DrContrarian

How to be a Proper Grown-Up

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sun, 27 Jul 2025 04:18:00 +0000

A child who throws a tantrum in the supermarket, demanding a treat, is clearly not a grown-up. This is obvious to most people older than that child; such ‘childish’ behaviour stands in stark contrast to mature, grown-up conduct.

But what happens when you’re supposed to be a grown-up—by age, at least—but find yourself caught up in your own life? How do you recognise that your thoughts, beliefs, actions, and reactions may not be particularly mature?

Most of us assume that real grown-ups want to be ‘grown up’—for their own good, and for everyone else’s. There’s a collective belief that if every adult acted like a grown-up, the world—and the individuals in it—would be better for it.

To understand what it means to be grown-up, we must start by understanding what makes behaviour childish. And that part is simple.

Take the child in the supermarket who desperately wants an ice cream. They see a fridge full of options and a parent nearby with money. They sense the possibility that the world might bend to their will.

When their desire is denied, they throw a tantrum.

What they fail to see is the full context. They misjudge the situation. They forget that it’s 5 p.m.—too close to dinner. They forget they’re lactose intolerant. They don’t realise the parent might not have the money. Or they’re unaware of subtler realities—like a sibling who might demand the same thing, except that sibling is dangerously allergic to lactose.

You can’t blame the child. They’re following instincts. They’re learning how the world works. The essence of childishness is to twist reality to match one’s misconceptions, often in service of our weaker selves.

Being grown-up, then, is a state of mind—one in which we see reality clearly and respond accordingly. That’s how maturity grows.

The first step to being grown-up is recognising what maturity is. The second is learning to manage our thoughts and behaviour to align with that understanding.

Of course, none of us are perfect grown-ups. So why do we still misjudge, misremember, and react in ways that don’t serve us? What are these weaknesses that push us to distort reality?

We see mature and immature behaviours everywhere—from music festivals to boardrooms. But perhaps the richest terrain for examining maturity is within family relationships.

The family home is a crucible where long-term relationships are shaped, tested, and evolved. Incentives to love, compete, forgive, assert, withdraw, rebel, and comply all exist—and they play out over time. Time that heals wounds, heightens differences, softens indiscretions, or deepens resentments.

As children leave the family home and move into adulthood, maturity is measured in many ways: responsibility with money, work ethic, even personal hygiene. But one of the most telling indicators is how they relate to their parents.

Many grown-up children choose to remember only the discipline, the denials, the demands. They recall being forced to eat broccoli. They remember an absent father or an irritable mother. They resent a sibling who seemed more loved, or opportunities given to others but not them.

Often, there’s some truth in these memories. And yes, they deserve reflection and processing.

But what’s more telling is what they choose to forget—the other side of the coin that completes the picture. The whole truth, which invites a more mature interpretation and response.

They forget:

When Mum didn’t buy herself new shoes so they could have a bike.
When Dad skipped after-work drinks to get home for family dinner.
When parents chose a suburb with a long commute for the sake of better schools.
When Mum stayed up all night, sponging down a persistent fever.
When they borrowed money to pay for a lesson or a camp.
Or when entire weekends—and sometimes even holidays—were sacrificed to support a sports endeavour, knowing full well it would never lead to a professional future.

Children forget that Dad bought a station wagon when he wanted a sports car. Or declined a promotion that would have uprooted the family. Or changed jobs just to move a child away from a toxic school environment. They forget when Dad had a confrontation with a bully’s parent. They forget the hours of canteen duty, the late-night book covering, the last-minute dash to find obscure craft items. The birthday parties planned and cleaned up after—or worse, attended out of obligation—just so their child wouldn’t be left out.

How many pretend tea parties? How many balls thrown? How many scraped knees patched up? How many invisible efforts went unnoticed?

Do kids remember that they learned to talk, ride a bike, or catch a ball because someone made the effort to teach them? That their sense of fairness, their desire for truth, their empathy—these were cultivated by a parent?

Do they ever stop to see that their very values—what they think is right or wrong, what should be prioritised in life—were instilled by those same parents?

The sacrifices parents make vastly outnumber the mistakes they inevitably commit. Maturity is recognising that—and responding with balance.

Of course, not every parent gets it right. Some are abusive or neglectful. Some act out of their own unresolved trauma, addiction, or fear. Not all sacrifices are noble, and not all decisions are wise.

But even then, as a child who has become a grown-up, your job is to respond with discernment. To remember the full story. To resist twisting the truth to excuse your own shortcomings.

Perhaps you can’t hold down a job. Or you’re socially withdrawn. Or you constantly need to be right. Maybe you’re terrified of abandonment, or you crave validation. These weaknesses can skew your perspective—leading you to invent a version of the past that justifies your present struggles.

But even the worst parent—an alcoholic father, a violent mother—was once a child too. And the mature response is to see that their behaviour wasn’t always about you. They too were shaped by pain.

If you allow negative experiences to completely dictate your life, you are extending the very dysfunction you resent. You’re twisting the truth to suit your wounds.

Most of us grow up in imperfect families. But rarely is any childhood entirely one-sided.

You know you’ve grown up when you can process your past—both the pain and the positivity — and respond to your present with equanimity and grace. When your worldview reflects not just your hurts, but the whole truth.

Because maturity is not just about age. It’s about discipline. It’s about honesty. It’s about seeing things as they are—not as you wish them to be.

As traumatic as being denied that ice cream may have felt at the time, the full truth is more complex, more layered, and more difficult to hold.

That’s why it takes a lifetime to truly grow up.

But, like father like son. Many parents never fully grow up themselves. They may carry unexamined fears, rigid expectations, or their own unfulfilled dreams—and project these onto their children. They may misread a child’s silence as defiance, when it is actually anxiety. They might respond to sensitivity with frustration, mistaking it for weakness. They often expect emotional maturity from their children that they themselves lack. In their effort to protect or guide, they may over-control. In their bid to prepare their children for life, they may harden them unnecessarily.

Parents can also fail to see the unique wiring of their child—their particular way of experiencing the world. Some children are slow to warm. Some are highly sensitive. Some crave space, others connection. But instead of leaning in with curiosity, many parents respond with irritation or correction.

And even the most loving parent may, at times, fall into the trap of shaping their child in their own image, rather than nurturing who the child truly is. These failures don’t necessarily make them bad parents—but they do reveal that being older doesn’t always mean being grown up.

The solution, in the end, is Love and Grace. For all are imperfect and there is no cure for that. But if the will is there, the way will appear.

Hey Bruce Springsteen; you hypocrite

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:03:00 +0000

Bruce,

I love your music man. It is old-fashioned, but I like it. My favourite song is actually not Born in the USA or the like, but Streets of Philadelphia. Not only is it a nice tune, I really like the message too.

But you know, I don’t like how you play your politics.

Make no mistake, I don’t MIND your politics and I am sure we can agree on a lot of things – and even in this case I may even agree with your belief. So the point is not where you stand on the issue.

But I don’t like the hypocritical way you play it.

So you cancel a concert and boycott a state that you disagree with. I am sure you think that it is your way to express your support for people who are getting the short straw. I am sure you see it as your right to play in front of whoever and wherever.

But Bruce, can I ask you this:

Have you refunded all the money you made from selling songs to the states that hold a different view to you?

Have you asked those citizens not to buy your records?

What about the countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and dozens of others like them who actually torture and kill gay people? Have you ever played in those countries? Have you ever sold songs or earned royalties in those countries?

What did you do before the issue of marriage equality became a bandwagon?

Have you played in North Caroline previously? What happened to that money?

It’s pretty easy to ‘show your support’ when you are in a position of strength and financial independence. But it is also extremely hypocritical. If you really support the cause, show it in a way that matters. I am sure that many gay/transgender people will value your support without asking the tough questions. But I reckon you are being a hypocrite. Show ‘em the money, Bruce. Give back every cent that you made from a person or a place with whom you disagreed fundamentally with.

Let’s see how that goes, and let’s talk again.

And if you can’t do that or never thought of doing that, then let me make another suggestion. Why you don’t just go out and say your support the cause. Why don’t you write a song about it – like Streets of Philadelphia? Why don’t you demonstrate that gay people are nothing to be afraid of? Why don’t you employ transgender people in your business?

You see Bruce, by hating the haters, you are actually endorsing meanness as a legitimate strategy for solving an argument and persuading people. I am sure you see where this is going? If not, let me spell it out: it is exactly the strategy followed by radical religionists – boycott and bully until they bend to see it your way. That is no way to promote your dogmas Bruce.

It may work, but it is not right. Why don’t you re-think your stance because from where I am standing it looks pretty self-righteous. I expect better.

An Open Letter to the CEO

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sat, 02 Apr 2016 04:13:00 +0000

Dear Mr CEO

You said your job is to develop a vision and create an organisation with the right values that will make that vision a reality, so I thought I would drop this note in your lap for consideration. It is my contention that what goes for ‘strategy’ and ‘best practice’ in the modern corporate boardroom is a terminal degree of “me too-ism”. I think you have bought into a narrative that is promulgated by people who have a gnostic view of the world and specific agendas that appeal to the pseudo-thinkers of the world, but are in reality going to lead your organisation to its premature demise.

OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY

Over the years business organisations have been eaten away slowly from the inside by social justice warriors (SJWs). How this happened, requires us to go back a few years and in the evolution of the business organisation. Once you understand that, you will see how it has infested your organisation.

Business organisations used to have a simple, clear objective: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. To do this, they innovated, developed products and served the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. The business wins and the consumer wins.

Your initial reaction may be to think that business has changed and that things are a lot more complex. You would be right in thinking that; but wrong in thinking the complexity or the change should be addressed the way companies are being led to respond.

(My view is premised on the idea that a CEO should be the kind of leader who would like to focus on the business fundamentals rather than chase social approval by a few so-called progressives who posture so well and make so much noise one is led to think they are bigger than they really are.)

The thin edge of the wedge has been sustainability, introduced some two decades ago, by the proponents of sustainability who proffered a solution to a problem that did not exist. They suggested that organisations should broaden their focus to include an emphasis on environment and on community.

There is nothing wrong with sustainability per se – I will explain soon – but it has been a Trojan Horse for a pernicious social agenda.

Broadening the focus automatically and explicitly also equates to a dilution of focus – that stands to reason. And your organisation is paying the price.

That is the guaranteed least impact, and that alone should make the hair on the neck of any self-respecting CEO stand up. Adding ‘sustainability’ as a filter though which the organisation will flow decisions, is not additive, it is dilutive to all resources at an organisations disposal, including management attention. Actually, that is not quite correct; it is additive in the overhead department.

The reason for the success of the message despite the obvious cost (loss of focus and additional overhead) is that it seems ‘obvious’ that businesses need a healthy environments and healthy community to thrive and destroying the environment is tantamount to destroying your future.

So the social justice warriors (SJWs) would have you believe. And if you don’t think too deeply you will start believing it.

The SJWs succeed with their message because they have successfully recast the organisational narrative to cast the business as a ‘citizen’ with a ‘responsibility’. At first blush it seems reasonable, and as soon as that mindset gained traction amongst a cadre of unthinking executives, the battle was over.

In effect, the SJWs have succeeded in levying a tax on business corporations that they are just too happy to pay, since they don’t realise they are paying it. In practice a few individuals have succeeded in getting the corporation to fund their own personal ideologies under the guise of corporate social responsibility.

Isn’t that just super? I get the shareholder to pay for my warm and fuzzy feelings. That is, a few individuals are outsourcing their individual responsibilities to the company.

· What is the role of the business corporation in supporting these initiatives?

· Who should be funding these initiatives?

· Do executives really understand the slippery slope they have embarked upon by embracing these causes?

Let’s consider just one aspect of ‘sustainability’ and that is ‘community’. The idea of healthy communities has become a crack in the corporate focus that allowed a whole bunch of other socially progressive, typically post-modern causes to enter the boardroom and then the work place:

· gender diversity

· aboriginal affirmative action

· anti-racism and so forth

Again, on face value, the causes seem worthy, reasonable and ‘just’. Who could argue with that, right? And I repeat – please pay attention – these causes may well be in and of themselves BE worthy, but that is not the point.

But, adopting these social causes does come with baggage:

· One, it further adds to the dilution of business focus (as mentioned earlier)

· Two, it perpetuates the practice of individuals looting the corporate coffer to fund their personal ideology

· Three, it smuggles multiple assumptions into the organisation that seriously contaminates the culture of the organisation in ways that are not immediately obvious. This point is particularly important. The multiple assumptions smuggled in are for instance:

o The belief that these programs and initiatives actually work and are worthy of support – when they rarely work.

o The impact of these causes is exclusively beneficial, when it is not.

o That it is a corporate and not individual responsibility to propagate these causes

o That because these causes are (currently) popular and topical, they are also important.

o That the impact of supporting the cause is limited to supporting the cause, when in reality it also impacts culture, moral ecology and even business productivity.

Let’s unpack some of these assumptions to consider how they impact the functioning of the business. Consider affirmative action for instance, and consider the various ways in which the good intentions actually have the opposite, detrimental impact.

By accentuating ‘race’ in making decisions about promotions, you actually emphasise that this group is inferior and need special considerations to level the playing field. It perpetuates a culture of victimhood, which highlights the inequality without alleviating it. In fact, by promoting someone beyond their level of competence, you are accelerating their inevitable failure, making it harder to promote the next person and making it extremely hard for anyone else to believe in the fairness of the ‘program’. The intention may be noble (to right a wrong) but the unintended consequences become the reality.

The impact is extended to all employees who feel aggrieved at losing out on a role, not based on performance or fit for the role, but because of the colour of their skin. This has an immediate and lasting impact on motivation and productivity. The reverse also applies of course – if an Aboriginal person is overlooked for a role despite obvious competence and fit, they would feel aggrieved and rightfully so. The only relatively objective course of action is to base it on a clear set of performance criteria. Affirmative Action is a shortcut. Shortcuts don’t work, but those pushing the agenda are not the ones paying the price of the failures, the shareholders are.

Many people want to view history as a series of unpunished crimes, and feel compelled to right these wrongs. The truth is that the past cannot be changed. And if the crime of the past WAS to judge people on the colour of their skin, then it cannot be remedied by judging people on the colour of the skin again today. That would simply be perpetuating the crime, and it is completely illogical to think otherwise.

Once you start factoring in skin colour and sexual organs as a criteria for advancement, then it opens the door to other non-performance related criteria. Is their equal representation on the Board (or senior management) of: Women? Of Black people? Of blind people? Of immigrants? Of blondes? Can you see how ridiculous it gets very quickly?

As I write this, there is a rally for ‘rangers’ in Melbourne. (The Ginger Pride rally.) It is a marketing stunt, but there is no logical reason why it can’t or indeed shouldn’t be a serious matter. So, here is the million dollar question: HOW are you going to defend the accusation that you don’t have a proportional representation of red-haired people on your Board? Because I bet you don’t. And I bet you can’t prove that you don’t discriminate. Red-haired people ARE being discriminated against and research has proven this.

We could also be saying that women need consideration ahead of the disabled? Or immigrants? On what basis do you make that decision? These are the decisions that one must attempt when standing on that slippery slope. Once you depart from an impartial/objective criterion like performance as the basis for making a decision, you are going down a path of never-ending compromise, sub-optimal decisions and unproductive activity. (Performance may not be objective in the true sense of the word, but it is the most relevant measure that can be impartially evaluated by most people.)

Consider the facts if I described them neutrally:

There is demand that you support a cause that is prejudiced against majority of the corporation’s employees, will impact the productivity materially and gain no commercial advantage but the personal satisfaction of the individual at the expense of the shareholders.

Will you, spend the money on that ‘cause’? Would you encourage your managers to do so? Are they all entitled to pick their favourite cause or are you going to pick the ones you personally feel the strongest about to spend the shareholders money on?

I am sure this will be misread by many. This is not a racist or misogynistic position. I am not promoting that we all take an uncharitable view of the world and not care about community or environment or red-haired people. I am not specifically making a case against helping people of colour succeed. I am using that as an example to demonstrate how these causes have a counter-productive outcome; despite our best intentions.

I am saying that we as individuals have a collective responsibility to make the world a better place.

But it is for each one of us to decide how we do that and how we resource it. It is devious, and defeats the point of the exercise when the only ‘good’ that we do is by forcing other people (shareholders) into funding our pet projects.

The same applies to those who interpret sustainability as being environmentally conscious. If an operational decision is made that is supposedly good for the environment, but also adds cost to the business then it is not a 'sustainable' outcome. In fact, you are now less competitive and may well go broke. Sustainability means embracing environmentally sensitive actions that ALSO save you money. In that case it is justified on the commerce alone anyway, so you don't need to hang your hat on sustainability for a few corporate cudos and peer recognition.

My message to employees of the corporation would be:

DO YOUR JOB. Do what the shareholders pay you to do. Keep your eye on the main game and add value to the business. Stop making the company a playground for your social theories.

If you really want to make a difference AND really believed in it, do it on your own time and with your own money. If everyone in an organisation makes a contribution to their communities that are authentic with the serious personal investment of their own time and money, then the individual is securing the environment the corporation needs to thrive in – healthy communities and healthy environments. It is the individual who needs to make a difference – in that way actually secures their own futures.

If any person wants alleviate poverty, they should go do the CEO sleep-out on their own time and donate their own money. The shareholders may want to save the whales instead. The same goes for every other ‘cause’:

If you want to promote gender diversity, then choose to not spend your money in businesses where they discriminate and force the change you want to see with your personal sacrifice of not buying something you may have otherwise wanted.

If you want to promote Aboriginal workplace participation, give up your Saturdays to teach them at the local community college for free, because I may want to spend my money eradicating domestic violence.

If you don’t like how corporations are treating women, divest your shares or stop buying their product.

Organisations need to seriously rethink their approach to these SJW causes. It is a slippery slope that will eventually make the organisation vulnerable to attacks from anyone with an axe to grind who can demonstrate that their cause does not get the airtime it deserves.

Can you realistically support every cause? And more importantly, can you really justify why you are supporting those you do and not any others?

And importantly Mr CEO, what are you going to say to me when I come to you and suggest that all people who work for our little outfit should be Anti-Abortion because we can’t have the company endorse people who wilfully murder the innocent. How are you going to say NO to me (which I guess you will want to) when I approach you to support such a just cause?

Are you going to say 'no' because it doesn't 'feel' right?

Organisations, are over-run by Social Justice Warriors, and on the surface their arguments make sense. It has reached the point where these causes dictate behaviour (code of conduct) and it is only a matter of time before they dictate strategy.

This same disease manifests itself in other ways too: People are becoming increasingly litigious because they have divested themselves of any personal responsibility for falling on an escalator or diving into a sandbank on the beach. It must surely be someone else’s fault? People increasingly look to the State to bail themselves out when in a bind. Whether there was bushfire or a flood, or just a loss of a job; people turn to the State for compensation. That mythical 'someone' must take responsibility for my situation.

People abrogate personal responsibility; that is self-evident.

People like to support worthy causes and it so much easier with other people’s money; that too, is obvious.

And if CEOs are not brave enough to call this out, will make the corporation and its shareholders suffer the dire consequences.

If CEOs choose to embark on a form of social engineering they are ill-qualified to execute, they will invariably base their decisions on fickle public opinion of the ‘Cause du Jour’ – a sure recipe for failure.

These SJWs hide in ‘Service’ departments like HR Departments and Comms departments typically, hardly ever where the business actually gets done. Those people out there making stuff and selling stuff don’t have the time to investment in distractions. I have seen it repeatedly in organisations that the only way these SJWs can justify their existence is to elevate these externalities to internal imperatives.

CEOs are taken along for the ride on the promise that they are ‘showing leadership’ and will gain the admiration of their peers. Appeal to vanity has always been powerful and few have been able to resist. Can you resist? (That is a billion dollar question, actually, and I mean it.)

But if you are really brave, you will break the mould and re-claim the following:

1. Any social cause is something that individuals should take responsibility for and it cannot be outsourced to a corporation. Your corporation can be known for enabling people (employees) to make a difference in the way that they individually believe and where it personally matters.

2. You will stand up for the shareholder and be honest: no more spending their money on your causes. You will respect them enough to allow them to spend their money the way they see fit.

3. No more artificial decision-making criteria: people will be judged on their ability and their competence in contributing to the commercial purpose of the organisation. You respect differences in race and gender (and any other physical difference) enough to claim that it truly does not matter. The ultimate sign of respecting the individual is to treat them equally. No special programs. No mandates. No quotas. Nothing but merit.

4. The business exists for the purpose of delivering a return for their shareholders. Many stakeholders benefit from an organisation that is successful in achieving that, and each stakeholder is respected equally and they are equally capable of deciding how they want to invest or spend their returns. No more Big Brother; we trust people to choose wisely in their own right.

5. A responsible organisation is not the one that gives the most money to charitable causes or subscribes to the latest pop-culture cause. It is the organisation that recognises individual merit, enables the stakeholders to do good things according to their personal judgment and does not compromise ethical standards.

6. There will be a return to the fundamentals of business: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. That is, to innovate, develop products and serve the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. It is a return to focus on the true reason for being.

Now you can choose to create a new set of values, but they won’t exist in 5 years’ time either when the next CEO rolls along. And the reason for it is that the REAL value agenda is being driven by the SJWs. It is built into the rewards system; it is built into HR policies it is built into what gets communicated. (See why I say the source of SJW power is usually HR/Comms?)

Anyway, if you want to articulate a set of values (same or different) and you want to be successful in shaping the organisation accordingly, here is the recipe, if I may be so bold:

1. Make sure you strip the power from the SJWs, make them (to the extent that you keep them) write the policies that actually support the values you want to embed.

2. Differentiate clearly between ‘accountable’ and ‘responsible’: the people who are supposed to get stuff done are constantly in reporting meetings justifying decisions instead of dealing with the issues.

3. I’d probably pick one word; say ‘productive’, and then focus on that. It is word that can be used to guide day-to-day decision making. The actual focus world does not matter, as long as it is a functional word that can’t be hi-jacked for anything. People just need focus – a real, believable vision. Imagine the transformation that could happen when if we asked about every ‘plan’ and every ‘meeting’ and every ‘process’ if that is the most productive way of doing business?

I know I make it look and sound simple, but it would be very hard to pull it off. You would certainly be going against the stream of ‘me-too’ CEOs who are being led down the garden path, and that would be an achievement in itself.

The ‘values’ that we want and don’t have are outcomes. What you have to sort out is the inputs and the process. If you want to make better cake, you change the ingredients and the process of making it. The outcome is what it is.

If you want to do that, you need to be in control. So long as the SJWs are running the agenda, you are not in control.

I hope you have the courage to rid your organisation of this baggage, intellectual, physical and human. If you do that, then your organisation may again become our organisation.

Thanks for reading,

A sincere and hopeful employee

Can you handle these 5 uncomfortable truths?

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 02:04:00 +0000

There is meme floating around social media that goes something like this:

Think of how dumb the average guy is. Then realise that half the population is dumber than that.

Whilst there is a level of smug superiority in that, there is also an element of truth. An IQ of 100 isn’t much intellectual horsepower. Not that great thinking is a prerequisite to all that matters, but by the same token the invention of mathematics, technological advancement and great art was probably not produced by the bottom half of the bell curve.

Averages being what they are; gets us cultural norms that are, well, mediocre. And such is life.

The people who created Facebook as a technological platform undoubtedly had well above average IQs. The platform has the potential to be and do amazing things, some of which we have experienced. But consider the average (normal) Facebook post and social experience. It’s about screaming goats on the one hand or people gloating about their breakfast on the beach. Or at best it is filled with vacuous, pretentious, misattributed quotes on high rotation. Despite the collective smarts it took to create the platform, in practice it turns out to elevate mediocrity to the norm.

As with Facebook, so with life. Life in general and specifically the pool of cultural norms that we all swim in is pretty shallow.

Let’s explore a few of those commonly accepted, pervasive cultural norms that people tend to accept as true and useful, but are in fact probably not. Your first reaction will be to dismiss the arguments as wrong exactly because the average person has come to accept them as givens. But I argue that this has been done without much thought, and would like to offer a different perspective.

(I don’t expect to change the world’s view and adoption of those erroneous principles for the same reason Mark Zuckerberg won’t be able to elevate the average Facebook post into something worth admiring. But one or two people may think differently about life and what it means.)

Whatever makes me happy.
Happiness is an emotion.
Emotions are created in your brain via chemical reactions.

These chemicals (Dopamine, Oxytocin, Serotonin, and Endorphins) are useful and necessary in specific ways. They are triggered by certain behaviours or situations or they can be physically induced (via drugs).

But like all chemicals, when the body is over-exposed to it, the body will react by either rejecting it or becoming immune to it.

If you were always ‘happy’ the body will require increasing amounts of chemicals to maintain the same emotional state. Eventually it will reach a level of toxicity that kills you.

That is not very likely, but the point is that physically it is virtually impossible to maintain a state of chemical bliss and pursuing it via drugs or via natural means. Since it is hard to manipulate life and behave in a way that produces a river of happy chemicals, people resort to drugs. But ultimately they are chasing an ephemeral non-reality.

What people really should be pursuing is a state of meaningful contentment. This is much harder to achieve. It means doing things that are perceived to be somewhat unnatural, like living sacrificially. To pursue meaning is also hard work; you actually have to think about what your life amounts to. It means you have to work at it. And ‘it’ means serving other people.

Contentment and meaning comes from denying yourself and living for others.

I did warn you that it will be counter-intuitive and hard. But the easy, popular belief is much more palatable and ‘natural’ because it is centred on the self – your own emotion and your own subjective experience.

If the popular beliefs were true and correct, then we would have found the ‘recipe’ already. Billions of people have tried it over many centuries, yet it remains elusive. That is for good reason, it is a bullshit myth.

As a parent, if you want your kids to be ‘happy’ make sure (a) they understand that by ‘happy’ you mean ‘content’ and (b) teach them to be humble and serve others in the first instance.

Or you can feed them the candy of ‘happiness’ and rot their souls. Your choice.

Don’t judge.

Do you believe there is or should be justice in the world?

How do we arrive at ‘justice’ without judging?

You can’t.

That should put an end to the argument, but somehow I hear it all the time. There is a popular expression were people prefix an observation with: “No judgement” – ironically soon followed by a “but…”. What they are trying to do is to say that they are making a judgment, but they don’t want you to be offended and that they recognise that you have the right to ‘your’ own judgment and that whilst they are judging; they are not claiming to be ‘right’. To claim to be ‘right’ is so ‘exclusive’ and offensive.

But without judgement, you cannot live.

You have to judge things as being safe or not: Should I cross the road?

You have to judge whether can do something or not: Can I jump from here to there?

Without judgment there is no consideration. To be considerate you must consider it.

Without judgment there is no appropriateness. Is it appropriate to give that kid a porn magazine?

In a relativistic, post-modern society, truth is being sacrificed at the altar of convenience. The reason why people don’t want to accept judgment as a good thing is because culturally we have evaluated the relative importance and usefulness of TRUTH and OFFENSIVENESS and we have decided that not being offensive is more important than being right.

Consequently we have come to deny that right and wrong exists and that therefore it is relatively less important to judge. Judgment is now preserved for the common applications such as the need to cross the road and it is denied for determining a greater good.

If you believe there is no right and wrong and that justice does not exist, then not being judgemental is acceptable. That is where we find ourselves today as the common consensus. It may be convenient and makes for less conflict (which may be your personal subjective preference as the better experience) but it also just so happens that it is stupid.

Without conflict, there can be no growth. We need stress and strain to improve. (Just like exercise – stress and strain – is good for you physically, the same applies spiritually and intellectually.)

Meaninglessness does not come from being weary with pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary with pleasure . GK Chesterton

Follow your passion

The overwhelming, factual evidence of billions of people over millennia is that the career and lifestyle they pursue and achieve is commonly a function of their background, their IQ, their opportunities, their cultural background and psychological biases – to name a few.

Some ‘successful’ people claim that what they did was to follow their passion. Many, many more people who are successful by the same measures just did what was in front of them and weren’t particularly passionate about it.

It is not definitive, but it is highly probable that the ‘passion’ followed the success and did not cause the success. If passion caused success, then there would be many more successful people in the world. Even where success is ‘self-defined’ and subjective, fewer people claim to be successful than the many more who claim to be passionate about something. In fact one of the biggest challenges people claim to face is that they want to figure out how to make money out of their passion.

There are two problems with ‘following your passion’. One is that it implies that it leads to success without actually defining success. The second is that it is universally proven to be true in a small minority of cases.

What is probably happening is that people hear and read that you must follow your passion to be successful and then when they are asked why they are successful, they resort to claiming that they followed their passion. Firstly, it is commonly accepted so unlikely to be perceived as the wrong answer, and secondly it affirms their own pro-active role in their own success.

Few admit that success is large a matter of luck. They won’t admit because they suffer from a well-known psychological phenomenon of ‘self-serving bias’

To be successful, however you want to define it, requires a few basic ingredients – physical talents and competencies – as well as certain behaviours, such as hard work. But talent and hard work is not enough. Look at the world around you. How many people are beautiful singers? How many people are successful pop stars? (In the case of many – hello Kylie Minogue – talent is probably over-rated.) The missing ingredient is something more ineffable. You can call it luck or a blessing or whatever you like, but it is not something you control and claim as yours.

Just because people don’t want to admit it, doesn’t mean it is not true that luck is a much bigger factor than following your passion in achieving ultimate success.

Following your passion is only good advice in as much as it will mean that at least you will have enjoyed the process of failing – but it will not make you successful.

Success comes from hard work.

This is the same argument as above.

Hard work is necessary. It is a given for most types of success except for winning lotteries and the like. But it is merely co-existent, not causal.

But the overwhelming evidence of billions over millennia is that hard workers simply do not automatically get rewarded with ‘success’.

Look around you and see the hard-working people. Do you really want to conclude that success comes from hard work? It is self-serving bias all over.

You can do anything you like, be anyone you want to be.

You can’t.

The idea may offer you ‘hope’ but it is not true.

In fact, believing it will only lead to disappointment. You will become that person that arrives for the audition at the reality show and becomes the joke audition to features in the programme promo where you are the object of ridicule.

The truth is you can try anything and try to be anything – within reason. The two operative words here are ‘try’ and ‘reason’. If you are honest enough to understand that you are trying and that it is not a given that with enough hard work and passion you will get there, and you can retain the perspective that you are trying, you can try as long as you like.

Secondly, you need to think about it – you need to reason about it. Can someone with your body shape really be an Olympic Sprinter? If not, then trying to be ‘anything’ is a stupid pipe dream. You can certainly try to be as fit and as fast as you possibly can, but make sure you apply the filter of reasonableness to your dreams.

I am not suggesting you become a quitter, I am suggesting that you bring some realism to your efforts. You can bet your bottom dollar that the person telling you can ‘be anything’ is also trying to sell you something that will ostensibly 'help' you get there.

If you don't know who the sucker in the room is, you are. Don’t be that schmuck.

Dear Mark Zuckerberg: How do you lead when you are wrong?

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 02:01:00 +0000

Dear Mr Mark Zuckerberg,

I read with interest your appeal to people not to deface the ‘black lives matter’ logo. Really interesting dilemma you face. I must be honest and upfront with you; I don’t feel sorry for you in dealing with pernicious insubordination. That is what happens when you let the #SJWs run the agenda in the work place, but this is a real interesting leadership challenge.

How do you lead when you are wrong?

I only want to address the issue a bit more philosophically because I am curious about your thinking. I can’t comprehend how a smart guy got sucked into this vortex of stupidity.

If I try and look for a single word to describe what lies at the heart of all the ‘social justice’ causes I conclude that it is the idea of tolerance. Would that be a fair conclusion? We should tolerate people who are different. We should tolerate different races and genders for instance.

‘Black lives matter’ is about fairness and justice and equality, it is about tolerating the differences. It is about not being selfish and recognising the injustices of the past and making some room in society for these injustices to be corrected.

Tolerance is supposed make society work better. I think that is a fair conclusion and I would agree that it would be a positive advance if we could be more tolerant. But here is the conundrum I want to pose to you.

Why are you and your kind so intolerant? (Especially since you claim tolerance is so important?)

Your employees are writing ‘all lives matter’ instead of the ‘black lives matter’ and you are upset and consider that malicious. Surely ‘all lives matter’ is more tolerant and more inclusive than ‘black lives matter’? Isn’t it true that when the differences (black lives only) are highlighted, we sow division rather than unity?

You want to support ‘black lives matter’ but you are caught in a bind: on what basis do you want to say that black lives matter?

They do. I agree with that. But the basis of me saying so is rooted in an absolute truth: Imago Dei.

On what do you base your argument? I found this, and assume it is true, so let me quote you:

“There are specific issues affecting the black community in the United States, coming from a history of oppression and racism. ‘Black lives matter’ doesn’t mean other lives don’t — it’s simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve,” Mark added. “We’ve never had rules around what people can write on our walls. We expect everybody to treat each other with respect.”

So your argument is one from tolerance – everybody to treat each other with respect. But yet you don’t tolerate it when someone makes an equally truthful claim that all lives matter?

You see what I am getting at here is that your argument self-defeats because you base your reason on specific, isolated personal truth. Black people believe black lives matter. White people believe white lives matter. Many black and white people believe all lives matter. Everybody believes something from their personal historical perspective.

Except the religious folk – Christians for instance – who base their perspective on an objective truth. We believe that life matters, all lives black or white, disabled or not, viable or not. Life is sacrosanct. On that basis, we should treat black people for instance with dignity and respect. It is not based on a personal belief or a personal historical perspective or a psycho-social bias. It is based on an eternal truth.

Your view is not, that is why you are faced with this conundrum. I have no way of knowing this for sure, but based on what I read, I am gathering you are Pro-Choice. It rings true because you strike me as saying all the typical things that fit a post-modern, naturalist with a humanistic view of the world.

Now we have a real hairy conundrum for someone with your intellectual stature to be saddled with an argument that goes something like this:

All lives matter, but black lives matter in a different, special way and the life of the unborn matters not at all. And most importantly, you won’t tolerate those intolerant bastards who disagree with you.

You are not alone. Most people who share your view of the world end with similar illogical, self-defeating arguments as the basis for making decisions. But I am sure you think you are right. We all do, so I am not going to get all sermon-y on you, because this is not about religion and philosophy, it is about leadership.

You as a leader want to get the whole organisation behind your cause.

But your cause is divisive and requires you to be intolerant of opposing views.

Now you can’t argue that the opposing view is wrong, because your own view is based on a subjective perspective and not an objective, universally accepted truth.

I really want to know how you are going to get out of this one?

Will you be a leader, or will you simply perpetuate the scam?

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 05:01:00 +0000

(Or, other people’s money...)

Over the years business organisations have been eaten away slowly from the inside by social justice warriors. How this happened, requires us to go back a few years and in the evolution of the business organisation.

Broadening the focus automatically and explicitly also equates to a dilution of focus – that stands to reason. That is the guaranteed least impact, and that alone should make the hair on the neck of any self-respecting CEO stand up. Adding ‘sustainability’ as a filter though which the organisation will flow decisions, is not additive, it is dilutive to all resources at an organisations disposal, including management attention. Actually, that is not quite correct; it is additive in the overhead department.

The reason for the success of the message despite the obvious cost (loss of focus and additional overhead) is that it seems to ‘obvious’ that businesses need a healthy community to thrive and destroying the environment is tantamount to destroying your future. So the social justice warriors (SJWs) would have you believe.

In effect, the SJWs have succeeded in levying a tax on business corporations that they are just too happy to pay, since they don’t realise they are paying it.

In practice a few individuals have succeeded in getting the corporation to fund their own personal ideologies under the guise of corporate social responsibility.

Isn’t that just super? I get the shareholder to pay for my warm and fuzzy feelings.

It doesn’t mean that the cause is not worthy of support. I am not suggesting that communities don’t need to be healthy, that charities don’t need money and that the dolphins don’t need saving. The question I am raising is what the role of the business corporation is and who should be funding these initiatives and whether executives really understand the slippery slope they have embarked upon by embracing these causes?

The idea of healthy communities has become a crack in the corporate focus that allowed a whole bunch of other socially progressive, typically post-modern causes to enter the boardroom and then the work place: gender diversity, aboriginal affirmative action, anti-racism and so forth.

Again, on face value, the causes seem worthy, reasonable and ‘right’. Who could argue with that, right?

But, adopting these social causes does come with baggage:

· One, it further adds to the dilution of business focus.

· Two, it perpetuates the practice of individuals looting the corporate coffer to fund their personal ideology

o The belief that these programs and initiatives actually work and are worthy of support – when they rarely work.

o The impact of these causes is exclusively beneficial, when it is not.

o That it is a corporate and not individual responsibility to propagate these causes

o That because these causes are (currently) popular and topical, they are also important.

o That the impact of supporting the cause is limited to supporting the cause, when in reality it also impacts culture, moral ecology and even business productivity.

By accentuating the race in making decisions about promotions, you actually emphasise that this group is inferior and need special considerations to level the playing field. It perpetuates a culture of victimhood, which highlights the inequality without alleviating it. In fact, by promoting someone beyond their level of competence, you are accelerating their inevitable failure.

The impact is extended to all employees who feel aggrieved at losing out on a role, not based on performance or fit for the role, but because of the colour of their skin. This has an immediate and lasting impact on motivation and productivity. The reverse also applies of course – if an Aboriginal person is overlooked for a role despite obvious competence and fit, they would feel aggrieved and rightfully so. The only relatively objective course of action is to base it on a clear set of performance criteria.
Many people want to view history as a series of unpunished crimes, and feel compelled to right the wrongs. The truth is that the past cannot be changed. And if the crime of the past WAS to judge people on the colour of their skin, then it cannot be remedied by judging people on the colour of the skin again today. That would simply be perpetuating the crime.

Or are you saying that women need consideration ahead of the disabled? Or immigrants? On what basis do you make that decision? These are the decisions that one must attempt when standing on that slippery slope.

Consider the facts if I described them neutrally:

Will you, Mr CEO spend the money on that cause? Would you encourage your managers to do so? Are they all entitled to pick their favourite cause or are you going to pick the ones you personally feel the strongest about to spend the shareholders money on?

I am sure this will be misread by many. This is not a racist or misogynistic position. I am not promoting that we all take an uncharitable view of the world and not care about community or environment.
I am saying that we as individuals have a collective responsibility to make the world a better place.

But it is for each one of us to decide how we do that and how we resource it. It is devious, and defeats the point of the exercise when the only ‘good’ that we do is by forcing other people (shareholders) into funding our pet projects.

If you really want to make a difference AND really believed in it, do it on your own time and with your own money. If everyone in an organisation makes a contribution to their communities that are authentic with the serious personal investment of their own time and money, then the individual is securing the environment the corporation needs to thrive in – healthy communities and healthy environments. It is the individual who needs to make a difference – in that way actually secures their own futures.

Can you realistically support every cause? And more importantly, can you really justify why you are supporting the one that you do and not any other?

If you want alleviate poverty, go do the CEO sleep-out on your time and donate your money. Your shareholders may want to save the whales instead.

If you don’t like how corporations are treating women, divest your shares.

Organisations are over-run by Social Justice Warriors, and on the surface their arguments make sense. It has reached the point where these causes dictate behaviour (code of conduct) and it is only a matter of time before they dictate strategy.

These SJWs hide in HR Departments and Comms departments typically, hardly ever where the business actually gets done. Those people out there making stuff and selling stuff don’t have the time to investment in distractions. The only way these SJWs can justify their existence is to elevate these externalities to internal imperatives. CEOs are taking along for the ride on the promise that they are ‘showing leadership’ and will gain the admiration of their peers. Appeal to vanity has always been powerful and few have been able to resist. Can you resist?

But if you are really brave, Mr CEO, you will break the mould and re-claim the following:

1. Any social cause is something that individuals should take responsibility for and it cannot be outsourced to corporation. Your corporation can be known for enabling people (employees) to make a difference in the way that they individually believe and where it personally matters.

2. You will stand up for the shareholder and be honest: no more spending their money on your causes. You will respect them enough to allow them to spend their money the way they see fit.

3. No more artificial decisions-making criteria: people will be judged on their ability and their competence in contributing to the commercial purpose of the organisation. You respect differences in race and gender (and any other physical difference) enough to claim that it truly does not matter. The ultimate sign of respecting the individual is to treat them equally. No special programs. No mandates. No quotas. Nothing but merit.

Will you be a leader, or will you simply perpetuate the scam?

Mitchell Pearce. Cecil John Rhodes. Your Company. Where it all went wrong.

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 01:00:00 +0000

People say you should be tolerant.

But should you tolerate laziness, poor personal hygiene or stealing? Should you tolerate abusers, perverts and scoundrels?

People say you should not be judgmental. But if you don’t judge, how do you know when to cross the road? If you don’t judge whether something is appropriate how do you know it is inappropriate? If we don’t judge, how do we lock someone way for their crimes?

People say you should not discriminate, but I eat certain foods every day and drink certain wines because I discriminate. I stand up for an older person on a bus because I discriminate.

When I put it like that, you will be quick to realise the ridiculousness of a blanket statement like you should be tolerant or you should not judge.

You might now start to qualify the statements:

· You should tolerate what is good and what is bad.

· You should use your judgement to do no harm to others.

· You should discriminate only to improve a situation.

But that simply raises more questions, so I am not sure it is at all helpful.

How do you know something is good or bad? Who decides? What it if it is good for me but bad for you? Who gets to decide what is harmful and not? If a child gets punished are they learning discipline or are they abused? Where is the line drawn and who draws it?

In the news is a campaign under the hashtag #rhodesmustfall. Rhodes, an Oxford man, was a major figure in British colonial history with a vast legacy of achievements. An outstanding scholar and entrepreneur and major philanthropist, he was also racist in his politics. The campaign aims to topple statutes etc. and effectively erase history because his view of race is out of sync with the times.

People who speak in favour of maintaining the status quo are shouted down by social justice warriors.

And this is the ironic position that relativism inevitably brings about: People who believe someone (in this case Rhodes) was intolerant and discriminatory should not be tolerated and should be discriminated against.

There are arguments for and against – and both sides will passionately argue for their views. Both are right and both are wrong.

The fox of relativism just chased a rat up the fox’s own arse, killing both.

That is what happens when you believe everything is relative. You may argue that this is just the way it is - and humans will be ingenuous enough to resolve it.

The problem is that history proves conclusively that humans are not able to settle their differences amicably when it really matters. And the other problem is that the belief that everything is relative does not accord with the reality most people experience.

Do you really, really believe there are no right and no wrong? Do you really believe there aren’t things/ behaviours that are simply universally, eternally wrong?

You know it. Innately. And if you are smart enough to realise that accepting this is not compatible with a naturalistic philosophy, you may well still iterate that there is no right or wrong – just better or worse – and that humans must make the best of it we can.

Of course, if you are smart enough to realise that, you should also realise that saying that there is no right or wrong is in itself an absolute claim which disproves itself – so it is not a logically coherent view to take.

Philosophically speaking, religious people will argue that God provides the metaphysical ontic point (of reference) by which you can judge absolute truths – and so be able to judge right and wrong.

From a management point of view in corporations, we also need a similar ontic reference point. On what basis do you hire and fire people? On what basis do you promote? How do you facilitate certain behaviours that are ‘right’ and discourage others that are wrong?

Of course your country’s legislation is one such objective reference point – you fire someone for stealing because it is against the law. But there are many situations where the law won’t help you decide. The law won’t make your organisation more innovative or improve the customer experience.

Fortunately, there is another law – the law of ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE. This is not usually written down completely, but there are of course POLICY documents that may be used. And there is usually a clearly set of articulated values that may apply. But, like the proverbial iceberg, the biggest part of culture is below the surface. It is captured by that umbrella phrase: “the way we do things around here.”

The clearer it is to everyone, the better and more effective it is at guiding people. The more stringent its enforcement, the more consistent its impact and the more successful a company will be at living up to its aspirations.

If values are hard to interpret – even if the source is well-known and accepted as the ‘truth’, then it leads to confusion. The Bible is the source of truth for the Christian and it says ‘love thy neighbour’ – and there is confusion in the ranks as to whether neighbour includes a refugee on a boat who may or may not be a terrorist. Even if the ‘truth’ is written clearly – there is always room for interpretation. But it is worse if it is not written down.

Cultures are not written down, but employees observe very acutely because their survival depends on it.

Organisations may claim that the customer is number one or that customer service is important, but if the CEO never visits a customer, doesn’t demonstrably support the customer service improvement project and so forth, then no one will take the claim about customer service seriously.
Employees judge right and wrong by refereeing the cultural mandates of the organisation. These cultural reference points are built up over time.

When an employee ‘crosses the line’ at the Christmas Party, chances are that the types of behaviours that were tolerated long before bordered on abusive and bullying and sexism, and you can hardly single out that incident for punishment.

I am not condoning Christmas Party shenanigans; but I am saying that people take their behavioural cues from the organisational cultural, and therefore the problem may well be bigger than one rogue employee.

A football club may have a ‘no dickheads’ policy but their captain is the biggest dickhead of them all. Nobody is going to take that ‘policy’ seriously.

Currently in the news is Mitchell Pearce at the Sydney Roosters. It is well-documented and he is universally condemned. But I would also hazard a guess, based on what other players at that club have been up to over a long period of time, the problem is not Mitchell Pearce only, but that it runs much deeper.

They have an issue where the culture is not a strong, objective point of reference. Right and wrong is relative: one man’s harmless prank is another’s outage.

Have I mentioned the fox and the rat?

Relativism kills decision making. Relativism kills culture. Relativism kills justice. It is a modern day disease that people innocently accept because it is a prerequisite to a lifestyle where people demand to be tolerated, and insist on not being judged.

The irony of not tolerating the intolerant is missed as they grapple to solve issues that can only be solved by accepting that there are laws, fixed and immutable (absolute) truths by which we should judge and should use as the basis of discrimination.

I believe it is an absolute, universal truth that people should do the right thing.

In order to do this, you need a reference point by which to navigate. In the absence of having a bible and the doctrines to explain it, organisations must create their own reference point in the form of a strong culture.

It all starts going wrong when you lack the firm, I'd say absolute, reference point by which you judge and discriminate and tolerate.

Do you have that in your life? In your club? In your university? In your organisation?

Confusing change with progress

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:44:00 +0000

In a previous piece I encourage people to question their beliefs. I asked the question: Why do people follow/subscribe to popular thoughts and ideas?

It is a question that probably has several answers rather than one, but high on that list for me is the propensity people have for confusing change with progress.

Progressive is a label that many aspire too. It just seems so smart, doesn’t it? Modern and post-modern societies generally regard all the changes from the pre-modern area (like the beliefs listed above) as ‘progressive’. I wonder if most of the changes aren’t merely changes rather than progress?

People don’t understand progress.

A lighthouse can be progressive. Most people would see a lighthouse as something static, never-changing and therefore incapable of making ‘progress’. But every time the blinking lighthouse helps ships navigate and steer clear of the rocks, it progressively saves lives.

It is its very static, unchanging nature that allows it to do the job and make a cumulative (progressive) difference. If the lighthouse in fact moved location or occasionally determined not to blink as scheduled, it will cost lives and we become less safe. That shouldn’t be anyone’s idea of progress.

All change is not progress and all progress is not change.

The dictionary does not mention ‘change’, but rather makes it clear that progress is development towards an improved or more advanced condition. And often, having an eternal, unchanging condition/ perspective is more helpful than one that is fluid and ever-changing.

So, don’t dismiss everything that is old as primitive, and don’t disregard every classical perspective as archaic because every change is not an advancement.

(Img: naldzgraphics.net)

Question your beliefs

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 07:34:00 +0000

Today, if Twitter is anything to go by, then there is a ‘right’ way to think and believe. This list of cultural beliefs and norms that are prevalent in modern societies, include for instance.

· Racism is wrong

· Democracy is right

· Gender is a fluid, social construct

· Religion is a primitive belief system

· Politically we should lean left

· Diversity should be encouraged

· Climate change is real

· Global Trade should be encouraged

Once upon a time, we believed the opposite on all of the above.

I am not suggesting you (or I) should not believe any of the above. But, are these evolved cultural norms of our modern society right because they are right, or are they simply commonly held, popular beliefs that you accept because they appear to be commonly held?

I want to challenge you. Think about it that, once upon a time these also were popular, dominant beliefs:

· Women belonged at home

· Germans are a superior race

· Children should be smacked regularly to discipline them

· Slavery is okay

· Kings have a divine right

· Smoking is cool

· Adultery is a sin

· Abortion is murder

If you lived at the time, how likely would you have been to have subscribed to these common beliefs? Before you say there is no way you would have accepted any of these norms, don’t be too quick. Be honest, and consider these questions before you answer:

How much thought has gone into dissecting and understanding each every belief that you hold as true? And how many of them just ‘seem’ right? How many are ‘obviously’ right?

Why is it so hard to find anything that our ancestors once believed and we moderns still believe? Can you think of anything meaningful that you have in common with people living one hundred years ago? Is it really realistic that almost every cultural norm has shifted from wrong to right?

The issue I am addressing here is ‘cultural relativism’. The problem we are facing here is that there is – in the modern society – no ontic reference point by which you can judge something as right or wrong. If you don’t believe in God, then there are no absolutes because everything is simply part of the material world. And if you can’t judge by an absolute truth, then right and wrong does not exist. You can only judge by what ‘most people’ believe or by what ‘feels right’. Or you judge by ‘what is best for society’. All these measures are of course subjective but are all we have in the absence of an objective source of truth.

The point is that what ‘feels right’ changes over time – that much is clear, and is quite self-evident. And this leads us to the greatest paradox of our time: That whole list of thing we so firmly believe is ‘right’ is in FACT not ‘right’, but is merely a subjective opinion.

The question that messes with my mind most of all is this:

Why are the Twitterati then so absolutely convinced of the ‘rightness’ of their views and proceed to argue, fight, troll and vilify anyone who happens to believe the opposite? It is merely a matter of subjective opinion and history shows it will one day be proven quaint and wrong. Yet, they are super convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong, whilst at the same time admitting that right and wrong does not exist.

Do you get the irony? They claim that absolutes don’t exist, which is of course an absolutists statement. They claim you are wrong, but right and wrong does not exist. Go figure.

On racism in Australia a: Open Letter to Stan

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 05:25:00 +0000

Dear Stan,

So, you made a speech about racism. It was really well-spoken and a lesson in rhetoric for all.

A few facts in advance:

Racism exists everywhere. Including all the examples that he mentions.
Racism is wrong and it hurts.
And no doubt that the racism that existed back then held the people back.

However, the type of racism that exists today is not the same as it was then when it was institutionalised and legalised.

The racism that exists today is pervasive and much more subtle - and is prevalent amongst ALL races.

So, what I am saying is that trotting out racism as an excuse for death rates, under-achievement and general disadvantage is no longer valid.

There is no official penalty that exists because you are from a different race. In fact, it is an advantage in many respects. And the unofficial 'penalty' that exists, applies to all.

I wonder why would someone who is of mixed race, chose to identify with one side of his heritage over the other? Isn't 'my people' also the white people?

The problem is that every 'setback' and every time something does not go your way, is not a function of race. You don't get jobs because you are not educated. You die young because you choose to live a lifestyle that leads to high mortality rates, You are in prison because you break the law. These things don't have anything to do with blackness. The white guy that breaks the law or lives that lifestyle suffers the same consequences,

Black and aboriginal people have many advantages and they demand it. All sorts of special bursaries, affirmative action and special healthcare programs are designed and offered to address those issues.

The problem is this: fundamentally what you want (from the rest of the world) is unattainable and contradictory. You demand at the same time the dignity of equality and the privilege of special treatment.

You either need special treatment to protect and nurture or you are equal. Which do you want?

When I hear the crowds boo Adam Goodes, I hear something different to you, Stan. I don't hear the howling you talk about. Adam after all was elected Australian of the year and is a multi-millionaire. I hear the same crowd cheer and encourage Eddie Betts for his talent and his child-like enjoyment of the contest. They love him for it and they support him for it. And when Adam behave provocatively (throwing 'spears' at the crowd) or unsportsmanlike (milking penalties with 'dives') then I hear a justified howling at that behaviour.

Unless, of course you wanted the crowd to treat him differently? As if he is not equal after all? As if he is weak and in need of special protection? That is the thing you may have to learn, Stan, is that equality means everybody can equally act as an arsehole. Just watch how people (of all races) are picking on Donald Trump, and he is pretty white.

I tell you this Stan, for as long as you make it about race, it will be about race.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't want to live on your ancestral land in remote settlements of 50 people and have access to modern healthcare and jobs at the same time. You can't want equality and special exemptions.

As I said earlier, I don't deny that racism exists. What s your view about Asian drivers for instance? Racism exists and it is wrong - we can agree about that. I suppose what we disagree about is how to fix it. And for one, it is pretty stupid to demand that the rest of Australia must change whilst (a) 'your people' don't bother (b) additionally demand special treatment.

Research has proven that when you hear something that contradicts your beliefs, the rational part of your brain shuts down as you prepare to defend. I hope you can over-ride that instinct should you ever read this...

~drcontrarian

Go away

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:28:00 +0000

Can all the 'experts' (Chris at 2thinknow excepted) pleas just piss off and keep your doom and gloom to yourself. You weren't around 6 months ago to warn us, so your 'predictions' now are just a crock of...

Insight 4129

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:59:00 +0000

The world ceases to exist when you die.

Insight 3245

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:57:00 +0000

Everything that happens is inevitable

Friends of Happiness

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:56:00 +0000

Acceptance
Enjoyment
Enthusiasm
Stillness
No-thingness

6 Enemies of Happiness

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:26:00 +0000

1. Reminiscence
2. Anticipation
3. Hope
4. Fear
5. Judgment
6. Possession

Consultant's Friends: 1 & 2

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:58:00 +0000

1. Lapse in corporate memory.
2. Staff turnover.

Being diminished

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 04:34:00 +0000

I can't recall ever having met, or knowing someone who has not been diminished by participating in the being of a Corporation.

Even as people are promoted... they are criticised in some way. Some type of change is always required, from everyone. And what is perfectly acceptable (even admired) behaviour today, is out of favour tomorrow.

It is especially evident when you separate from the organisation. Those who are diminished the most often take the lead in unraveling your legacy.

Who is there that has never hand 'an issue' to deal with? No one, methinks.

Not for customers

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:11:00 +0000

Not approved for use on customers. Apparently approved for interrogation by US government.

Yelling at detainee
Deception: multiple interrogators
Deception: Interrogator is from country with reputation for harsh treatment of detainees; “False Flag”
Incentive or removal of incentive
Playing on a detainee’s love for a particular group
Playing on a detainee’s hate for a particular group
Significantly/ or moderately increasing fear level of detainee
Reducing fear level of detainee
Boosting the ego of detainee
Insulting the ego of detainee, not beyond the limits that would apply to a POW
Invoking feelings of ....

Rest of the list here

Universal Truth #314

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Be secure in the knowledge that all humans have insecurity in common.

The two biggest money-making sectors on the internet (porn and self-help) tap into this limitless pool of opportunity. (And any business model that does this, will succeed.)

2 Percent chance of success

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:30:00 +0000

Commentators often talk about the ‘2- percenters’ - that is doing those things that are tough, have a low probability of success and yet goes to show an attitude of perseverance and commitment to the small details other people will overlook. (It is often used as a sporting analogy to illustrate the point (for instance) that you still chase down an opponent even if they have already crossed the line because the pressure may just result in a drop ball.)

This analogy is misleading because it focuses on the 99^th and 100^th steps in the percentage of effort. True success comes from the 101^st and 102^nd percentage points of effort. Sprint athletes are told to finish ‘through the line’ and martial arts experts will tell you that you get hurt when you stop the momentum of your blow on impact; you must hit through the brick to break it.

This is not the proverbial ‘extra mile’ that you must walk – which is merely an optional, nice touch. That would be gesture to differentiate yourself and applied at your discretion. Hitting through the brick, however, is part of standard operating procedures. It is the methodology that is applied with every single execution. It is what happens on the other side of the brick that counts. Everything you do this side of the brick serves only to get your fist to the point of impact. Making an impact happens on the other side of the brick; without fail, without question.

Activities that happen this side of the brick are: Preparing, Planning, Selling, and Serving.

Activities that happen on the other side of the brick are: Caring, Fixing, Returning, Forgiving, and Relating. Especially relating.

Secret to securing World Peace

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:09:00 +0000

Focus more on the similarities, less on the differences.

Two thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:36:00 +0000

One:
Anything = Nothing, and
Anything = Everything.
Therefore, 'Anything' is the most powerful idea.

Two:
Outcome - (Objective + Action) = Zero.

Powerlaws of the Blogosphere

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:53:00 +0000

90% of Bloggers rehash what the other 10% generate
80% of Content is produced individuals and 20% by corporations pretending to be individual
70% of the traffic is made up by 30% of the surfers
60% of blogs are opinion pieces and 40% is mashed up 'findings'
50% of Bloggers are trying to monetize and the other 50% are pretending they don't want to
40% of Bloogers can spell and 60% can't (;-)
30% of comments are genuine and 70% are designed to direct eyeballs to their own site
20% of Bloggers know what they are writing about and 80% write about a niche they think they can own
10% of blog headlines describe the topic and 90% are designed to misdirect traffic to the site

USP is Dead

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:07:00 +0000

USP = Unique selling Proposition.
It should have died a long time ago, because it inflates the importance of what you are selling, instead of what you are buying.

Long live the UBP.
UBP = Unique Buying Proposition

iPod is dying

noreply@blogger.com (DRCONTRARIAN) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:06:00 +0000

If the internet is ubiquitous and the content is hence 'everywhere'; can someone explain why there is a need for an iPOD to store music? Surely you only need a device to access this perpetual inventory on-demand?

I am sure people will get over the need to 'own' the music if you can play it anytime anywhere anyway.

Is that a new business model that will save music?

That is: Originators or publishers can own the content on a server and distribute free iPOD-like devices and charge a fraction of a cent every time the song is played. Kinda like mobile phones without the plan.