UPDATE: It's December and I'm back posting on The Walkabout. It nice... Wa wa wee wa!
What is the difference between being good and doing good?
* * *
Last month while doing some research writing, I had the opportunity to read yet again, Good to Great by Jim Collins.
The book starts with a bold statement - that good is the enemy of great. And while it is a business book, Good to Great is primarily about being what one is best at, and actually doing the best.
* * *
For this month, I'm torn between ending this post with a song about knowing one can or believing. All the same, both are fabulous. And more so because we have the voices of kinds saying truly beautiful things...
I've often stated that we don't engage in political discourse here on The Walkabout. But truth be said, unless we have successfully transitioned into sovereign individuals and managed to go seasteading in international waters, politics will continue to adversely affect our lives.
In Kenya, we voted for the current leadership in August 2017. The process itself took much longer, thanks to a repeat Presidential election on October 2017. You'd then assume that Kenyans would have made better choices after witnessing the institutionalized corruption, impunity in wastage of public resources, shameless embezzlement and wanton plunder from public coffers. The years between 2013 and 2017 should have served as a lesson that neccessitated changes but not much changed. Kenyans went again and voted for different monkeys from the same forest.
This failure to correctly judge situations, to repeat the same mistakes is often driven by a number of factors. Some of the causes have publicly been shared by scholars in the past, let's have a dig at some of the reasons we so hopelessly fail at making value decisions.
Odds and Value Estimation
As outlined on the Farnam Street blog, Dan Gilbert says that humans are works in progress who mistakenly think they're finished. In other words, we wrongly imagine the same person we are today is the same person we shall be till death.
In his 2005 TED Talk, Dan Gilbert explored why we make bad decisions.
For starters, the expected value of any action is a product of the odds that one will gain something from the act, and the gain in value i.e.
Expected Value = Odds of Gain x Value of Gain.
But it turns out that we usually attach value to things based on their past value, instead of the current value on the basis of context. In other words, based on what is possible.
It is quite an interesting and insightful talk, which ends with this thought-provoking statement:
We underestimate the odds of our future pains, and overestimate the value of our present pleasures.
Confirmation Bias
This refers to the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs and theories.
Writing in The New Yorker, Elizabeth Colbert points to limitations of reason, with the desire to win arguments taking precedence over straight thinking.
It so happens that when we form impressions, they persist and stay with us.
But there's a reason why once we form beliefs and the evidence for such beliefs has been totally refuted, we don't make appropriate revisions in such beliefs.
One explanation of this, is how evolution has fashioned us into social beings who collaborate and live in groups.
We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we belief things because they make us look good to the people we care about.
This is why we continue to hold on to beliefs that are factually false, but socially accurate.
* * *
We have in the past talked about trying to wash our hands in dirty water, or just being blind with one's eyes wide open. Humans seem to be irresistibly lured by things that actually harm them, things that may seem good, but aren't beneficial. Toxic things.
Yesterday on Twitter, I was reading through tweets about Kenya's new cabinet, following the swearing-in of the recently appointed cabinet secretaries.
At some point, one tweet caught my attention. Someone was loudly wondering why women were put in the periphery when they took a joint photo (below) with the President. See more photos here.
Inasmuch as I stand to be corrected, I often see many responses to many of life's situations as merely a reflection of what we are, with very little said or done about the particular situation at hand.
In short, one person will purposely decide to fault-find and point out wrongs where none exist, while another will see the good in things and in people given the exact same situation.
It is the classic glass half-full vs half-empty situation.
Seeing things as we are can be dangerous. Following are two examples to support my assertion:
1) A Life was Lost
In the CSI season 1 episode 9 titled 'Unfriendly Skies,' a passenger was mistaken killed by fellow passengers when they mistook the manifestation of his ailment as an "annoying threat."
When the murder is eventually resolved, the CSI team discuss that particular case, placing themselves in the shoes of the affected passengers to find out if they'd have committed the murder or not, given the same circumstances. Eventually, Gil Grissom gives the following thought-provoking opinion:
Gil Grissom: It's not about that. You all have different opinions but you've taken the same point of view. You've put yourself in the shoes of the passengers, but nobody's put themselves in the shoes of the victim. That's the point.
Gil Grissom: Nobody stopped to ask Candlewell if he was all right. They just assumed, because he was kicking the back of Nate's seat, that he was a jerk - because he was pushing his call button that he was bothering the Flight Attendant - because he was trying to get into the lavatory he was making a scene - because he was going back and forth up and down the aisles, he was posing a threat.
Gil Grissom: No. He turned into a threat. It didn't have to be that way. People make assumptions. That's the problem. You just did. And I think these passengers made the wrong assumption and now this guy's dead.
Warrick Brown: Well, if that's your stance how could it have been prevented?
Gil Grissom: If just one person had stopped and taken the time to look at the guy, to listen to him, to figure out what was wrong with him it might not have happened. It took five people to kill him. It would've only taken one person to save his life.
When Mutahi Ngunyi posted his 'Tyranny of Numbers' hypothesis on YouTube, he was called names. Many condemned him as tribal and misinformed, and others dismissed him as a hired propaganda hand.
When the official election results were announced however, Mutahi was vindicated.
I have to admit that I try as much as I can to not discuss politics and soccer on this blog, their popularity notwithstanding.
The above hypothesis merits mention however. In the video above, please take note of the reminder that "we often see things as we are and not as they are."
That, my friends, is the core reason we invariably ignore advice, dismiss facts and arrogantly refuse to accept the existence of opinions that differ from our own.
Be Objective
How then, do we change our perceptions? How do we overcome the irrational and often unfounded bias that so often harms our relations with others who may not necessarily agree with us?
We need to be objective in life. We have to stop making assumptions, take time and realize that there is much good in people and in things, if only we can pause and see it amid all the distractions that blur our vision as we try to see what's good and right.
This has got to be one of the shortest posts I've ever written on The Walkabout. It however is, in my opinion, totally profound. Following is the reason why:
Remain true to yourself, but move ever upward toward greater consciousness and greater love! At the summit you will find yourselves united with all those who, from every direction, have made the same ascent. For everything that rises must converge.
The above quote by French Philosopher Pierre Teilhard De Chardin is from his 'Omega Point'. It inspired Flannery O'Connor's 'Everything That Rises Must Converge'. It is one of the best stories I've ever read. Flannery's similarly titled book, was referenced in The Incident [part 1], an episode in the popular TV Series LOST.
We know that if we each do a little more, we all do a lot more. This holds true for any joint effort such as brainstorming, crowd-sourcing, team sports, academic discussions... and more.
It however gets a little bit interesting when we consider stereotypes. In this skewed way of looking at things, we focus on one [usually negative or wanting] attribute, and base our entire outlook and judgments on it.
In Kenya, people of a particular ethnic extraction may be perceived as proud, lazy, promiscuous, unromantic or greedy, among other undesirable traits. We still go ahead and inspired by prejudice, dislike individuals for belonging to ethnic communities which are generally believed to have the aforementioned traits.
My attention was however drawn to this post by one member [Kusadikika] on the Wazua forum. He/she writes:
Have you ever eaten a delicious meal of say Pilau after which you are left smacking your lips thinking "tamu sana"? Would it make sense if someone later asked you what is it you found delicious; was it the salt, was it the spice, was it the rice, was it the garlic or tomatoes or the oil. Could you still have loved it had it been served frozen rather than hot? Does it therefore mean that what you liked was the heat in the food and not the meal itself?
People are many things. They are tall, short, old, young, rich, poor, with ugly feet, beautiful hands, long hair, good teeth, talkative, quiet, kind, funny, talented etc. All attributes we possess and circumstances we stand in are part and parcel of who we are. Take out one and the whole is changed. You would be a different person if you were younger or older, a different gender, taller or shorter, less intelligent or more intelligent. You would be a different person if you were more or less educated and yes you would be a different person if you were richer or poorer.
Mbugua and Wambui love each other and have been together for 8 years. They met and fell in love in the circumstances that they found themselves in. Love is a beautiful thing. Let us not scandalise it by dissecting it.
I find the above very sober and well-thought. I agreement with Vin on the same forum, I dare not add anything else. It's all and well said.
Let us acknowledge our diversity, but still be graceful enough to find unity sans myopic, stereotypical prejudices. May we appreciate every individual's worthwhile input to the bigger picture.
