Captain Obvious

There are times when I truly wonder whether we really believe you can incentivize creativity. I hear of adult education classes on subjects like creative thinking and innovation implying it can be taught like math and science. I have even run into “ideation meetings” where the presumption is that if you put enough intelligent people in a room and facilitate a discussion about a problem, a creative solution will emerge. Frankly, I call these meetings group gropes. Creativity is more like art than science … and most people simply can’t draw.

Plus, having been in all too many of these meetings, let me remind everyone that the process of using consensus is conditioned into modern minds and will almost certainly result in the dismissal of truly creative ideas because the group simply “can’t see beyond their own perceptional difficulties.” 

Then, you run into people who think that if you present enough puzzle challenges to people they will “think outside the box.” I applaud the idea of demonstrating that most people are trapped in their thinking and have been conditioned to “color within the lines of a picture.”  But the critical thinking skill is still not going to emerge in most cases.  Most people just don’t get it.

The culmination of some of these concepts can best be summarized by the joke economists love to tell about a bus full of them that veers off the road and is heading down into a deep ravine to their certain death. Despite all this the economists are happily cheering because they believe such an intense need will certainly result in someone, or something emerging as a solution to rescue them.

So, what is my point in this blog? Let’s take Elon Musk … a brilliant person who happens to be a rare breed of innovator. Not only can he enunciate the creative idea, but he can also bring capital and people together to solve the problem. He could have simply stopped with the EV but went on to redefine rockets into space. Not all his ideas are necessarily workable immediately, but he is also not done yet. Give him time. Let him work his magic.  Don’t expect him to be popular.

Steve Jobs was another who proved the point that along with genius comes failures. This is all a part of innovation. Finding why things don’t work is sometimes more valuable than success. See Post It Notes for example … a glue that wouldn’t stick.

Our modern attitudes about success trick us into thinking the process of innovation is just like a production model, implying you just push for speed and use incentives to get people to pull together. No, you stop and consider what you have learned that didn’t work and then move forward trying different ideas.
We seem to believe we have already found the right ideas and all we need is to push harder. No, we need to step back from the situation and listen to the few people who truly are critical thinkers. Most of them are not raising their hands in the air to gain attention, so they just sit on the sidelines.

Why? Because most people today are more interested in shooting them down, rather than listening and working together to make things work. Why risk your inner peace trying to help the current band of ideologues and their fantasies?

Engineers are trained to be especially careful defining the problem we are asked to solve. In all too many cases, we have to dig deeper to see what lies behind that problem that may be the root cause, rather than to plough ahead chasing symptoms. That is where we are today. We are chasing symptoms and then voting on a batch of bad ideas thinking we have picked a winner. Albert Einstein said it best:

“It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”

An article in the New York Times offers a wonderful, if not chilling, review of the war in Ukraine using drones.  Here is the link: https://tinyurl.com/NY-Times-Drone-Warfare

The military approach to conflict and outright war has changed irrevocably, and much faster than the underlying questions in ethics and moral hazards have been asked and answered.  Plus, we have been naive to assume our adversaries will play by the same rules we use.  It is ironic that we Americans think this way given it was our renegade ragtag army using “jungle warfare” that defeated the British.

We used to think of drone warfare as high altitude unmanned vehicles dropping hellfire missiles.  The movie I suggest you watch is Eye in the Sky.  At first, it would appear to be just another movie about our battle with terrorists … but I see it is a much bigger set of questions it raises. Take a look for yourself and decide: Click here to view the trailer.

As in all of life today, things are complicated. Are we OK with targeted assassinations as a standard part of a mission?  Are we ready to use autonomous drones with facial recognition to do that?  Perhaps more importantly, will our enemies do this?  And, if so, can we detect and block those attempts?

We all think of secret service agents protecting key people in dark glasses with earbuds communicating with surveillance and control centers.  Why do we think this is enough today?  Haven’t we learned anything from the Chinese viruses … we are all in the cross hairs of nefarious agents.  It wouldn’t take much to poison us all using our water supplies.

Modern movies about existential threats focus on alien invasions, while we assume our aliens here on this planet are seeking asylum.  Take a fresh look at the Middle East and tell me how we are going to bring about peace on earth.  Do we really think hostage releases of 30 Hamas combatants for each Israeli citizen sends the message that either side should seek peace?  Is this going to heal the wounds and millennia of hate?

Can we just stop and work through some basic questions?  Are we the savior of the world or are we mostly interested in the wellbeing of our country?   I hear Trump wants an “Iron Dome” like that of Israel.  That assumes we are at risk with the ICBM weapon.  The movie Top Gun Maverick seems to be prescient: Are we going to fund conventional warfare when drones may be better.

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU

If we are not ready to face these questions and act it will be too late since our adversaries are eagerly seeking this type of capability … and may soon have it.

It is nice to see some sanity finally emerging in the rhetoric and public posturing of major players in the energy industry, away from alarmism and grandstanding.  Pundits in the energy business are now pointing out that companies are shifting to “playing the long game” in their energy strategies.  They have been stung by greenwashing, where they tried to pretend they were doing more than they actually were. They have shifted their focus to long-term goals and strategies rather than immediate or short-term gains, prioritizing sustainable success over quick wins. 

Here’s a more detailed explanation of shifting to the long game: It involves thinking ahead and making decisions that will benefit you in the future, even if it means sacrificing short-term gains.  It’s about building a strong foundation for future success through consistent effort and strategic planning. It requires patience and persistence because the rewards of playing the long game may not be immediate. 

If you study the literature on the long game, you will see a repeated emphasis on education and building relationships.  The implication is that perhaps we really don’t know all we should or even must know to reflect on a balanced perspective … humbly admitting we don’t know what we don’t know.

Ah … humility … an essential ingredient in the long game … and perhaps the key attribute that must be present to execute the long game well.  And relationships … especially with those who possibly even hate you right now and are out to get you.  So, instead of doubling down and thinking that destroying them is the ultimate win, perhaps there is room for what all major religions of the world point to as the answer: to love one another.

Our egos, the opposite of humility, point to power and revenge as rightful answers to what we perceive is wrong with the world.  We want to control the uncontrollable rather than learn to live with natural constraints and sustainability in the world.  We are on an extractive mad dash to rape the planet thinking the long game is solar and wind plus an EV in every garage.  What lunacy!

Let’s all move to the middle where we once again question everything and rethink everything that truly matters.  Our politicians and media are not doing us any favors when they incite anything contrary to humility in and love for one another.

Micah 6:8 sums it up nicely: What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.

What happens when a “deal term” is non-negotiable?  Most will naturally insist that is a deal killer. Negotiation requires give and take … seeking some middle ground.  Therefore, Ukraine’s insistence on being part of NATO should have been recognized long ago as a deal killer.  Plus, insisting on terms like these sours even the beginnings of any potential negotiation.  

This whole fiasco was brought to us by Ukraine’s interest in joining NATO.  If they had not committed that sin, this would have never escalated into the war it is today.  Zelenskyy’s real intent was clear—he would not agree to peace unless security guarantees were in place, implying that NATO must accept Ukraine.

If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. would be bound by NATO’s collective defense agreement—an attack on one is an attack on all.

In 1962, the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba to counter the US’s missile lead and to protect Cuba from the US. This led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tense confrontation between the US and the USSR that some feared would start World War III.  Ukraine joining NATO is the equivalent of placing that kind of weaponry on the Russian border, and they reacted like the US did under the Kennedy Administration where negotiations with Nikita Khrushchev achieved compromise and peace.  Which is precisely what the Trump Administration is trying to do through diplomacy. 

Most citizens of Ukraine despise Russia but, most of the eastern cities of Ukraine would rather be part of Russia. If these facts were faced early on, there might have been a chance to negotiate … but that opportunity was lost.

So, what you witnessed was a setup. Trump and JD Vance knew that the only way to achieve peace was to strategically align, at least on the surface, with Russia. Why? Because Russia would never sign a peace treaty if Ukraine were admitted into NATO.

Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump all knew this. Zelenskyy, thinking he had Democratic support, believed he could make this bold move on live television. But Trump and Vance saw right through it and outmaneuvered him.

Zelensky has no cards to play, and Trump called his bluff.  He must give up this war while he has a chance of negotiating a good agreement.

Normally, these card games are played behind closed doors, and the results are cosmetically presented to the public.  It is rare indeed to have the game played in plain sight on national TV.  A tribute to the current administration’s commitment to transparency and truth.

We’d be a stronger country if we came together in support of what the President is trying to do and not try to tear him down at his every move.  He usually knows more than his opponent and he is the best negotiator we will get to serve as our president.   

You may not like the game, but the winner of this hand was clearly Trump and Vance.  I hope you can see that.  Trump just avoided World War III.

Sadly, all too many are blinded by their hate for his personality and party affiliation.  He wasn’t voted in for his decorum.  The majority of Americans, and the vast majority of those who are not party loyalists, voted him in for change.  It is too early to know if he will deliver.  Time will tell.

 

A recent Wall Street Journal article on how students are using AI to cheat on homework and tests indicates we are in a rapid transition where our entire educational system is being hijacked by technology.  AI is permitting students to defeat the traditional learning process and lowering the level of difficulty and the intellectual content of coursework.  This of course leads to a general decline in reasoning, and worse yet, the belief that AI provides reliable truths.

Take a careful look: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-ai-cheating-students-97075d3c?st=CD2dHb&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I have personally noticed that clerks in retail stores can’t make change if you give them cash, and the interest in and ability to handle demanding subjects like math and science are on a continued decline, plus our country’s scores are already low compared to others.  We were doing poorly already, and now the widespread free availability of AI is going to further degrade the learning process.

Perhaps more worrying is that we will eventually have too many who can’t function in their jobs when their electronic support systems fail.  It will be as if we were all robots, and someone turned off our power supplies. This is already true if the computers in our retail establishments go offline … the commerce system grinds to a halt.

How do we think of education in this modern context.  We saw the elimination of cursive which now makes it impossible for those students to sign their name … they must print it. I have been told by so many of our utility clients that entry-level employees are less prepared to enter the workforce than their predecessors, and they must hold remedial classes on basic skills. 

Couple this with the T Ball generational attitudes that everyone gets a trophy and that grades are classist, racist, and elitist … you get a toxic cocktail on life skill-preparation.  Fortunately, we now seem to be in a correction phase of the idea that anyone who identifies with a profession should have the right to be one.  No, it is not classist or racist that I am not a pilot … I haven’t gone through the training, and I am not capable and certainly not qualified to be a pilot.

I have heard investigations are underway into the FAA’s DEI hiring practices where it is suspected minority candidates were given answers to tests to ensure diversity quotas were met.  Even Bill Gates, a long-time advocate of DEI initiatives, has declared it has gone too far.  It’s time for the pendulum to swing back to a more balanced state and for people to not just expect but to demand high performance and excellence, and that can’t be the product of software the person uses … it has to be based upon personal competencies.

You should try this and compare it to what you used to have to do to solve equations: https://www.wolframalpha.com/  One could say this can teach you how to solve problems. But, it can also make you lazy to the point you can’t solve problems without this software.

And, finally, take a look at this WSJ article recommending that we stop using in person teaching altogether plus illustrating how Chicago’s teachers negotiated to get pay raises with no relationship to their teaching successes:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/make-america-smart-again-technology-ai-students-education-schools-policy-5ffcc497?st=8TS5ac&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Beam me up Scotty … there definitely is no intelligent sign of life here …