The Benefits of Our Hardwired Need to Consume

[Philip Bangerter]

http://greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=34681

All - This link takes you to an interesting article. It speaks to us on a number of levels, but this sentence grabbed me:

"Thus, it becomes problematic for anti-consumption activists if the inherent dynamics and structure of economic systems as they evolve shifts the balance between consumption and pain towards consumption."

It strikes me that this could point to another HLP if we could model the system dynamics and around marketing and brain cognition. Not sure.

Comments??

Philip

[Jack Harich]

Philip,

Nice to see articles trying to apply basic research to social problems like sustainability.

This could possibly point to another high leverage point (HLP). I like the idea of modeling “around marketing and brain cognition.” But there’s a bit of a trap here. There are thousands of such potential exploratory directions. Which should we choose?

Better is to let the process guide you. In system dynamics modeling, you start with the question of “What force should I model to understand this part of the problem?” Then you model how the system is working now. The emerging model will reveal gaps in your knowledge. These are filled via research and experimentation. Every time we fill a knowledge gap, we create a new explanatory mechanism.

What you are essentially proposing is a different process: to start with the explanatory mechanism. This is more of a bottom up approach. It might be fruitful, if you have good intuition, but I suspect that most progress will come from top down modeling, where you start with forces that need explaining. The reason is there are far fewer such forces that need explaining than there are explanatory mechanisms that might explain something.

Of course you may already have a force in mind that needs explaining.

An interesting experiment, once we get some funding and get a real project going, would be to compare top down and bottom up modeling approaches.

It was interesting to see “social engineering” mentioned in the article. I sure hope we can get to this.

Amazingly enough, just today I did a video covering the importance of structural thinking. In it the need to start with what force you want to model and explain is mentioned. Here is the rough cut video.

These videos are taking a long time to do well. I sure hope they turn out to be worthwhile. But then again, it's just another experiment.

Jack

[Michael Hollcraft]

Philip,

Interesting article and question you've raised. Here's an excerpt from that article which piqued my interest:

"That consumption has deep emotional dimensions, and that access to credit encourages economic growth, and along with it consumption, are not revolutionary findings. But that consumption decisions engage particular brain pathways in ways that affect the effectiveness of environmental campaigns and projects is both interesting and important."

Recently, I've seen ads on TV developed by Environmental Defense, a classic activist group. These two 30 second ads, "Tick" and "Train", clearly use children to target parents and push on their "fear of not protecting our children" button. I assume this creates a rather primal neurological response. Jack describes this as "pushing the fear button" in his work, though relates it to tactics used by degenerate politicians.

Do you think the two ads are effective? Perhaps in raising the general awareness of the global warming problem?

http://fightglobalwarming.com/viewads.cfm

Regarding the "rational behavior" model (of consumer choice) mentioned in the greenbiz.com article, I'd like to offer a quote by John Sterman, found on page 17 of his book, Business Dynamics:

Active modeling occurs well before sensory information reaches the areas of the brain responsible for conscious thought. Powerful evolutionary pressures are responsible: Our survival depends so completely on the ability to rapidly interpret our environment that we (and other species) long ago evolved structures to build these models automatically. Usually we are completely unaware these mental models even exist.

Michael

[Philip Bangerter]

Jack,
Absolutely I was letting my intuition work here. And yes I know the top-down method is going to be the best way. I was just grabbed by the article because it was using language and concepts this forum is about. At the very least this journalist might be a good communication channel as we go fwd. Sorry, you won't be able to stop me being intuitive.

Is there a force here to start the ball rolling? Maybe we should wait till we have a solution factory up and running

Keep those videos coming !!

Michael,
I looked at the short ads - quite powerful, but may will see them as too dramatic.

This brain of ours is the problem - I always think back to hunter-gatherers - the brain is evolved to suit that type of society, so when we have something unknown to that society, is it any wonder we struggle to keep control.
My intuition tells me there is something to model here - I hope the SIP will lead us down that path!!


PJB

[Michael Hollcraft]

Philip and Jack,

Perhaps the following quotes from Peter Senge's book, The Fifth Discipline may illuminate our discussion:

The conflict between intuition and linear, nonsystemic thinking has planted the seed that rationality itself is opposed to intuition. This view is demonstrably false if we consider the synergy of reason and intuition that characterizes virtually all great thinkers. Einstein said: "I never discovered anything with my rational mind." He once described how he discovered the principle of relativity by imagining himself travelling on a light beam. Yet, he could take brillant intuitions and convert them into succinct, rationally testable propositions. (p. 169)

As managers gain facility with systems thinking as an alternative language they find that many of their intuitions become explicable. Eventually, reintegrating reason and intuition may prove to be one of the primary contributions of systems [structural] thinking. (p. 169)

Einstein expressed the learning challenge when he said:

[the human being] experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical illusion of our consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

The experience of increasing connectedness which Einstein describes is one of the sublest aspects of personal mastery..."
(p. 170)

As regards the hunter-gatherer brain model, I suspect it will not serve us very well in our efforts to avoid a Neo-Malthusian collapse scenario. Having said that, perhaps it would be fruitful to model it. Additionally, here's a thread which explores this anthropological question in some depth:

http://thwink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70

Personally, I believe our team needs more experimental results.
How cool would it be to have new data from Australia and Atlanta which we can present to Ray Anderson with a 95% confidence rating? How S.M.A.R.T. would that be?

By the way, isn't our team the first embryonic solution factory? (That's a simple "Yes or No" question for you latecomers )

Here's an edgy quote by a famous American cartoonist, Charles M. Schultz:

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia."

And one of my favorites, a keeper quote from Mohandas Gandhi:

I suppose leadership at one time meant muscles; but today it means getting along with people.

Cheers,

Michael

[Jack Harich]

Regarding:

As managers gain facility with systems thinking as an alternative language they find that many of their intuitions become explicable. Eventually, reintegrating reason and intuition may prove to be one of the primary contributions of systems [structural] thinking.

Nice quote. There are lots of gems in The Fifth Discipline and Business Dynamics.

Let’s define rational thinking as coming to a conclusion from consciously known premises, and intuition as coming to a conclusion from at least one unconsciously unknown premise. Both are required to synthesize or refine. When smart, seemingly qualified problem solvers fail to solve difficult problems, it is usually due to over reliance on intuition, due to use of the wrong problem solving process or tools. When they succeed, it is usually due to use of the right process and tools, plus the necessary intuitive jumps required to make certain discoveries.

Those intuitive jumps may seem just that: intuitive. But actually even they are usually the result of a predictable process. For example, Einstein vigorously applied the tool of Gedanken, thought experiments. He did them so often, starting at a young age, that he became quite good at using the tool to logically move forward on theoretical questions. With this tool and his high intelligence and studies, he was able to search the solution space much faster than his peers. The result was predictable: sooner or later he was going to make notable discoveries.

To Einstein, he made intuitive leaps. But to a process manager, he didn’t. The process and its tools produced a broadly predictable result. The same thing happened in Thomas Edison’s invention factory. Edison predicted a string of major inventions. And he delivered, because his process worked. At the micro level, lots of intuition was involved. But at the macro level, none was. The factory merely used a highly efficient solution space algorithm.

I think that’s the same thing we will be doing. If it succeeds, the world will swoon at Michael’s, and Philip’s, and Steve’s, and Andrew’s notable discoveries, and call them great leaps of intuition. But we will know better. It was the rational process that did the trick.


Shifting gears a little, yes, more experimental results would be nice to show to Ray. But we are going to need some very different experiments to fully prove the existence of structures like the Dueling Loops and the workability of their high leverage points. The First Experiment is actually pretty minor here. It is more of an educational exercise. But if the data fails to disprove the hypothesis, then we have made one very small step forward.

Related to this, I had a new thought on Philip’s upcoming meeting with Ray. It’s one Philip is probably already working on. The group critique of the Analytical Activism manuscript that Philip (?) is working on is probably going to be a well researched, well written, joint opinion document from well qualified reviewers. If it concludes that the manuscript contains even just a few valuable contributions to a way forward, then showing that document to Ray (and others?) would probably instantly perk him up and gain his strong interest in exploring this new paradigm further.

Well, back to my rational intuitive process execution,

Jack

[Michael Hollcraft]

Jack,

Regarding "It was the rational process that did the trick." Yes, that is logical conjecture. And I have little doubt that the formal process we need to actually solve the GES problem will require Analytical Activism (or something like it). But why, then, did Einstein make the claim "I never discovered anything with my rational mind?"

Einstein is also credited with another famous quote relevant to our discussion:

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.

We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

But I keep thinking about the Diagnostic Project, and the real world challenge of overcoming social change resistance to the GES problem. More specifically, I have been wondering why and how modern social leaders like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., for example, actually created a unified social movement which transformed their respective societies. Sure, we can read books and watch movies about their movements to gain a historical perspective. But, really, what was their modus operandi?

And I am well aware that the problems they tackled were not as complex as the proposed mega scientific frontier project(s) needed to solve the GES problem. Still, the above social movements led by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were rather challenging "social change management projects" in my humble opinion. What then, can we learn from them which is applicable to our current efforts on the Diagnostic Project?

And lastly, I offer the following definition of intuition found in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

Main Entry: in·tu·i·tion
Pronunciation: "in-tü-'i-sh&n, -tyü-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English intuycyon, from Late Latin intuition-, intuitio act of contemplating, from Latin intuEri to look at, contemplate, from in- + tuEri to look at
1 : quick and ready insight
2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
- in·tu·i·tion·al /-'ish-n&l, -'i-sh&-n&l/ adjective

This definition seems to agree with the above quotes and the light beam story offered by Einstein.

I also have another question which I would like to ask both you and Philip. Perhaps it can help us to move forward.

How do you define leadership?

Michael

[Jack Harich]

Re: “But why, then, did Einstein make the claim ‘I never discovered anything with my rational mind.’ ? “ – Well, people say plenty of things that are not true or are not to be taken at face value. I’d guess that Einstein was merely saying that the actual intuitive leaps were intuitive. It was a great sound byte. But what he did not say is what Edison said, that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. In both cases the right intuitive leaps were the inevitable result of the right process and tools, in the right hands.

Re: “I have been wondering why and how modern social leaders like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., for example, actually created a unified social movement which transformed their respective societies. … what was their modus operandi?” – These are just superlatively refined applications of Classic Activism. The telltale sign is neither did a detailed analysis of the problem using anything more than an event oriented perspective and lots of high quality intuition.

An even bigger sign is that both Gandhi and King relied on a copious stream of inspiration to motivate their followers. This is step 4 of CA: Exhort and inspire the people to adopt the proper practices.

Show me an inspirational leader, one who is well known for that, and you have shown me a classic activist.

Classic Activism is strewn over the pages of history. That’s why it’s so popular today.

Re: What is leadership? – It’s a buzzword. Management is the preferred concept. Go back and read Drucker on management, and you will see that the original meaning of the word includes all that the fancy, more modern sounding word of leadership means today. Or go to Japanese mgt literature, like The Elegant Solution about Toyota, and you will see no such false dichotomy. It is not true that leadership is the art or the people side and management is the science. For it to work, mgt must include both, so that true high quality managers can take a cohesive approach all the time.

Just one opinion,

Jack

[Michael Hollcraft]

Jack,

Your analysis is very unconvincing here.

Just one opinion,

Michael

[Jack Harich]

Thanks. How so?

[Michael Hollcraft]

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.

--Peter F. Drucker

People cannot be managed. Inventories can be managed, but people must be led.

--H. Ross Perot

Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

--Dwight Eisenhower

A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worse when they despise him. But of a good leader who talks little when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves.

--Lao-Tzu

It is a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead -- and find no one there.

--Franklin D. Roosevelt

I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and mis-representatives of the masses -- you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.

--Eugene V. Debs

http://www.eugenevdebs.com/pages/history.html

Only one man in a thousand is a leader of men -- the other 999 follow women.

--Groucho Marx

Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear.

--Mohandas Gandhi

Plato's Allegory of the Cave in modern form:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_c ... plato.html

[Jack Harich]

Hi Michael,

My apologies. Sorry I was so brief in my reply. I said leadership is a buzzword in the same sense that Drucker said “Leadership is all the rage just now” in The Essential Drucker, 2001, page 268. This is the first sentence in a 4 page chapter on Leadership as Work. Here’s the chapter:

Leadership is all the rage just now. “We’d want you to run a seminar for us on how one acquires charisma,” the human resources VP of a big bank said to me on the telephone—in dead earnest.

Books, articles, and conferences on leadership and on the “qualities” of the leader abound. Every CEO, it seems, has to be made to look like a dashing Confederate cavalry general or a boardroom Elvis Presley.

Leadership does matter, of course. But alas, it is something different from what is now touted under this label. It has little to do with “leadership qualities” and even less to do with “charisma.” It is mundane, unromantic, and boring. Its essence is performance.

In the first place, leadership is not by itself good or desirable. Leadership is a means. Leadership to what end is thus the crucial question.

History knows no more charismatic leaders that this [last] century’s triad of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao—the misleaders who inflicted as much evil and suffering on humanity as have ever been recorded.

But effective leadership doesn’t depend on charisma. Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall, and Harry Truman were singularly effective leaders, yet none possessed any more charisma than a dead mackerel. … And there was amazing little charisma to the bitter, defeated, almost broken Churchill of the interwar years; all that mattered was that he turned out in the end to be right.

… What then is leadership if it is not charisma and not a set of personality traits? The first thing to say is that is that it is work—something stressed again and again by the most charismatic leaders. Julius Caesar, for instance, or General MacArthur and Field Marshall Montgomery, or, to use an example from business, Alfred Sloan, the man who built and led General Motors from 1920 to 1955.

The foundation of effective leadership is thinking through the organization’s mission, defining it, and establishing it, clearly and visibly. The leader sets the goals, sets the priorities, and sets and maintains the standards. He makes compromises, of course; indeed, effective leaders are painfully aware that they are not in control of the universe. (Only mis-leaders—the Stalins, Hitlers, Maos—suffer from that delusion.) …

The second requirement is that the leader see leadership as responsibility rather than rank and privilege. Effective leaders are rarely “permissive.” But when things go wrong—and they always do—they do not blame others. If Winston Churchill is an example of leadership through clearly defining mission and goals, General George Marshall, America’s chief of staff in World War II, is an example of leadership through responsibility. …

The final requirement of effective leadership is to earn trust. Otherwise there won’t be any followers—and the only definition of a leader is someone who has followers. … Effective leadership is not based on being clever; it is based primarily on being consistent.

And then Drucker ends the chapter with this twist:

After I said these things on the telephone to the bank’s human resources VP, there was a long silence. Finally she said, “But that’s no different at all from what we have known for years are the requirements for being an effective manager.”

Precisely.

Quality of leadership, or management, is vital. The more interesting question is why did you bring the subject up?

Nice quotes from Groucho and Gandhi.

Thanks,

Jack

[Michael Hollcraft]

Jack,

Re: “The more interesting question is why did you bring the subject up?”

Because, as I expressed in my "Intellectual Call to Action" thread: “This [solving the GES problem] will require tremendous courage and unprecedented local, national, and global leadership.”

Do you agree?

Michael

[Jack Harich]

From a classic activist perspective, yes. It’s a great line. But from an analytical activist perspective, no.

I suspect that this particular problem falls well outside the range of normal big problems that can be solved through so called leadership, because it is so globally systemic and change resistance is so high. This problem will probably be solved due to the combined, cumulative weight of many small contributions. Eventually the preconditions for almost any precipitating event to cause a phase transition to The Age of Transition to Sustainability will exist. Once that occurs, the system will naturally seek many qualified agents to play a variety of key roles, including the one you mention.

To me the question is what will the key tipping point contributions be? Which ones (which preconditions) are not yet present? Which key ones already are? If we can analytically figure that out, then we can accelerate the phase transition.

Thus what we have here is not the need for leadership, but for application of a process that will lead as rapidly as possible to this knowledge. As Toyota puts it, “The right process will produce the right results.”

Of course, it may take leadership for that to happen, as organizational change usually does. But in this case we have a global, 50 year (?) problem solving effort, which is already 35 years old. No mega leaders have emerged, though we do have many luminaries. I suspect that will continue to be the case. It is the right process that needs to, and will emerge. The right process will be far more influential than any leader could hope to be. For proof, just look at the processes of double entry accounting, the Scientific Method, or democracy.

But this is all necessarily speculative.

[Michael Hollcraft]

Jack,

Thank you for sharing your perspective on leadership.

Philip,

Would you be willing to share your perspective on leadership as well?

It would be helpful to me if the other Hatchies (Steve, Andrew, et. al) plus Glenn would share their perspectives as well.

Cheers,

Michael

[Steve Gale]

Ok Michael,

You drew me into this one. I'm so time poor that I'm back to chewing my nails- a very bad sign.

So I'll be brief if I can. Perhaps Gandhi will allow me to use his words "Be the change you wish to see in the world." The people who can consistently apply this are the leaders in the current problem.

Jack has a vision of AA unlocking the HLP's. This is his change and he is doing it. By the definition above he is a leader.

To me personally leadership is about seeing clearly a goal and others recognising that you want to go somewhere that is mutually beneficial.

I looked at the list of leaders and really there is a big divide between those who had compulsory followers (Both sides in WW2) and those that have voluntary followers (Usually no clear call to action eg business).

Without a clear call to action in sustainability we must look to leadership with voluntary followers. My experience and perhaps intuition leads me to believe that the ones who shine here will be those who live in a sustainable way and make every decsion in the context of the best interests of the planet.

Some will choose to merely live their lives this way and others will make the fateful decision to share what they have with others and so take on the burden of leadership.

[Philip Bangerter]

Wow - huge thread from an unrelated starting point!!

On leadership I look back (don't I always) to hunter-gatherers. They, as I understand it, were led by servant-leaders: a true "responsibility" position, not lightly undertaken. Once we "progressed" onto agricultural-based society, many leaders became megalomaniacs (including those benefiting from our current voting preferences).

Perhaps I would just ask myself where Gandhi etc fits in that choice - all the examples in the thread could be classified this way?

Too simplistic? Dunno - but in my own case, I've tried to not lead my team, despite them always taking my lead much of the time. Also, "Servant-leader" might be too grand a term for me perhaps, but Andrew & Steve both know how to get the best out of me !!

PJB

[Michael Hollcraft]

I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non-violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I could.

--Mahatma Gandhi

The new paradigm is:

1. The process must fit the problem.
2. The social side of the problem is the crux.
3. The phenomenon of strong, prolonged, successful solution adoption resistance clearly exists. Therefore there must be an invisible social structure that is the fundamental cause of that phenomenon.
4. A satisfying hypothesis for this structure is The Dueling Loops of the Political Powerplace and its current exploitation by the New Dominant Life Form.
5. There is a High Leverage Point in this structure that has never been tried.

--The Diagnostic Project Team

[Jack Harich]

Nice thoughts. I’ve been pondering on this awhile. The word “leadership” now seems to be in vogue, and the word “management” is out. I’d guess this is a reaction to the people side of mgt not being handled nearly as well as the technical side in many orgs, especially those that are struggling.

Yesterday John Rehm of the Metropolitan Group sent me a link to this PDF file. It’s about how activist orgs can use modern marketing techniques to run more successful campaigns, classic activist style. The approach is labeled “building public will.” Page 17 had this relevant material. I've added some bolding:

Leadership Types

Based upon the change desired and the factors outlined in the Pathways to Change section, organizers need to clarify the types of leader(s) needed to succeed. Different efforts may need different leadership types at different times as they evolve. This may be accomplished by different leaders or by the same individuals evolving their style of leadership to fit the changing needs of the project. There are several types of leaders that have been defined by numerous management theorists including:

The visionary — helps others recognize a new idea or possibility. This is often the type of leader needed when key challenges to success include lack of recognition that there is a problem, hopelessness that change can occur, or lack of ability to envision aspirational change due to oppression or a sense of being powerless. In this instance, it is critical that the cause has a leader who can not only garner attention for the issue but can also inspire others to envision a better reality and believe that change is possible. Initiators at the beginning of a process most commonly play this role. Visionaries can evolve to playing the role of agitator, though often the visionary transitions the leadership role to an agitator who advances this cause more aggressively.

The agitator — demands that the issue gets on the table, channels the frustration and readiness for change that already exists in others, illustrates the costs of not embracing change. The agitator often demands extreme change from which compromise (beyond what many has thought possible) is negotiated. This role is played during the phase when the most aggressive change efforts are being championed. It is rare that the person in this role can transition into the next leadership role required, the diplomat.

The diplomat — brings all parties to the table, is able to find the common ground, identifies areas for compromise, engages the power structure in being part of the process and develops shared ownership of the issue and required change. The diplomat is often seen as a sustainer of change and as an incremental change advocate. It is possible for the diplomat to transition to the role of manager, but frequently the diplomat becomes bored with the role and will seek new avenues for bridge building outside the movement. Diplomats often are responsible for extending the reach of a given social change agenda to new audiences.

The manager — leverages the skills, connections and resources of others dedicated to change, creates systems that reinforce the commitments that have been made, ensures that the impacts of change are reinvested in sustaining the work on the issue, and serves as the long-range strategist who moves the normative community expectations in a succession of logical changes. The manager is a sustainer. While often the profile of the movement is lower during the manager’s tenure, the role played is vital to the long-term nature of public will building efforts. Often when a manager leaves the role, others engaged may find themselves seeking visionary or agitator personalities to reinvigorate the change movement.

Early awareness of the leadership needs can help public will organizers identify and recruit the right mix of others to work on the effort and fill in the gaps. It is important to be aware of the need for different leadership attributes at different stages of building public will and to be willing and able to transition the style of the leader(s).

Often, there is a need for various styles of leadership to operate simultaneously. For example, the agitator and diplomat can make a very effective team to push the envelope on an issue while garnering actual change. It is not unusual to find that the founders of a movement possess passion and vision, but do not possess the full spectrum of leadership styles needed. Effective advocates will recognize this in themselves and bring in the styles that are needed to achieve success.

These different roles are useful. The quote argues they are a logical progression in the natural growth stages of an activist organization or movement.

The last two paragraphs offer some potent advice for us, not in building public will through campaigning, but in spreading and applying the new paradigm of Analytical Activism.

What stage are we at now? Where are we going?

What leadership needs do we have now? What will we need soon?

Thanks Michael for focusing us on this very important issue.

Jack