Heroes or Ordinary People - You Pick!

I read / watched a few awards ceremonies and definitely felt humbled learning about the work that others did in film, music, art, technology, and for society. Each awardee had major accomplishments and deserved praise. It seemed like folks were applauded the most for chasing their dreams and believing in possibility. I appreciate that viewpoint and harbor it too, with some bounds.

But, what about the folks who make sacrifices to make others dreams possible? My mom and dad for example - they gave up their dreams in childhood and teenage-hood to help their family. One can argue if that was the "right decision" or the "most optimal choice" - but all that aside, its what they did. I came as a result of those choices and am happy that I exist :)

I do not mean to indicate that those who achieve success don't make sacrifices - yes they definitely do! But all "visionaries" are successful because of a team. And...not all of them are great to be around on a daily basis since its always about them :)

I will not mention any names here...a visionary I'm thinking of did not show appreciation in everyday interactions. It's weird that the whole world now looks at this person as a role model, and I had alternate experiences. In fact, I found this person to be a major jerk and one of the worst people I've ever met! Incredibly narcissistic, arrogant, etc. This person only seemed to "care" if you agreed completely with his/her world view. In fact, this individual had a reputation for it - and was known to only help others who helped him/her. Everyone else was discarded like trash. The funny thing is I was warned about this by many others, including those closest to this person, and then was "shocked" when I experienced the same behavior. Now this individual is publicly seen as a hero. I scratch my head a bit when I think about it.

From what I hear, this person changed dramatically when facing an incredible life challenge and acknowledged mistakes from the past. I appreciate that - I changed a lot too when dealing with/recovering from a major life challenge in my late teenage years. I made many mistakes in interactions with the individual as well, and have learned from the experience. I still have some unresolved anger, hurt and sadness from interactions with this person, but am practicing forgiveness and compassion.

All this aside, I would like to take a minute to thank my team - everyone who has entered my life and helped me grow. Some of you are still in my life, some of you aren't. I enjoyed being around some of you and hated being around some of you (and still hate some of you) - but all of you have been teachers. In fact those of you I hate the most have taught me the most about myself (what I value, what I don't value, who I want to be...my shoulds, etc). I have grown from my interaction with you. I am learning to love all of myself, the good, the bad and the ugly. I am grateful.

Difficult Conversations

I started to read a book called "Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most" and am experiencing "a-ha" moments every two paragraphs! It's seriously amazing. I recommend this book strongly to everyone. It's opening up my eyes to how my limited knowledge set and associated interpretations, assumptions, and meanings influence difficult conversations and my methods for handling said conversations.

I'm currently applying the technique of documenting my implicit rules/shoulds. This will help me understand my own story, and be a stepping stone towards asking others for their "shoulds" so I can see the differences in the rule sets AND embrace both stories.

My "shoulds":
* You should always see the good in people.
* You should always show appreciation to others no matter what.
* You should always offer to help.
* You should always point out the good / what worked.
* You should limit criticism to 1 - 3 points.
* You should always pay your bills.
* You should invest in purchasing assets that appreciate (gold, "real estate", etc.)
* You should spend little money on luxury goods.
* <probably more things>

Just this exercise is shedding light on how I perceive certain actions as "wrong" and "disrespectful." The authors also mention that difficult conversations are less about the factual aspects about being right and more about the emotions around it...there's a great example about a parent telling their teenager "don't smoke" - the conversation is less about the parent's being right and more about how the parent and the teenager feel about the issue, what the teenager should do, and the parent's role in the process. The parent is scared and sad at imagining potential consequences and feels powerless; the daughter needs to feel independent, break out of a good girl mold and has ambivalence about doing something that makes her feel good and frightens her.

Yay I've already learned so much, and there's so much more to read and learn!

Metacognition

EXPLAINS EVERYTHING --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition

...and is probably why I do yoga...lol I tend to get lost in my head thinking about the process of thinking (questions like - how do I listen, or how do I see, how can I improve these processes, etc)...and the process others use to think...and how I can route things to an optimal place given desired outcomes.

Metacognition feels like a good thing cause it helps me improve learning processes and learn more, except when it goes to an anxiety extreme, at which point I force myself to listen to my breath and do a pose :)

However, I wonder if poor metacognition (the arrogant, ignorant, immature phenomenon) is inadvertently "rewarded" in large structures due to said individuals taking more action...It takes a huge lack of self awareness to assume competency in certain areas (e.g., really bad singers who audition for american idol and genuinely believe they are good) and as one builds more "meta cognition" one realizes "I am not that good at X but can get better at X by doing Y."

It takes time to build the knowledge and come to the realization, but perhaps the time spent thinking prevents one from taking action? Like that idiot at the office who can barely spell his name and never seems to think (I'm intentionally saying his) but asks for the promotion repeatedly till he gets it cause "he deserves it" even though he provides no value whatsoever. Seriously, you could fire him tomorrow and feel no real impact. I'm sure everyone knows at least one of these :) But he takes action repeatedly and eventually receives the opportunity.

I have various issues with the "take action" mentality - often feel like a lot of problems could be prevented if people thought more and did less - but have been figuring out how to balance taking action with thinking time. Sometimes being more action oriented seems better, sometimes it feels stupider and pointless, especially if you are taking an action in a stupid direction (yes there is a stupid path). Eh. I guess its a constant balancing process :)

I hate rules.

I signed up for an ethics and the information society class during grad school. I'm really happy I had the opportunity to take the class since it has become my reference point for understanding different perspectives and associated choices...The weird thing is "perspective balancing" feels like a new "thing" to worry about. Not sure if this is a new mark of adulthood, increased responsibility, changes in my mentality, symptom of the environment, or all three! 

I'm not sure of where I fall on the moral relativism / universality spectrum. It seems like there is a core set of principles that apply regardless of one's cultural upbringing (i.e., do not kill other humans), but even those principles have exceptions. Anything on top of that seems open to debate...I've seen too many cases where five intelligent people hear the same facts and walk away with differing interpretations and conclusions. There's some sort of sub-conscious filter we each apply based on our "world view."

This is where team/group dynamics seem to get very interesting - since everyone at the table brings their world view, and it almost becomes a food fight between differing perspectives. I admit I argue my opinions as voraciously as anyone else! The irony is that neither perspective seems to be any more right than another - but to make the "best decision" the team seems to lean towards a more common viewpoint. Majority rules. This is fine, albeit frustrating when one is in the minority camp. 

The part that is annoying is the argument tends to go down the path of "which side has more proof" - when it seems like either side can be argued just as well with just as many supporting facts, and at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference on importance weights applied to facts. As illustrated in the 9/11 report, erasing a minority viewpoint can lead to an intelligence failure - i.e., the majority is not always right. This is why minority opinions are so important. This is why we have a democracy. This is why our society adopts minority viewpoints over time and changes.

These failures could be prevented if people would own up to "this is my preference" rather than saying "this is right" so both sides are heard. My preference is to see the good in others. I am happier this way. Is it right or wrong - I don't know! Probably sometimes right and sometimes wrong depending on the evaluation mechanism. But I know that is my preference. For this reason, if the team wants to see that there's a spook in every corner, I will learn to *reluctantly* go with that viewpoint if there's no significant harm to a population. Pick your battles :) This is a new practice, and I will mess up, but can learn to do it!

I remember learning about deontological ethics (the "rules" types; duty first, etc.) and teleological ethics (ends justify the means) among different ethical viewpoints. I've encountered folks who exercise each of those perspectives more frequently. I guess I'm a hybrid of the two - so always balancing it all on some sort of scale that gets re-vectored. 

The interesting thing is I find it easier to understand teleological arguments - profitability is our motive and doing x will lead to more profit - and seem to not experience as much conflict with folks who apply that lens more frequently because it's clearer to me. I understand the outcomes they seek and can find a path towards said outcomes. I am not willing to "go as far" from a means perspective - and it can be frustrating when others employ means that come into conflict with things I'm trying to do that I think are morally better - but whatever it makes sense :)

I get confused when I deal with rules types...cause well very little seems absolute to me. It makes me angry when I hear "this is how this works" or "this is THE path" or "this is THE process" because it's easy to find a million equally effective counterexamples given objectives that also pass a moral test. I guess this is the challenge any relativist would have when dealing with absolution. Maybe I should read more Kant and practice applying rule sets! 

The weird thing is I've seen folks with different rule sets UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. It's a complete mind boggle. But I guess they are both applying the same ethical lens - so one reads the others actions as "oh that's their rule" and vice versa? Ack. No wonder they can't understand me - too many inconsistencies across non-existent rules lol.