminated. Competence is explained by the pattern of repetition. Wisdom is the emergent property of a consistently inquisitive person.

                                           Our forebears struggled, toiled, fought, and sweated for generations to create a future better, wealthier, stronger than their own. The gifts they handed down — democracy, markets, justice, opportunity, reason, equality, liberty — are the fundamental institutions — the building blocks — of enduring, authentic prosperity.

So here's a tiny hypothesis I'd like you to consider: instead of making the most of them, or better yet, bettering them — we might be, each of us, squandering them like Lehman Bros at a three card monte convention. And perhaps in that choice lie the deepest roots of this Great Stagnation.

To make my case, consider a fable of two lifestyles:

The first is what I'll call, in shorthand (with profuse apologies to the fine folks of the Garden State) "Jersey McFiasco." Here's a quick sketch of a day in the life. First, coffee — but not just any coffee: Starbucks' latest, not-so-groundbreaking "innovation," a coffee actually larger than the average human stomach. Then, the all-important daily ritual: GTL. All topped off with a heaping dose of McConsumption — fast food, fast fashion, and endless partying.

The second lifestyle I'll call, for short, "OpenUnifiedGoal" (with reference to a handful of organizations that I think are radical innovators with the promise to reboot prosperity). Here's its sketch. First, a scan of the latest challenges laid down at the ground-breakingly insanely great OpenIDEO — and a think about which you should contribute to, because you'll build your skills, meet tons of interesting people, and hone your sense of purpose to a razor's edge. After discussing it after work with your pals, a browse of the disruptively challenging Common to see what next-gen ventures are being prototyped and incubated, which ones you're inspired by, which ones might be calling out for your skills and attention. Homework, if you're up to it? Perhaps working on that social business plan for revitalizing schools you reminded yourself to submit to Root Capital.

Right about now, you may be rolling your eyes and muttering: "Hey, genius. Number two? Sounds like sooo much fun, I can hardly wait to never, ever even think about doing it. You can pry my trenta from my tanned hands when McHell freezes over."

And that's the point. This Great Stagnation? It might not just be about greedy bankers, hollow politicians, and glad-handing spin-doctors. Instead, its roots might have a great deal to do with us — and the consumption and investment choices we make, every moment of every day. And it might just be that without fundamentally altering those self-evidently self-destructive choices — well, this is the no-future future.

What we live, I'd suggest, shapes not just what we will be — but what we believe yesterday has been. Jersey McFiasco says that the ultimate point of humanity's greatest achievements is... manic consumerism and a bright orange set of pecs. (After all, what are we to make of Rutgers University literally valuing Snooki more highly than Nobel-winning writer Toni Morrison?) If they could come back from the grave and see that, yesterday's revolutionaries might just aim their pitchforks at us. But OpenUnifiedGoal says: the point of humanity's greatest achievements? To change the world radically for the better — and to keep changing it — by doing awesome, inspiring, amazingly meaningful stuff that matters the most.

To be sure, I've caricatured two lifestyles to the extreme — and pitted them as adversaries. Sure, it's possible to guzzle down your trenta, watch some Jersey Shore, and then contribute a brilliant idea to OpenIDEO. But make no mistake — these two sets of activities are less what economists call complements to one another, than substitutes for one another: if you do both, 2+2 doesn't add up to 4, but probably...2. Because the hidden, relentless harm in the former detracts from the gain of the latter.

Hence, I'd gently suggest, the rate at which a society invests in what I've crudely, clumsily caricatured with OpenUnifiedGoal — and stops malinvesting in a way of life I've impertinently caricatured with Jersey McFiasco — can shape and mold a people's capacity to redraw the boundaries of human accomplishment, to seed, nurture, grow, and harvest prosperity — to, ultimately, create the future.

Yes, really. You have the power to change the world (and you've always had it). The sum total of human prosperity as consumerism and mass-made "product," mega-muscles and fake boobs? Perhaps they're illusions you're sold — and perhaps you're sold them so you never use it.

In your untapped potential lies the power to create the future. But first you have to choose the future. So here's my challenge to you. Look at yourself, for a moment, through history's unblinking eyes. All those building blocks our forebears fought for: liberty, reason, justice, democracy and the rest. Be honest: are you (really) making the most of them, sucking the marrow from them — and maybe, just maybe, even bettering them? Or are you, like too many of us, too much of the time, squandering them, frittering them away, taking them glibly for granted?

We are not mute victims of history — thanks to those who came before us, we have the power to choose prosperity.

Hence, my suggestion. Use it. Today's most radical, revolutionary act? Not protesting or marching, letter-writing or campaigning. But giving the tired, toxic status quo the thumbs down — and choosing, instead, a disruptively meaningful path for your life. Every second of every day of it.

Innovation: it's the ultimate source of advantage, the undisputed heavyweight champion of the economic ring. Innovation is what every organization should be ruthlessly pursuing, right? Wrong. I'd like to advance a hypothesis: fabulousness is the new innovation. Let's face it. "Innovation" feels like a relic of the industrial era. And it just might be the case that instead of chasing innovation, we should be innovating innovation — that innovation needs innovation. Why? When we examine the economics of innovation, three reasons emerge.

Innovation relies on obsolescence. Innovation was a concept pioneered by the great Joseph Schumpeter. And to subscribe to it requires us to accept his theory of creative destruction.Gales of innovation make yesterday's goods and services obsolete. Yet, that, in turn, means that the price of innovation is recession and depression. The business cycle might never be vanquished — but it is getting more vicious with every decade. In an interdependent world, obsolescence is what's obsolete.

Innovation dries up our seedcorn. Innovation in its purest Schumpeterian sense is undertaken by entrepreneurs. And so today, we've got an economy where everything's for sale. Yet, little fundamentally new is being created. Businesses focus obsessively on the entrepreneurial aspects of commerce: we are focused still on selling the same old toxic, industrial era junk in slightly better ways. Yet, the challenge of the 21st century isn't entrepreneurial as much as it is creative: learning to create fundamentally better stuff in the first place.

Innovation often isn't. Innovation means, naively, what is commercially novel. Yet, as the financial crisis proves, what is "innovative" is often value destructive and socially harmful. Financial "innovation" turned out to be unnovative: it has destroyed trillions in value - here are some staggering estimates from the IMF. It's time to ask: have the costs of innovation exceeded the benefits?