Primate Politics: How we are not that different
to our chimpanzees cousins
Chimpanzees have 98.5% shared DNA with humans. They are more like us than
they are like gorillas. So can we learn something about ourselves by studying
Chimps live in social groups with about 50 members. These have a leader and a
hierarchy. They are male dominated, with competition between males for position
and females. The have what Nietzsche calls a 'will to power'and constantly seek
it and are aware of current power structures. Many of their calls and actions
talk about this.
Dominant males will puff up and go around making a lot of noise. They need
support and so friendship and affiliation is important. To take over, they build
coalitions. They start by aligning themselves with top-ranking males and work
upwards. A basic sign of association is grooming as chimps build social capital
with others they may want to influence later.
Stronger males prefer unequal resource distribution, even if they are poor,
as this makes the hierarchy stable and clear. Weaker males will climb trees to
get away from aggressive alpha males, but will make defiant calls when at a safe
distance. In such ways demeaning use of power invites reactive rebellion. When
there is a leadership contest, weaker chimps will support whoever they think
will be good to them (provided there seems a good chance of them winning
Loyalty is not forever and there are ever-shifting coalitions of convenience.
When one male is very strong, others may gang up against him. In this way, males
of similar strength still have a chance of becoming top chimp. Hence they form
'minimum winning coalitions' which just pass the 50% mark. This is the best form
of coalition as a leader who becomes too selfish or weak can easily be deposed.
Older males often still have a lot of power. You can last much longer as the
power behind the throne, the big beast, the shadowy advisor who is a cunning
puppeteer. In this way, weak leaders get elected rather than those who may act
against their supporting coalition (even if doing so acts for the majority).
A presidential guard, a secret police and other services are often created to
serve a dominant leader. These have a separate and shorter chain of command and
have fearsome power. They are run by highly loyal individuals such as family
members and old friends.
The most effective alpha males are not bullies. They create loyal followers,
particularly amongst their inner cadre. They redistribute resources, including
taking food off strong others and giving it to weaker individuals. Just who gets
and does not get food will be based on desired support and rivalry. Bribery is
quite common. Chimp males will even go around kissing babies to show females
they are good fathers.
Chimps are good at collaborating for common gain. Who your friends and
enemies are is critical knowledge.
They will patrol their territory daily. Neighboring groups will not indulge
in big battles (this is uniquely human). Larger confrontation tends to be
stand-off, throwing missiles and screaming. Rather, 4 or 5 males will creep into
enemy territory and attack lone individuals. This is where inter-group killing
Humans still kill less, despite their wars. In the 20th century, only 1% were
killed in war, while in chimp attrition, more like 15% are killed in the ongoing
raids. Human rivalry is hence much safer, desire the occasional bloodbath. We
handle other groups with gifts, treaties and other rituals.
Unlike chimps, bonobos are friendly with other bonobos groups, probably
because they only live in less hostile places, while chimps can be found across
Africa. We are related to both, and hence have both aggressive and accepting
We are naturally political and very biased toward our own parties and against
rivals. We naturally polarize into extreme us-and-them positions, where you are
'with us or against us'. We also will ally into larger groups, such as at
country level, when there is a significant external threat.
Although we can operate in large countries and organizations, we are
programmed to live in small scale society, and make decisions based on this. Kin
selection is a common criterion, as it is for many species who seek to propagate
Overall, we share many traits with chimpanzees, but are also influenced by
other evolutionary ancestors, as well as unique human abilities, notably in
cognition and language. Nevertheless, it can still be worth remembering our
ancestry when trying to understand why we do what we do.
Don't don't. The mind doesn't know nothing about
I was entering a PIN number into a credit card machine the other day. It
asked me for my PIN, which I duly entered. It then said 'Accessing your details.
Do not remove card'. I saw 'remove card' and grabbed it, but just stopped myself
in time from pulling it out. Now on edge, I held onto the card. The message
flashed off then a message flashed on. It was the same message, but my readied
unconscious mind saw just the 'remove card' and pulled. The sales assistant
looked exasperated. 'Now we'll have to start again' she said.
We see these confusing negatives everywhere. A classic American one,
especially for Brits like me, is the road crossing 'Walk/Don't Walk' signs. It's
understandable in the context of the technology when it was invented, but the
psychology still sucks. For a sign intended to help with road safety, it still
contains a rather pernicious embedded trap.
The mind does not process negatives well (and gets really confused by
multiple negatives). Even soundalike words like 'know' and syllables such as
'notable' can add to the confusion.
As with many psychological effects, once you know about it, it is easier to
combat. Whenever I see the word 'don't', for example, I always pause to think a
little more before acting. You never know, don't you, whether or not you know
it, it could one day save your life!
Tim Ferriss is wrong -- no, maybe he's right!
Tim Ferriss is an interesting chap. Aside
from a colourful life, he has written best sellers like The Four Hour Work Week
(what a fabulously attractive title!) and, more recently, Tribe of Mentors. He
also has a popular and often long podcast that I listen to when I have stretches
of time where I cannot read or write, such as when driving, gardening or lying
awake in the wee small hours. His general thing is self-improvement, getting
better at anything from dancing to business and he often interviews amazing
people who have found success to which many might aspire.
My difference with Tim is in this relentless focus on success. It's a popular
theme, especially in America, and he has done well to stand tall in a crowded
field. He does this by seeking proof, mostly through the experiences of others
or his own, sometimes alarming, experiments. It's a great approach that fits
with my background in engineering, business and psychology. Dig into experience
and theory, build a model, then try it out in practice. And yet this constant
challenge can also lead to a lifetime of striving where there is little time to
smell the roses. There is an underlying assumption in the general success
industry, that it correlates with happiness. If you are successful in life, then
you will be happy. Furthermore, the more successful you are, the happier you
will be. The problem is that this American dream contains the seeds of its own
failure. When success always means 'better', then you can never be successful.
It is like the business blinker of 'growth'. When you focus first on growing, it
is easy to forget survival as you reach too far, too fast, and assume your
market will expand forever.
To be fair to Tim, he does pay attention to personal pleasure and,
importantly, knowing what you want in life and hence what 'success' means --
which is a very important question that too few of us ask of ourselves. He does
promote mindfulness and meditation, yet there is still an intensity to this that
typically packages it into a disciplined. morning exercise. And yet the constant
overlay of betterment seems not to know when enough is enough.
recent podcast he looked back at The Four Hour Work Week and focused on one
particular chapter, 'Filling the Void' that he thought has often been
misunderstood. In particular, this is about what you might do when you have
achieved a modicum of success. It is a great question. When you have achieved
success, when made your pile, what then? There is an American principle that
success is more about what you are making than what you are worth, and even less
about being able to stop working. This is a brilliant cultural driver for a
strong economy as it celebrates working billionaires. In Britain, the dream is
more about making money then cashing in and going to sit on a beach somewhere.
Maybe there is also a third way where, when you no longer worry about where the
next meal is coming from or you family is reasonably secure, you then turn down
the money-making drive to 'maintenance' mode, ease off on stress, and put your
energies into what you like rather than what you must.
I have done this. I spent many years writing the Changing Minds website while
holding down a full time job, bringing up a family and studying for further
qualifications. Then, when the job disappeared (a blessing in disguise) I
retired early with my amazing wife to a smallholding on a beautiful Welsh
mountainside. I still get up and work every day, including studying and writing
for the site, but the huge difference is that I now do what I want to do. The
garden and field are my gym. I do various voluntary work. I travel and
photograph. I speak at conferences. I even do occasional paid work, but the
difference now is that I don't chase it. I have a modest pension and moderate
income from ads and books, and it is enough to support a comfortable, though not
luxurious lifestyle, in which Tim's podcasts are welcome stimulation. I'm still
addicted to learning and he continues to deliver the best "aha's per hour"
dopamine buzz that I can find in the podcast-sphere.
The biggest bonus of all this: less stress and more happiness. An excellent
point by one of Tim's guests on
another podcast is that what we call happiness is often more transient
pleasure. Happiness is deeper, more grounded and meaningful. It is not tied to
success or achievement. It is more about being, in the moment and through time.
It might even be called ontological, existential and stoic. Sure. I could chase
down the guru route. I can probably claim to be a world expert in changing
minds. I could run exhortation-packed weekends for learners in subjects from
sales to teaching, yet why, when instead I can till the soil and see beauty all
around me. I sleep when I am tired, arise when I wake, and work at whatever
floats today's boat.
Advert overload : when monetization fails
I've listened to Dan Snow's
History Hit podcast for a while now. It's really interesting, with
interviews with knowledgeable historians, but I've just dropped it. Why? Because
it has too many adverts. It starts with several minutes of ads, gets into the
meat of the show, then breaks off mid-sentence for more ads.
A very real dilemma when applying adverts and promotions within web pages,
podcasts, videos and so on, is that the more you do it, the more likely it is
that people will abandon your page and perhaps your site for ever. This is a
non-linear relationship and there is often a 'tipping point', such as where I
reached with History Hit. You can do sophisticate A-B testing and more to test
whether people click on more ads or ads in different positions, but what is more
difficult to determine is their choice in whether to visit you at all,
especially given their past experiences at your site.
This is one reason why I keep articles in Changing Minds as a single block
with adverts above and below but not within the text. I want readers to feel
good when they are reading and not irritated by interruptions. The same
principle is often used in other podcasts I listen to, with adverts at the
beginning and end but not in the middle.
With Changing Minds I kind of like it when I see lots of other sites with a
high advert density as it helps make my site stand out. As a result I get lots
of readers and returners and advert clicks are enough to keep me off the streets
but is not making me a millionaire, which suits me fine,
With adverts, as with many other things, less is often more.
Simplicity, complexity, extremism and
moderation: How much you think changes how you behave
Sometimes people take extreme views. Occasionally they are right, but most
times they are wrong. The world is a complex place. People have complex
thoughts. Things are not as simple as they often seem, yet extremist views can
be very simplistic.
There are two approaches that are often seen in life. An example is in
photography, where a 'good photograph' stimulates one of two different needs.
Views of calm seas and simple portraits are easy to take in and interpret. They
do not take much effort, requiring very little thought to understand. Other
pictures, such as of a bird colony or cityscape, often require more thought.
This is found even more in abstract art, where the purpose is to stimulate
interest and wonderment. Hence we have 'easy' and 'interesting' needs that are
satisfied by 'simple' and 'complex' images.
Even more fundamental, when we are making sense of the world, we take one of
two routes. Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model call these the
central or peripheral routes. Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and Slow' calls
them System 1 and System 2. The underlying issue is that we have neither the
time nor the brainpower to process the non-stop information stream that assails
our senses. Peripheral, System 1, simple thinking is quick and easy as we use
heuristics, habits and the unconscious mind for 'good enough' assessment. This
frees the conscious mind for central, System 2, complex thinking where we pay
more attention and consider things more carefully.
This principle translates to everything from jobs to political views. Many
people like their jobs to be moderately interesting, but mostly easy. Complexity
causes them stress. Others relish a challenge and are prepared to take risks. In
politics, philosophy and other topics where idealism often appears, this
easy-or-complex choice can lead people to extreme or moderate views.
Extreme views are necessarily limited as they exclude all other views. They
find the easy route attractive, with simple ideas. For ideas to be stable, they
are often based either be on a fixed source or on a charismatic leader. Sources
are typically a single book or canon of literature, such as religious or
scientific works. Extremist leaders need sufficiently ideas or charisma that
other people will follow them and blindly (and hence easily) accept what they
are told. Such leaders may have their own ideas or may be interpreters of
Those holding extreme views also tend to simplify other people as good (those
like me) or bad (everyone else). Non-believers may be cast as mistaken, but are
often thought of as being bad people who know what is true and yet oppose this
due to an underlying reactionary, corrupt and even evil nature.
Intelligence plays a factor here as brighter and educated people can think
more quickly, process more information and produce more accurate assessments,
and so can use the central route more often. There is also a comfort factor,
where consideration of complex ideas may well mean accepting a situation where
you do not know everything and must accept more uncertainty. People who avoid
cognitive and social risk are more likely to take the easier, peripheral route
as they adopt beliefs from others in order to gain social acceptance and avoid
mental discomfort. In this way, extremist societies are born as large numbers
accept simple, passionate and aggressive views.
Another significant factor in radicalization is socialisation, where people
get converted via a process that typically includes isolation from alternative
views, destruction of previous identity and intensive indoctrination into the
new, 'pure' way of thinking. Cults often work like this. Whether they have
religious goals or it is more about worship of a charismatic leader, they hide
themselves from the world. Isolation works well when you have unusual practices,
as it takes followers away from normalizing influences, including persuasive
relatives. Other types of extremist want to be near unbelievers, either to
preach at them or to attack them. This is particularly true of religious and
political groups who believe their way is the only way, and that other groups
should follow suit or be punished in some severe way.
Within extreme communities, there can easily be in-fighting and factionalism
based on ideas of purity, where the more extreme believers consider themselves
better and more deserving. This also contains the doom of extremists as when
they have defeated their opposition or are unable to make a difference, they
turn inwards against one another. Their combative nature can also trip them up
in debates which they may well see as a war of ideals.
People with moderate views, on the other hand, tend more to compromise. They
seek approaches and solutions that most people will find acceptable, if not
perfect. They are realists, working with what they have rather than some
idealistic view of what should be. They view extremists as strange, selfish and
maybe dangerous in their readiness to use extreme methods on those who criticize
or otherwise do not agree with the extreme views.
And yet, while extremist views can lead to serious harm of societies,
including their own, they can also be a source of needed change. Extreme views
are often born out of real situations, for example where a society is run by a
wealthy elite (even within a democracy), then left-wing, grass-roots revolution
can grow. In extremist systems, the unabated pendulum tends to swing from one
side to another. This is where moderates come it, as with a damping of the
pendulum the damage of extreme control can be minimized and a reasonably civil
society maintained amongst all the change.
Getting the job: the least worst candidate,
Theresa May and the hoped-for great saviour
Sometimes, when you are looking for a job, it is more important to not be
disliked than be outstanding in any areas. In this way, average, bland and
uncontroversial people get the job rather than those who might be more
A common time when this kind of appointment is made is where there are
strongly differing views among those who have a hand in the appointment process,
and in particular where any individual or group have the power of veto. In such
cases, the likely successful candidate will be a person to whom no selector
This is a common pattern in political appointments, where factions and power
players can all veto any appointee, and none more so than when people are
seeking a new leader. An example of this happened in the UK after the Brexit
referendum, where David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister and enmities between
people like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove made them insufficiently popular with
all sides. As a result, the moderate and flexible Theresa May got the job of
guiding Britain out the EU, even though she voted against it. Yet without the
fanatical support that strong leaders get, she has floundered as in-party
warring has continued unabated. This, during a time where unity is essential for
successful Brexit, could well lead to national disaster.
This least-worst decision-making appears in many other choice scenarios, from
business strategizing to buying a family car, where keeping everyone on board
beats innovation and high-potential risk. The averaging effect of compromise
destroys companies, brings down governments and kills passion. It creates
grudges as behemoths lumber on, even to their doom.
In balancing this dismal state of affairs, there is an answer which can seem
impossible when all parties are entrenched in blinkered views. This is of
visionary leadership that speaks to all and breaks through the impotent gloom.
Great leaders bring people together, speaking to their deep fears and desires,
yet not being beholden to them.
There is a theory, sometimes debunked, that explains this, proposing that a
'Great Man' will arise when there is great need. Despite the old sexism of the
idea, it is a common pattern in times of stress, where we seek a magical saviour
who will deliver us from anticipated evil times ahead (and look no further than
recent presidential elections for evidence of this). Practically, this is
unlikely to happen as the Conservatives are paralyzed by a fear of socialist
Jeremy Corbyn winning another election. Better the weak leader they know, it
Never mind the cynicism, we desperately need such a person now, and not just
in Britain. Let's hope our Churchill (an oft-quoted example) will step out on
the shadows soon.
But is it art? The tricky question of whether
computers can be artists
Can computers, perhaps in the guise of a future artificial intelligence, be
creative? Can they create something whereby many people agree that the result is
The first question here is 'What is art?' Is it about the result, created by
whatever means? Is it about the customer, the user, the observer? Do people have
to agree something is art before we can agree that it is art? Or is it about the
artist, and the process of creative thinking? And if so, does this preclude
computers from ever being creative? To plunder an over-used metaphor, can there
be creativity in the forest when nobody is there?
A simple definition of art (though not the only one) is of something that
deliberately stimulates. This allows for art in music, cooking and other areas.
It also allows for varying pleasure. While creating widespread pleasure can be
profitable, others may scorn such populism and delight in anguished expression.
Stimulation may be gained through representation, which can range from a simple
photograph (where machines have long played a part) to a clever sculpture made
with scrap-yard parts. Even in more abstract representation, if rules can be
defined, then machines may create.
An extension of the question of stimulation which resonates with this site is
that art changes minds. Through its provocation, it makes people think
differently and maybe become different people. In such ways, art can changes
A key aspect is emotion. Art stimulates feelings as reactions to a creation.
This is more difficult for machines, but not impossible. While provoking some
feeling is quite feasible (we are emoting creatures, after all), gaining the awe
and wonder great art may be a more difficult challenge.
A further consideration is in the balance of familiarity and surprise.
Representation, even in abstract terms, needs something familiar. From this
base, corruption and unexpected variation grabs attention, and the art of the
artist is in knowing the line between pleasure and irritation that this creates.
This task is far harder for machines and is a boundary that will be hard to
Jack Tait is a retired
photography lecturer who builds simple machines that draw, using a careful
combination of determinism and randomisation. It uses pens, driven by various
motors, gears and cams. Not all drawings are good art, but he is making progress
in improving the good-to-bad ratio.
There are many examples of computers doing incredible things. Perhaps one of
the most astonishing of late is the story of the Go-playing supercomputer. In
2016, Google's AlphaGo Lee
beat Lee Sedol, 9th Dan master, at a game that is reputed to be the greatest
intellectual challenge. It did so by analyzing many, many previous games, giving
it more options at its super-natural fingers. But then, only a year later,
AlphaGo Zero soundly beat its predecessor with only knowledge of the basic rules
of the game. Observers of the games were confused by the unorthodox moves the
computer made, but were later convinced of the genius when these proved very
Even given all this seems unlikely that computers will create great art any
time soon, especially given the emotional sensitivity required. Yet it may come,
alongside great empathy when this is cracked. When your computer understand you
better than anyone, when you prefer its company and laugh uproariously at its
hilarious new jokes, then maybe, only then, will it creates you amazing artworks
in its spare time.
The years spin by: the psychology of time
perception and how our priorities change
Well that's it. 2017 done and dusted. Good stuff and bad stuff, as most
years, and whether we see it as one or the other has more to do with our
attitude than what actually happened. Because how we experience life and
especially how we remember it is what makes our lives pleasant or not. Another
common perception that is much remarked upon at this time of year is how fast
time flies by. Life is like driving down a road with your foot hard down on the
accelerator. Things go by faster and faster until one day, a wall pops up in
front of you and that's the end of your journey. Sometimes we see the wall from
a way off and sometimes it appears so quickly it is all over in a moment.
How we perceive time is kind of funny. We classically have five senses:
sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. We also know that there are four things
in the universe: space, time, energy and matter. We can detect space, energy and
matter with our senses, but what about time? We can't see, hear, taste, smell or
touch it. So how do we perceive it? The answer is that it is a mental
construction. We imagine it as an explanation for changing experience. Time
flies when we're having fun and drags when we are bored.
So why do older people in particular complain about the speedy passage of
time? One way we assess time is by comparing the time we have spend in our lives
with the time we have left to live. For children, their future lives stretch
infinitely outwards, while older people know that most of their lives are done
and the wall could pop up any time now. This happens too to the terminally ill,
who strive to make the best of the limited time left they have. If you were told
you had only a month to live, what would you do? Probably something different to
what you have planned (if anything) for the coming 30 days.
What is important for us changes as time goes by. When we are young, having
fun is often the most important. If we are lucky, we will enjoy learning, as
this pays most back in future years, though another tricky factor gets us here:
the areas of the pre-frontal cortex in the brain where we imagine the future
does not develop fully until we are in our early twenties. In middle age, time
floats by as we are often too busy getting on with our lives with jobs,
relationships, families and children. Then children leave and jobs end and our
remaining years stretch out before us, fading away into a worryingly near term.
In that autumn period if we are lucky enough to be self-sufficient, we may seek
to do those things we could not afford or had no time for earlier in our lives.
We take up new hobbies. We travel and see the world. We reconnect with old
friends and make new ones. Or maybe we stare into the approaching headlights
like frightened rabbits.
And so, as we stand on the brink of 2018, what will your priorities be for
the year? Are you looking ahead? Imagine you are standing here a year hence,
looking back. What do you want to say you have achieved? Because now is the time
to look forward to the real differences you want to make. And there is one thing
that you must do in order to get it: think differently. If you think how you
always thought, you will get what you always got. Is that enough? No? So think
again. Change your attitude, change your future.
Are we sleepwalking back to an age of feudal,
For many, many years, mankind lived by what we sometimes call 'The rule of
the jungle', in which might is right and those who ruled did so strength. Up
until recent centuries, kings had absolute power, as did every person of
position within in a strict hierarchy. Even in families, children were 'to be
seen and not heard' and women often had an inferior role.
Such power structures tend to be brutish, with harsh punishment for minor
infractions, meted out with little real justice, other than that chosen by the
person in charge. Positions of power at any level was often gained by what we
would today consider as corrupt means, including bribery, blackmail and
bullying. This gave rise to 'leaders' who managed by fear and who could be
wantonly cruel at will. While some today might wish for simpler times of past
ages, they would probably be horrified by the accepted practices of the day.
Along the way, often through revolution, democracy emerged as a means for the
people at the bottom of the tree to control the people at the top. Now, through
this distributed power, they could vote in representatives who would truly
represent broad social interests and look after weaker members of society.
A problem with democracy is that it is not always wise. Like any system of
trust it is open to deception and there are many who can be deceived. For those
in power, feudalism can be an attractive system to not only keep their power but
also to pass it on to their family and friends.
The internet came along with such promise of openness. When everyone could
know everything about everyone, universal social trust seemed inevitable. Yet
when those who sought to shape opinion got hold of this tool, the tail started
to wag the dog. Activists who used it in repressive regimes suddenly found that
the tables were turned as the authorities followed the links back to source.
Then with troll farms, clickbait and deceptive tweeting, the internet turned
from a tool for freedom to a means of propaganda and social control.
Where will it all end? Democracy, which reached a high water point at the
turn of the millennium, seems to be fading in influence. Authoritarian rulers
are on the rise through the world, even in countries that elect their leaders,
and even again in the heart of the Western world. In particular, the far-right
seems to be grabbing more control and working to change the system so they stay
in power. Dictatorships easily arise out of democracies when the population vote
for empty promises and grand, nationalist speeches. It can seem unthinkable, but
history, notably in the last 100 years, is littered with instances of unwise
voting leading to appalling autocracies.
It's not about whether we get a left or right government. More, it's about
protecting our fragile democracies. The only way that we will avoid returning to
feudal times is if people listen, think, organize and most importantly, get out and vote.
Negotiating chaos and lost trust: the price
of bluff and bravado
In the recent Brexit negotiations, the UK Prime Minister Theresa May made yet
another negotiating error that further weakened the British position in their
bid to wiggle our of the European Union. All ready for a triumphant announcement
of agreement about Northern Ireland, her parliamentary partners, the
ultra-conservative DUP, scuppered her compromise agreement with the EU and
Ireland about borders.
How things have changed. Back in May, she was talking tough about 'No deal is
better than a bad deal' and her party was scoffing at EU demands for a massive
divorce payoff. ’They need us more than we need them' was a common cry. Yet now
we are offering tens of billions and conceding at every turn.
So what's up? What should we have done differently?
The first step should have been to understand realities, instead of the 'have
your cake and eat it' echo chamber ideals of the hard Brexit advocates. We
should have realized their experience of hundreds of years of British conquest
and arrogance, and the long desire for revenge. We should also have realized
their fear that conceding to UK demands would encourage other doubters. Even
then, the temptation to 'divide and conquer' by approaching individual countries
(a classic negotiation tactic) was not a good move (ministers tried it) as this
just soured the relationship further.
The next step should have been to show respect and empathy towards the
Europeans, not disdain. We should have listened and demonstrated concern. We
should also have understood the real impact on us and prepared detailed plans
for how to handle disagreement. We should have been organized and not shown our
internal divisions. The list goes on.
I feel really sorry for Theresa May, trying to stitch together all the
different interests and emotions. Even if she cobbles together some deal, she
has lost the respect of many, including the electorate. So too has her
Enough. What are the lessons for the rest of us?
First, never get arrogant nor underestimate your negotiating partners (and
don't think of them as purely opponents -- it a joint process to find optimum
benefit for both). Remember also the partners on your own side of the line. The
DUP were not sufficiently engaged and the result was last-minute collapse.
Then get your data and facts straight. During the 2016 referendum, Minister
Michael Gove said that we had had enough of experts. On the contrary, listen to
your experts carefully.
Listen to your partners, too. Research their situation. Understand their deep
interests. Build trust, not anger. With this, help them understand you.
Then talk process. How should you proceed? Agree how to agree. The EU
blindsided the UK earlier in the year by demanding agreement on a huge divorce
bill before moving to the trade talks that the UK desperately wanted.
And manage time. The UK government have had a year and a half so far and are
still disorganized. They set the two-year clock ticking last Spring without a
plan nor a clear organization, which they made worse with a disastrous election
(again, failing to change minds).
Negotiation is a serious business, especially when there are big stakes and
many interests. It takes time and planning. Political bluster is no substitute.
All we can do now is watch and learn from this masterclass in failure. And
determine not to fall down such rabbit holes ourselves.
Subtle headlines and deeper psychology:
language used in reporting of the retweet scandal
Donald Trump has expertly grabbed the headlines again, this time retweeting
old videos posted by a small, far-right group in the UK. Unlike many others, who
strongly criticized the president, Prime Minister Theresa May rather weakly just said
it was 'wrong'.
Rather than go into the sordid wrongness and international damage of such
leading Republican Paul Ryan seems appalled), let's look at how the major UK
newspapers reported this, on Thursday, 30 November, 2017. In particular, it is
interesting to look at the subtle effects of different wording.
The Telegraph: May attacks far-Right Trump tweets
The Times: May criticises Trump over far-right video tweets
The Guardian: May condemns Trump's far-right retweets
The Financial Times: Trump rebuked by Downing Street for retweeting posts by UK
First, look at the main verb. The Telegraph is a conservative newspaper,
which is perhaps surprising as this is the most aggressive wording, with the
language of war in 'attack'. The Times is more clinical, using 'criticises'. The
Guardian uses the language of a judge condemning a prisoner, framing May in a morally superior role. The FT
also places May in a superior position, but
now as a parent rebuking a child.
As well as war language, the Telegraph has an embedded indictment of
'far-Right Trump'. This seems unlikely to be editorial accident as it aligns
Trump with the extreme racists he retweets. Interesting also is the capitalized
'Right' (unlike other headlines), giving this extra significance as a proper noun.
The Guardian has the shortest headline. Brief headlines can add punch, while
longer headlines, like the Financial Times, engages you for longer, giving more
time for the message to sink in.
Three papers name the prime minister as 'May'. Using just the surname can be
more depersonalizing and pejorative (this insult is frequently used for
'Trump'), although depending on context it can also lend authority (which seems
the case here). The Financial Times interestingly uses the indirect
'Downing Street', in the same way that 'The White House's may be used, sending a
signal that this is a criticism from the whole UK Government, and not just
Headline writers know what they are saying, including from these serious
broadsheets (the tabloids were more interested in local gossip). This analysis
will not be a surprise to them. It is useful for the rest of is to watch the
detail of language used and wonder about the subtle intent behind the words.
The illusion of confidence and the road to
Confidence is a watchword of our day. We learn at home, school, work and with
friends that confidence is cool and cool is confidence. It is considered an
attractive attribute and a basic essential for success in life.
But what exactly is it? You can't put it in a bag and you can't buy it. One
way to understand it is that it is the opposite of self-doubt, awkwardness and
not knowing what to do. Often, a lack of confidence is based on a fear of
criticism by others. Conversely, confidence implies being sure of one's own
ability and being less vulnerable to social manipulation.
A problem with confidence is that it easily assumes certainty, stability and
detailed knowledge which leads to a state of wilful blindness or blissful
ignorance whereby that which is not known is not needed.
And it works. Better than self doubt, at least. It activates you, getting you
to at least try when you might otherwise be paralyzed by fear. Confidence also
reduces doubt in others as they mistake certainty for knowledge or competence.
It is not surprising that it is considered an important skill for leaders.
Yet fake confidence cloaks doubt, which can stubbornly cling on as we project
confidence while hiding our uncertainty. But this can cause unbearable inner
tension that needs an escape. We want to be confident. We act confident, but
doubt. And eventually our minds concede and believe our own propaganda. In this
way, we gain real confidence that is not justified.
Overconfidence means ignoring risk. Pride goes before a fall and failure may
be denied even as that walls crumble. But what then? If it can't be me, it must
be others or external factors. To sustain confidence, we excuse ourselves and
Confidence does not give space for learning. Or does it?
It seems that doubt is bad, unhelpful and unhealthy. And it can be. Yet it
can be healthy too. Healthy doubt does not undermine confidence. Indeed, it
makes a great, if paradoxical, partner. It adds realism, humility, and a pause
that gives time to consider alternatives.
To be properly confident means taking time to acquire knowledge and skills.
It means a long apprenticeship that leads to real mastery. Even then, real
confidence means being realistic about failure, indulging in neither excessive
doubt nor prideful certainty. What mastery gives is the confidence to cope with
variation, surprise and even failure. When you know from experience you can
handle whatever happens, you can then be truly confident.
For more, see the ChangingMinds Blog! Archive or
the Blogs by subject. To comment on
any blog, click on the blog either in the archive or in the column to the right.