Captain Obvious

I love Steve Jobs’ advice:

“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

How do you argue with that? Well, even though down deep in many hearts they aspire to this, the odds for change on so many fronts today seem insurmountable. How can one person truly change anything anymore? Why should anyone “stick their neck out” and try … you are more than likely to get it cut off or at least whacked.

I love stories about people who do change things. I think Malala Yousafzai is truly inspiring … yet who would have thought the world would respond so well to her? She did what she did because she stayed true to herself and just persevered.

Perhaps we need to change perspectives. Our most likely impact is not this transformative. Maybe we should take the perspective of the girl on the beach throwing starfish back into the water. People come by and tell her that she is wasting her time, what she’s doing doesn’t matter.

I like her reply as she threw yet another back into the surf: “It mattered to this one!”

I can only hope we have this perspective. In any event, it works for me. Several people have read and shared their perspective on my blog posts, which I enjoy seeing, and I’ve had some nice responses to the book I published last year, “It’s the Thermostat, Stupid.” Things are looking up …

I remember the first time I heard the phrase “superficially appealing notion.” It struck a chord with me that some ideas are so intuitively appealing that we jump to the end without working out the details. Yet, we all know the Devil is in the details, don’t we?

“Hope and Change” – great idea, right? “9-9-9” – the centerpiece plan for a presidential hopeful. “It’s the Economy Stupid!” “Freedom from Foreign Oil.” “A chicken in every pot.” “Universal health care.” The list goes on. The devil is always in the details.

There are lots of people with great ideas, but making them work in practice is quite another thing. Couple this with today’s news cycle that “does not do complex well” and you get a sound bite styled presentation. But, where is the critical thinking about how to make them work. No one seems to want to do the hard work of making ideas work. Or, if they don’t work, figuring out why and learning a bit.

There is true beauty in thought when it can be reduced to crisp, simple ideas. I love the words in the Old Testament book of Micah, Chapter 6 verse 8 “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” That is profoundly helpful suggestion and a lifelong quest for me.

Einstein is known of course for saying many important things, but I especially like these two:

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious, and wrong.”

Can we probe today’s superficially appealing notions to see if they have broken either of Einstein’s suggestions here? Can we ask the tougher questions about the details? Or, are we afraid we will be criticized as flat earthers, DOUGs (Dumb Old Utility Guys), etc.

I really want someone to tell me how we can have a hydrogen economy when hydrogen doesn’t naturally exist anywhere we live? I want to understand how burning natural gas in a fuel cell somehow is carbon neutral … where did the carbon go in the natural gas? I want to know why burning wood is carbon neutral when it happens in seconds and it takes years to grow a tree?

I am feeling a lot like Sigourney Weaver in the movie Aliens when she is confronted by a review panel as to why she destroyed the space ship. She responds with “Did IQ’s drop sharply while I was away?!”
Perhaps they have Sigourney … perhaps they have.

The New York Times still has the moniker: All the news that’s fit to print. Yet, over time, the type of news and the reaction to it in comments tends to align more with an editorial bent than just evenhandedly covering the news in general. Take the recent news about Australia’s vote on carbon taxes. This major no vote should have gotten a lot of media attention over the past few days… but it hasn’t at all. So, the new moniker seems to be “All the news that fits my point of view.”

Of course, we have had bigger stories that dominate the media right now. The commercial jet liner that was lost and the escalating tensions in the Middle East. I have been wondering when the big news about Australia’s decision to kill a carbon tax was going to get more attention.

It was really interesting to see just how differently the NewYork Times and the Wall Street Journal were in reporting the recent turnabout in environmental policy in Australia. Take a look at each news article and then take a close look at the comments to them. It is hard to reconcile them as a commentary for the United States. Views could hardly be more different.

Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/australia-repeals-carbon-tax-1405560964

New York Times:

So, here we are. These are tough questions and we really do need to move past rock throwing. Do you see any sense of dialogue? Can you hear any humility in the tone? Not hardly.

I would expect the news agencies to publish all the news that’s fit to be published … nothing less and nothing more. Apparently, it is all the news that’s going to fit with getting my readership up.

 

I truly wonder whether we think critically about anything anymore. All we hear are sound bites and quips to justify a position … stake-out ground … and establish a stand. Sometimes I think we’ve become so totally self-absorbed in our own personal point of view because of the plethora of media that allows us to easily find others who agree with us. There’s a TV channel for every perspective. Overlay on that social media available to validate almost any point of view no matter how absurd. We simply filter out those who disagree with us, dismissing them as wrong, and gleefully immerse ourselves with those of like mind.

This is simply not helpful. We need to lower the amplitude, walk just a bit more humbly, and seek dialogue over dispute for the wellbeing of society. Perhaps we should consider our mutual journey here as an opportunity to work together rather than the kangaroo court all communication seems to have become.

It is ironic that we are all trying to be helpful and yet see such violent attacks on each other. The Sunday morning news shows are demonstrations of this incivility. Where is the dialogue? Where is the synthesis of truly innovative answers? No one listens … everyone labels and then decides who they will listen to based upon their label. We in fact do judge the book by the cover. We have no tolerance for different points of view. We are all waiting in ambush, and that is why the news cycle is so contentious. They know what to feed us.

So, I came up with a new label that highlights the silliness of where we are: “Convenient Myths.” This is obviously a play on words referencing Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” My point is that his statement is in fact a myth, and a convenient one at that. It is not a fact … it is closer to an ideology than anything else … an idea that takes on a life of its own and becomes more than a story. Sure there is truth in what he has been saying. But, there are also inaccuracies.

How do you separate what you believe to be truth from myth? We think of myth as stories and legends of potentially fictitious characters who say and do things we think are exemplary and emblematic. Some of these myths are so central to what we value as Americans that we might also say we believe in this or that and use these stories to recount our reasons why. But, I suggest we should think critically about the difference between saying something is true vs. saying we believe in it.

Consider the recent issue of Time Magazine where the cover announces: Eat Butter, which flies in the face of the long-held belief that eating fat was bad for us. If you have not yet read it, you really must. For decades we accepted the myth that butter and fats were bad for us. When you read the article, you will see that the primary research neglected cultures having very high amounts of animal fats and butter in their diets (France and Germany) because the data didn’t fit the conclusion the author had wanted to reach. Another recent admission from the doctor who had insisted gluten was a bad actor has also rescinded his position.

Our culture has a conversational paradox when it calls some things myths yet expresses belief in principles we seem so sure are true. We say we believe in them as if it was pure measurable cause-effect fact-based logic. If I were to say we have a democratic myth in the US you would probably recoil. Yet, if I say we believe in democracy, few if any would argue. I think we would also all say that we find many problems with our democracy, yet we essentially still believe in it.

But, think about how different it sounds to say that global warming is a myth vs. saying you believe in global warming.

Some myths are extremely useful and helpful. Some can limit human potential and certainly outcomes. Myths fall into broad categories: fables, charms, etc. Santa Claus belongs to the fable category, rabbit’s feet to the charm category. Fables often have helpful underlying truths, which is why the newspaper article on whether Santa Clause was true drew such widespread approval (i.e., “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”). Lucky charms are everywhere … you see batters go through rituals and hear of seemingly odd behaviors that can include some truly peculiar things.

So, as opposed to Al Gore’s expression of “An Inconvenient Truth,” which presumes we really know for sure what is going on in the environment, perhaps it is more helpful to express his ideas as what he believes is good for humanity, directionally correct, and economically viable. We all have a lot to learn from each other. But, when we decide we truly know the answer, we are certainly less curious about what we might really not know in the first place.

My next blogs will focus specifically at the critical relationship between energy companies and their regulatory and legislative bodies. Following the way we described education in early childhood, I will present a model for how we can Reload the Regulatory Relationship (the new 3 R’s in my opinion).

But for now, let me close with my son’s favorite soliloquy from the Wizard in the play Wicked about what we say we consider as truth according to what we call history:

“Where I come from, we believe all sorts of things that aren’t true. We call it history.
A man’s called a traitor or liberator. A rich man’s a thief or philanthropist. Is one a crusader
or ruthless invader? It’s all in which label is able to persist. There are precious few at ease
with moral ambiguities, so we act as though they don’t exist.”

That seems to say it all these days. Why should I work at possibly synthesizing your ideas and mine to reach a deeper understanding and a better solution? It is much easier to nit pick your ideas by trying to find exceptions or inconsistencies.

Our marathon trip across Italy, France, and England exposed us to the way the news is presented in Europe. The media seemed much more civilized. Multiple points of view were expressed and people are allowed to finish their sentences. The moderator never pounced on them. It seems that folks are really interested in big ideas and want to move the intellectual ball down the field toward the goal line.

The profound influence of the Renaissance also really hit me. Two individuals we all know made such great strides in Italy: Michelangelo and De Vinci. For the first time, marble statues seemed have life. The Pieta was breathtaking.

As the “local expert” tour guide showed us the towering statue of David, she commented that the block of marble had been rejected by all the other sculptures of the day since it had obvious “flaws” in it. Michelangelo could see past what others had deemed flaws to believe it would produce a depth of character … essentially looking like the veins of a real person. As you look at it closely, it certainly does.

And, I criticized the statue privately to our tour guide indicating that since David was a Jewish boy he certainly would have been circumcised and the statue was not. She immediately became defensive that I had criticized her national hero.

So, here we are … can we really have a conversation about anything important anymore??

Just sayin …