A Tale of Two Factories

Posted Jun 26, 2016 at 08:47. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17.

For many years, two similarly sized factories in a small manufacturing town produced similar products but produced their product using very different employee relations.

The workers in the first factory were paid like dirt but treated like kings. Management was solicitous toward the workers and was concerned about both the personal and work-related problems of its employees. Management tried to fix problems that workers encountered in doing their work, and the workers were happy with their working conditions. These workers were not unionized and had good employee relations with management.

The workers in the second factory were paid like kings but treated like dirt. Rudeness and patronizing condescension toward the workers were the order of the day for management. In turn, the operating philosophy of most of the workers was “Make sure you screw management before it screws you.” Employee relations in this factory centered on a strong union that was forever engaged in ugly and often stupid fights with management.

It should be clear from this that unions are only partly about pay levels and safe working conditions. The way employers treat people and the dignity the people enjoy usually matters a great deal more. In all relationships genuine manners are cheap, and rudeness and arrogance are expensive.

The moral of this story applies far more widely than just to factory labor relations. The Brexit event and turmoil in Europe and North America are all a direct consequence of the “establishment’s” misunderstanding of how to deal with its “peons.” The “establishment” easily lulls itself into complacency by believing that its superior education and wisdom entitles it to lay down rules that will protect the ignorant masses from themselves – similar to the way a farmer looks out for a barn full of animals. The peons further feed the complacency by not fighting back until they erupt over the wrong thing, at the wrong time, and at the wrong place. Rational observers are then dumbfounded over the uproar when the peons finally “have had enough.”

This elitist perception develops in somewhat different ways in extreme conservatives and extreme “progressives,” but the common thread is that they both treat average people as inferiors. Conservatives see these people as inferior and needing to have correct thinking done for them by the knowledgeable and informed. Progressives often see average people as bigoted and lacking a politically correct tolerance for those who differ from themselves, so many “progressives” subscribe to a twenty-first-century version of the “white man’s burden” – a patronizing and demeaning compassion for those whom they regard as helpless dopes.

In both cases, the greater wisdom of the elite must prevail, and with the same results. This force-fed wisdom belittles and insults the worth and competence of average people – a guaranteed formula for strife in both labor relations and politics. When looking down on people finally results in strong, nasty unions or a revolution at the ballot box, the elitists who have caused the problem simply cannot believe that they have had anything to do with bringing about an upheaval.

The more enlightened people in the labor and business worlds understand that they must cooperate as much as possible to avoid the ill will that comes from destroying the dignity of those in lesser positions. An enterprise requires employees to function, and employees require an enterprise to have jobs. The economic need to make money is a powerful incentive for reasonableness on both sides.

Enlightened government bureaucrats also recognize the need for enlightened and respectful treatment of the entities affected by their actions. When managerial power runs amuck as much as it has in the European Union (EU) bureaucracy, it often adds a stiff and inappropriate dose of morality and self- righteousness to the managerial mix. No matter that most management decisions inherently lack a moral dimension; these bureaucrats often see violations of moral precepts everywhere and believe stomping on these violations to be their moral duty.

The self-perception of regulators is critical to how effective their regulations will be. Those filled with self-righteousness toward the business community can generate more problems than they solve. Regulators do much damage when they go on blind, self-serving power trips and impulsive missions to stomp out evil. When they don’t see the folly in this approach, the prosperity of all is hurt.

A much better regulatory paradigm is one based on a superficially contradictory view of the regulator’s responsibilities. The regulator needs to be a loving parent toward those regulated and wants to do everything possible to help the regulated children succeed while tolerating no misbehavior. Regulators that do not carefully listen to the regulated only make lawyers rich at the expense of the rest of society. Historically, war happens when the failure to listen gets bad enough.

The current penchant for political correctness adds a level of managerial patronizing that does not sit well with the average worker. The average person’s perception of his or her situation is what matters, and that perception may, in fact, be either right or wrong. The patronizing bureaucrat’s summary dismissal of the average person’s views only further inflames the situation. Moreover, people who profess to be concerned about “the little guy” often dismiss any resistance they meet from the average person as ignorance, bigotry, or intolerance.

The backlash from the masses extends to not trusting politically correct reporting by the media. A case in point is the initial reporting by BBC radio of British MP Jo Cox’s assassination. By being politically correct and omitting immediately available facts, the automatic suspicion by listeners was that the assassin was probably an Islamic nut case. In an injustice to the Muslim community, the BBC took its time to make it clear that the assassin was not a UK immigrant or Muslim. (After all, whatever your religious views, race, nationality, and ethnicity may have no relationship to anything except bigotry – so those endowed with superior righteousness must not report politically incorrect facts!) Moreover, hours passed before the BBC revealed whether Jo Cox was campaigning for or against remaining in the European Union. Why was this quite significant and immediately available fact delayed for hours?

Similarly, matters have not been helped by the reluctance of EU bureaucrats and the press to recognize fully that large groups of people, especially in Europe, have valid, real, and genuine concerns about how large-scale immigration impacts their culture, safety, and way of life. In various instances, these concerns are in fact intolerance, but the patronizing elite’s demeaning denial of the views and feelings of its electorate often infuriates the extremes on both the right and the left. The elite sees such condescending arrogance as morally justified resistance to the ignorance of the masses even though the issues the people are worrying about are real. This insulting attitude by “leadership” guarantees a revolt sooner or later.

The elitists have little awareness that they have not understood the message in A Tale of Two Factories. Looking down on people as if they are ignorant, stupid, or bigoted does nothing to add to love and understanding. Someone needs to tell the elite that even though the average person may, in fact, be ignorant, stupid, or bigoted, none of those attributes necessarily mean that the person is wrong. Wrong is a fourth attribute, and only mutual respectfulness can trump wrong.

Unless genuine respect and tolerance can become the order of the day, the EU is doomed. Peons always know something, and they will be infuriated by the condescending arrogance in being accused of bigotry. Such accusations infuriate even more when they contain some truth.

A proven way to correct the antagonisms among current EU citizens exists, but it is probably not practical. The people in the EU, and their bureaucrats in particular need a common enemy to stop them from acting like a cage full of gerbils that eat their babies. They already have that common enemy: themselves. If that enemy isn’t good enough for them, Vladimir Putin will do his best to fill in.

EU bureaucrats seem to have an immunity to learning that is beyond the range of their myopic overspecialization – a direct consequence of ever-growing complexity. Europe needs to be put into a large conference room with lots of beer on the table. Once in the conference room, no one will be allowed to leave or go to the bathroom until all the beer is gone and everyone has agreed to respect each other and work together.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Jun 26, 2016 at 08:47. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

American Political DTs and BSs

Posted Apr 22, 2016 at 10:08. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17.

DT is a particularly interesting phenomenon in the context of the last 120 years of American political history. This history seems to involve a mythology that is only partially borne out in fact and is bolstered by progressively muddying the distinction between fact and opinion. There seems to be a growing propensity for people to have ever greater difficulty distinguishing the difference between what they believe in, what they think they want, and what they really want.

The most basic attribute of politics is that politics is theater and storytelling, pure and simple. It is no coincidence that most elected politicians are lawyers, and specifically trial lawyers. A successful trial lawyer’s presentation to a jury is theater and stories in their highest form, as is a politician’s presentation to the electorate. How lawyers (and politicians) stretch the truth is explained further in the post Insulting Vladimir Putin.

The most prominent presidents of the last 120 years all have had excellent acting skills. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton come to mind as being at the top of the heap in the world of political theater. In this world, most people cannot keep the difference between fact and opinion straight. Whether a person likes any of these four presidents or their policies, is a separate issue from whether they had good acting skills.

In the lead-up to the 1980 election many regarded Ronald Reagan as a nut case that stood no chance of winning a national election. He won because many voters instinctively felt that there was something right about Reagan and that things were horribly amiss in the country.

A similar situation has occurred for Donald Trump. The Animals In The Barnyard (the voters) exhibited the same nervousness that often precedes an earthquake. The animals in the political barnyard are not very articulate about what upsets them, but their instincts and concerns are deep and real.

In this environment DT – whether you like him or not – had what it took to go all the way to the White House. He will probably be more competent than his detractors would have us believe, and not as successful as his supporters expect. The same could have been said for BS, although his naiveté and shallow thinking were worrisome.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Apr 22, 2016 at 10:08. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

Too Small To Succeed

Posted Apr 20, 2016 at 10:21. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17.

It seems that the current political environment has brought politicians out of the woodwork, promising to break up financial institutions that are “Too Big to Fail.” The argument for ensuring that no bank or insurance company is “too big to fail” is sublimely simple. All financial institutions should be small enough so that when an individual institution fails the failure will not need a public funds bailout. Small failures would not infect or damage other institutions. This view ignores a financial disaster that hits everyone at once, which sometimes happens.

One can hardly argue against the intent behind keeping institutions small. Unfortunately, financial companies are more complex than they look, and there is much more to running a financial organization than one might think. For at least 200 years bankers have understood that financial dealings can sometimes go sour despite all efforts to handle them carefully and responsibly. They have also been quite aware that if enough things go wrong at the same time, those unfortunate events can sink a financial organization.

Interestingly, most people in Canada are probably more worried about a bank’s being too small to succeed, for reasons discussed later. Five big banks essentially make up the Canadian banking system. For instance, if the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal were to fail at the same time, a national financial crisis would ensue immediately. So why aren’t Canadians in a state of panic over this? There is an answer, but later.

From the beginning, a prudent banker was careful about lending money because if his bank failed, he went down with it. Good banking practice avoids lending too much money to any one customer and lends only to customers who can repay the loan. Unfortunately, there will always be unexpected circumstances that make a customer unable to repay his loan. A prudently run bank can handle such a loss without being pushed under because a single bad loan will be only a small part of all the institution’s assets.

Prudent bankers have also understood that a competitor’s failure is nothing to gloat over because the failure of a bank hurts the wider community. The bad loan will directly and indirectly hurt other banks as well. Because of this, banks long ago took the first step toward a complexity trap by agreeing that they would make funds available to their competitors when one of them needed a temporary bailout. Such arrangements make a town’s banks collectively stronger and safer.

Unfortunately, such arrangements make things worse when a community-wide disaster leaves many creditworthy customers unable to pay back their loans. For instance, in a farming community crop failures could make many responsible farmers unable to repay their loans. Such events would stress all the town’s banks and make each bank unable to help out the other banks. Guarantees among local banks are not adequate to handle a community-wide catastrophe.

The next step to spread the risk would include larger city banks in the mutual support arrangements, which is reasonable in most circumstances. Historically the smaller banks often deposited some reserves in a bigger city bank as an extra preparation for a rainy day. These reserve funds would be available when lady luck might leave many in the smaller towns broke. Sometimes the way to make a complex problem more reliable is to add to its complexity.

Spreading the risks inherent in a smaller town financial world to larger cities does make things safer – as long as nothing big hits all the regional financial institutions as well. So the logical next protection step is to spread the risk even further by including all the nation’s financial institutions in a network of guarantees. Again, this works as long as no big, adverse event hits all financial organizations at the same time.

Believing that a financial institution that is “too big to fail” increases the risk of system-wide failure is absurd. Catastrophic system-wide risk comes from the risk of a catastrophic system-wide disaster. In such a situation all financial institutions are hit hard, regardless of their size. That risk of collapse exists regardless of the scale of the institutions and comes from the basic system of guarantees wherein institutions look to other institutions for safety. Only the strong, whether big or small, will survive. When the situation is bad enough all connected dominoes will fall, and a few big ones are much easier to support than a sea of little ones. Smallness is a liability when dealing with a systemic failure. So what can one do to prevent this failure?

The answer is the one that the Federal Reserve Bank, the United States’ “bank of last resort,” used in 2008. At that time, the Fed instantly manufactured enough money to shore up the existing guarantees among the major financial institutions. “Printing money” to back up the guarantees was a terrifying task because nobody, not even insiders, had any way of knowing exactly how extensive the complex tangle of guarantees might be or the amount of money needed to arrest the chaos. The Fed saved the day because it was able to put overwhelming monetary pressure on a few key pressure points. In a world where all financial institutions are “too small to succeed,” the institutions become an army of cats that is impossible to herd.

Most of our Canadian friends understand the importance of having key intervention pressure points ready if needed. Canada’s cornerstone financial institutions are all “too big to fail.” Many Canadians clearly see that trying to sort out the complex guarantees among thousands of falling little dominoes and doing it in an environment where billions can and do move in milliseconds is absurd. Keeping thousands of little dominoes standing makes any system too small to succeed because swift and comprehensive interventions are not possible. When key institutions are “too big to fail,” central bankers have the key pressure points needed to intervene decisively and immediately. Being able to act immediately in support of critical inter-institution financial guarantees is the only way to win a financial war. Anyone who thinks that today’s international electronic banking is not a current, continuing, and vicious financial blood sport among people and nations needs to wake up.

Yes, most Canadian policymakers get it. They see that the risk from falling dominoes is the problem and that you can hold up a few big dominoes far more easily than you can support thousands of little ones. The system of inter-institution guarantees will keep thousands of little dominoes standing when a few big dominoes are kept standing. They also seem to understand the need for dealing with facts and logic when looking at a financial system, whereas Bernie Simpleton – in the name of helping the “little guy” – approaches the problem guided only by a complexity-free and uncalibrated moral compass.

Facts and logic are what one uses to calibrate a moral compass, but don’t waste your time trying to tell that to Bernie Simpleton. Financial Simpletons live in a cause-and-effect world in which uninformed morality sees everything as violating some moral precept and not interconnecting with anything else in substantive ways. It is a world in which everything is somebody else’s fault. Bernie would no doubt tell you that he loves Canadians – just not those Canadians who think the web of life is at all complex.

Canadians seem to get it from another angle as well. In some ways, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is cut from the same cloth as Bernie Simpleton, but with an important difference: Trudeau has a brain in his head. Bernie Simpleton wants to raise corporate income taxes sharply even though those taxes are already the highest in the First World. He thinks this will bring jobs back to the U.S. and fund his welfare plans. No matter that current taxes already have driven an obscene amount of money and jobs out of the U.S. to more welcoming places. Trudeau has used his head enough to see that Canada will be better off by lowering Canadian taxes enough to import any American businesses and jobs that U.S. Simpletons might drive away. Any such match between Bernie Simpleton and Justin Trudeau is a guaranteed win for Canada.

In a Simpleton’s world, little guys can only be hurt by big guys. Simpletons see people as living in hierarchies where the people on the bottom are at the mercy of those at the top. In this world, there is no bidirectional interdependence, just top-down exploitation. It is no surprise that navigating this Simpleton’s world requires an uncalibrated moral compass.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Apr 20, 2016 at 10:21. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

Myers-Briggs Meets Politics

Posted Apr 3, 2016 at 19:13. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17.

J.D. Nobody cannot help but notice the intuitive connections between some concepts from Jungian psychology and various personalities in the 2016 American presidential contest – Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The Myers-Briggs® psychological inventory (test) and its underlying Jungian concepts reveal much about commonalities between these two personalities that each would no doubt hotly deny. Looking at these personalities through Jungian and traditional Chinese eyes reveals some things that American eyes miss.

American eyes typically view conflicting situations as having “either-or” choices having simple, conflicting cause and effect relationships. The traditional Chinese and Jungian view sees such situations as being the result of two opposing forces that are bound together, normally work together, and only sometimes come into conflict with each other.

The Myers-Briggs approach to understanding different people provides a way for describing different personalities. It does not label personalities judgmentally, but descriptively, in the way that color can describe a car. There is nothing right or wrong or superior or inferior in the Myers-Briggs personality descriptions just as there is nothing inherently good or bad about a yellow vs. green car. In both cases, these are only descriptions, not judgments. Of course, an individual may like certain personality attributes more than others, but that is a separate matter from declaring a particular personality to be inherently good or bad.

To be continued.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Apr 3, 2016 at 19:13. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

Other Complexity Traps

Posted Apr 3, 2016 at 14:48. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17.

J.D. Nobody has discovered that the name Complexity Trap has been used in academic articles about vaguely similar concepts to those this blog discusses. JD Nobody was unaware of this usage until recently but has looked into the thoughts put forth by those authoring articles about the Other Complexity Trap. They are addressing similar problems to those addressed by The Complexity Trap, but are addressing them primarily from military and foreign policy perspective. Rather, The Complexity Trap blog addresses complexity issues from a sociological and political perspectives. The two perspectives do overlap.

Curiously, the other complexity trap was not discovered by J.D. Nobody when searching for and registering the domain name for this blog. A scholarly presentation by Sebastian Gorka, Michael J. Gallagher, and Joshua A. Geltzer at http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/the-complexity-trap presents another view of complexity traps. Their ideas parallel those of J.D. Nobody, but by virtue of those authors being Somebodies, none of their readers can say Nobody told me.

It is important to keep a historical perspective on complexity because there probably have been other times in history when people faced as much complexity as we face today. A key difference is that in earlier times there was not as much technology to generate problems, or in turn to generate as much help in solving them. It is unclear whether a complexity trap or a series of complexity trap cycles will ultimately devolve into chaos. Devolution into chaos will happen when people no longer see any hope for moving forward.

Short of falling into despair, it is vitally important to strategically plan and prioritize all the available resources. By definition, not all aspects of a complex situation can be addressed, due to the complexity itself. Nevertheless, any thought out strategy is better than nothing at all.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Apr 3, 2016 at 14:48. Revised Aug 14, 2019 at 08:17. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

Just Wait

Posted Mar 18, 2016 at 18:22. Revised Aug 23, 2019 at 12:49.

J.D. Nobody recalls the first presidential election in which he was able to vote – the 1964 election between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson. J.D. Nobody and most of the country was caught up in the fear that Goldwater was a near lunatic who would involve the country in a nuclear war. Despite having served in a fighter squadron with fighter pilots like Goldwater and having met him personally, J.D. Nobody believed the picture of Goldwater painted by the Johnson campaign.

There was recognition that some of what Goldwater was saying was the impulsive bravado of a fighter pilot, and many – including J.D. Nobody – did not recognize that Goldwater’s boast of nuking the Vietnamese into oblivion was only a locker room boast. It was not something he would have done when faced with making a command decision.

J.D. Nobody did have the prescience to see Goldwater’s expressed concerns as legitimate ones that would erupt in a bigger way later if not addressed. J.D. gave some of his ultra-liberal acquaintances the admonition “If you think Goldwater is bad from your point of view, just wait until you see what the pipeline of the future will deliver!”

None of these people could accept that anything worse could happen in the future. In prosecuting the Vietnam war Johnson did everything that Goldwater had advocated, and worse – such as effectively manufacturing the Gulf of Tonkin incident to ensnare America further in the Vietnam War. Johnson had made the first “just wait” happen sooner than anyone expected. Once again, J.D. Nobody’s admonition “if you think this is bad from your point of view, just wait.”.

A “just wait” soon arrived in the person of Richard Nixon. Nixon had some important accomplishments as president, despite there being much hand-wringing over how anybody could be worse than Nixon. Watergate was the best “just wait” yet.

The arrival of Ronald Reagan raised the cries of anguish once again. Nixon was no longer the greatest disaster of all time. J.D. Nobody now pointed out “if you think Ronald Reagan is bad from your point of view, just wait.”.

The cries of “no one could be worse” arose once again for George H. W. Bush. Again, just wait.

With the arrival of the Clintons came a jackboot political machine powered only by the polls. A jackboot political machine is not a bad thing; just a return to normalcy.

Next, there was George W. Bush, and once again the cries of anguish rose to a higher level yet. Ronald Reagan was no longer the greatest disaster of all time. Another opportunity for J.D. Nobody to point out “if you think George W. Bush is bad from your point of view, just wait.”.

And the progression goes on with Donald J. Trump and Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and AOC and Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar…

Notice any pattern?

Tomorrow, there will be someone worse yet. Just wait.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Mar 18, 2016 at 18:22. Revised Aug 23, 2019 at 12:49. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

The Animals In The Barnyard Are Nervous

Posted Feb 23, 2016 at 17:53. Revised Sep 24, 2019 at 19:01.

For many years, farmers in Central and South America noticed that occasionally their animals would become restless, and would sometimes attempt to smash their way out of their pens or corrals. Many farmers believed this behavior was because the animals knew a major earthquake was imminent.

Knowledgeable people thought this was just ignorance and superstition on the part of the farmers, but over time, there was a growing realization that the animals knew something. No one was able to explain with certainty how they were detecting impending earthquakes, but there is much evidence that they knew when an earthquake was coming.

The 2016 political situation in America was similar. Many people (the animals) knew that something was wrong and that there was trouble ahead, but they weren’t sure what to do about it or whom to blame. The people in the Establishment, like the farmers in Central and South America, had a hard time believing that many in the ordinary rank and file (the animals) could know something that the elite did not.

By 2016 politics had manifested itself in two extreme groups of people, a group of conservatives who wanted to throw the rascals out and replace them with people who respected traditional values, and a group of extreme progressives who wanted to throw the rascals out and then massively redistribute wealth.

Even though these factions regarded each other as enemies, they had a great deal in common. Both wanted to tear up the current order and replace it with something much more to their liking. In each case, the people of these two extremes were often ignorant and simple, having simple-minded solutions that would create more problems than they would solve. Because of this, the Establishment had difficulty listening to inarticulate outsiders. Ironically, the Establishment itself was also ignorant and uninformed about what was happening in the world beneath its feet.

Much of what was happening was a result of the ever-growing complexity of society, technology, and current life. This complexity guaranteed that people would be progressively less informed about what was going on because there was too much for any one person to absorb. It also resulted in ever-increasing specialization to deal with the fragmenting pieces of everything.

The people best able to master a world of growing complexity and keep it running become increasingly more valuable and thus can demand bigger paychecks. Those less able to stay on top of developments are less valuable economically and paid accordingly. Neither a return to the traditional values of earlier years nor wealth redistribution can reverse the forces of growing complexity.

Since 1981, there have been many conservative and liberal income-tax changes that promised to produce more tax fairness and less extreme wealth distribution. The result of each reform was the inequality increased, partly because increasing tax complexity makes the most successful people more able to game the growing tax system’s rules. Tax revisions suit the self-interest of tax accountants and tax attorneys because even a simplification to the tax code usually requires more compliance advice. Each tax revision helps tax practitioners to become ever bigger leeches on the economically productive segments of society. It is simple: more tax law complexity (and change) generates more wealth for tax specialists. The beauty in this scam is the people will demand tax revisions forever, thereby giving the legislators a perfect excuse for saying: “We are only complying with what our electorate has requested – which is what our job requires us to do!” (And we are laughing all the way to the bank in the process!).

If pro is the opposite of con,
then what is the opposite of progress?
Congress!

As complexity grows, it places an increasing drag on people’s lives. They then seek simplicity by oversimplifying everything in their lives. Ever-increasing complexity ultimately generates a complexity trap that ends each complexity sub-cycle. The result is the situation devolves into chaos and a new simplicity, which can be far more perverse than the original simplicity was.

The biggest complexity cycle, consisting of all the smaller cycles, similarly has an ultimate complexity trap. What the limits to complexity are, when they might happen, and how our complexity will simplify and will correct itself is not known. We do know that nothing can grow exponentially forever.

All this is unfolding before our very eyes, and we don’t believe what we are seeing.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Feb 23, 2016 at 17:53. Revised Sep 24, 2019 at 19:01. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

America’s State Religion

Posted Feb 22, 2016 at 20:23. Revised Jul 8, 2019 at 06:53.

Contrary to popular opinion, America has an established state religion that has the full support of the government and the people. That religion is Utilitarianism, and its creed believes in and practices pragmatism over all else. Practicing this religion requires no sacrifice, inconvenience, or financial contribution by its members. It only requires one to act pragmatically in all matters.

Utilitarianism is the most inclusive of all the world’s religions. Christian? Muslim? Atheist? All are welcome in the Utilitarian Church and need to make no adjustments to or repudiation of their respective creeds.

You don’t understand the things that are going on in society, business, and government? All you need to understand is the religion that binds it all together preaches that everything in the world is rooted in pragmatism.

Utilitarianism is both a balm and a bomb for dealing with complexity.

The 4 M’s are critically important to the pragmatism that endows a Utilitarian with power, prestige, and position. These four roles are particularly treacherous because people functioning in any of them are dangerous, but the imprecision of these parts is a tool that a skillful Utilitarian can manipulate.

The 4 M characteristics are:

  • A. Military
  • A. Missionary
  • B. Minister
  • B. Medical

It is important for you to understand that although these roles look unrelated, they have a strong common thread that makes them a single state religion topic. Each of these fields of endeavor attracts people who are focused less on the pragmatism of the moment than they are in service and dedication to others. It is common for more than one of these idealistic presentations to occur in the same person, so keeping such a person dedicated to the pursuit of pragmatism can be difficult.

When you understand the 4 M’s as well as do our model evangelists at FirtstU you will see clearly that their time-proven principles for church command and control are central to all bureaucracies everywhere. They owe part of their success to their insight into how to use the 4 M’s to advance their power and glory through pragmatism.

Understand also that these 4 roles consist of two pairs of counterbalancing opposites that nevertheless cooperate with each other most of the time. This ying-yang concept of Eastern cultures is one of the cornerstones of pragmatism. The effective evangelist understands when to use the Eastern concept of counterbalancing opposite pieces that also work cooperatively, but can easily shift into the Western cause and effect way of looking at things whenever it is pragmatic. We are most familiar with cause and effect thinking, which assumes that when something good or bad happens there is one thing primarily responsible for causing it and that either strengthening or smashing the cause giving the particular result serves pragmatism perfectly.

The particularly important military case is so often misunderstood. Make no mistake, my evangelists; these people are both pragmatists and idealists and that fact will work to your advantage with a little skill. There is an obvious benefit to having a person around that follows orders and is loyal to his buddies to the point of giving up his life for them. Just make sure that he identifies you in his mind as one of his buddies and a deserving object for his loyalty.

Observe that there is a thread of idealism in military behavior that can threaten the pragmatism of your operation. Paradoxically, the shadow side nature of this idealism makes it a valuable antidote for any idealism that might erupt in your organization. This antidote works because the typical militarist so hates his shadow side idealism and so loves following orders that he will lash out decisively at any infestation of idealism that might raise its head.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Feb 22, 2016 at 20:23. Revised Jul 8, 2019 at 06:53. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/

The Importance of Being Nobody

Posted Feb 22, 2016 at 18:28. Revised Sep 24, 2019 at 19:15.

Being J.D. Nobody makes me a most important person. Indeed, millions of people quote me every day when they find themselves in a mess. The great beauty in being able to say “Nobody told me” is that no one can ever question you about whether it is true or false. You win either way when you quote me or pretend to quote me because it will be unclear to your listener whether the word “nobody” is a proper noun or just a convenient collective noun. Moreover, this gift which I am providing to the world is the perfect tool for keeping glib lawyers honest.

Panic-filled pragmatism is the typical result of twenty-first-century complexity. Also, the more complexities people find in the world around them the more likely they are to seek too much simplification. My mission is to give you the cover you need to truthfully say “Nobody told me” when someone challenges you. This response will be especially convenient when I, J.D. Nobody, have in fact told you something you don’t want to admit to knowing.

Now you can honestly say “Nobody told me.”

Copyright © 2016-2019 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.
Posted Feb 22, 2016 at 18:28. Revised Sep 24, 2019 at 19:15. –> Retrieved Nov 12, 2019 at 23:44.
Transcript News Feed: https://ct.complexitytrap.org/feed/