YOU ARE SO NOT ORIGINAL

Once we admit that we are, to a great extent, queue-ers-up in an existential queue, learning to be what others already are, waiting to be initiated, then we can begin to have a purchase on our existence.  Without this admission, we are deceiving ourselves about our own originality. Photo by Julie Johnson on Unsplash

One of the most underestimated ways to develop is simple copying.  Which is strange, because humans are very good at copying.  Our genetic foundation is based upon an ability, in principle, to replicate large chunks of our functioning between generations.  And our cultures are founded on rituals and processes which replicate, in principle, traditions, thereby passing them on.

You'll notice I said 'in principle' when talking about human replication.  In actual fact, no replication is perfect.  Nevertheless, we are, more than we know, biological and cultural photocopiers, perpetuating ways of life and being easily and naturally.

THE UNDERESTIMATED SKILL

Why do I describe copying as an underestimated skill?  Well, centres of learning, for instance, often pride themselves on being centres of critical thinking.  But many qualifications can be obtained simply by copying of the factual and cultural practices of the institution awarding them.  At worst, we have a hypocritical situation where schools and universities say that they are encouraging creativity and critical thought; but in practice they reward replication of what they expect to see.

So copying is underestimated in that we pretend it has little role; we kind of ignore it, as though it is not worth thinking about.  Instead, we celebrate how innovative we are being, how new, how groundbreaking... while continuing, in practice, to replicate.

IS COPYING BAD?

You might notice an ambivalence in this article about copying.  On the one hand, I seem to be saying it is a good thing, that we cannot do without it.  On the other, though, I seem to be suggesting it is a hidden sin, a symptom of hypocrisy.

I guess I feel that it is both.  On the one hand, it is a foundation of art, craft and science.  Tradition enables the building of knowledge bases which can inform the education of students, who can then get a head start, incorporating into their practice generations of awareness without having to suffer for it.  And replicability enables the building of scientific libraries, predictive in nature, offering models of being which can be assented to because consistently and methodically attained.

On the other hand, there comes a time when simple replication feeds those who replicate, but creates nothing new.  If institutions reward replication too much, they will become blind to the new.  Members of those institutions will have to escape in order to create.  Hence, I suppose, dissidence, where citizens move from the trammels of a self-replicating culture, towards one which offers more breathing space.

OUR DEVELOPMENT AS CHILDREN

When young, we are, in a sense, built to investigate... but also to copy rapaciously.  For instance, we passionately seek out first experiences - we want to know what new sensations feel like, what new places have to offer, what happens to things when we drop them, throw them, put them in our mouth.  Thus investigation is embedded in our being from the start.

But, allied to this, and in some ways keeping us safe, is a complementary urge to copy.  We feel safe when we do what others are doing.  We compare, and feel it acutely when we feel too different; we often seek to buy what others buy, to join the groups that others join.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT COPYING

So I am certainly not suggesting that copying is inherently bad.  We need it in order not only to assimilate others' practices, but to extend and communicate any experience by association.  The replication of grammatical rules and understood vocabulary enables language to bear meaningful discussion.  Without it, we would have to reinvent the world every day; we would have the cultural equivalent of Alzheimer's.

However.  And it is a big however.  We need, I think, to be more open about what copying we are asking for.  Enough of education which pretends to be high-proportion critical thinking, but is in fact high-proportion regurgitation.  Let's be honest.  Let's say clearly 'Yes, much of our education is in fact a practice which rewards the replication of a set knowledge base.'  Let's not pretend to be more creative than we are.

And when we vote, let's be aware how much we are copying the cultural practices of our friends, or our heroes.  Let's not pretend that we have thought our way, personally, to our own views about everything.

THE RELEVANCE TO THE SOCIAL MEDIA DEBATE

The public and media have reacted with something approaching horror to revelations that some companies make it their business to manipulate our views, and control the knowledge we access.  Well, if we are copying beings, what do we expect?  If we pretend we live in a critical nirvana, where our thoughts are pure and individually-made, then yes, we will react with horror to the thought that our perfection might be tainted.  However, if we admit that our whole lives are soaked in copying; that we copied our language, our politics, our style, our material existences, from others, with only limited modification by us... if we admit this, then we have a chance of better allowing for companies that manipulate.

The social media debate just makes more obvious something that happens all the time: we copy others.  A large part of us is built to swallow what people say wholesale.  That's why and how we can enter the world of a film or a book - we are built that way.  Even Stockholm syndrome is not a surprise when we think about it this way - we are so easily manipulated because we are constantly looking for world-views to assimilate and swallow pretty much whole.

A CONTEXT

I have focused on copying.  But there are plenty of other ways of thinking.  In particular, there is critical thinking, in which we learn to take apart, and stand at a distance from, what we see.  There is also strategic thinking, in which we begin to choose exactly what we copy, and how.

But let's, at first, start where we are: the human race is a race of flagrant copiers, swallowing pretty much whole each other's ways of life, words, languages, styles, practices.  Let's stop pretending we are so original.

Once we admit that we are, to a great extent, queue-ers-up in an existential queue, learning to be what others already are, waiting to be initiated, then we can begin to have a purchase on our existence.  Without this admission, we are deceiving ourselves about our own originality.

A WORD ABOUT CREATIVITY

All this is not to say originality and creativity do not exist.  But I am arguing that, unless we stop and realise exactly how much we are uncreative and unoriginal... unless we do that every day... then we will not begin to be truly original and creative.  We will simply think we are, and go about regurgitating the same things, applauded by those who think the same things, not realising that we are just repeating, repeating.

When was the last time you rewarded someone for doing something different?  Honestly, are you more likely to reward your friends if they take you into new territory, or if they simply reassure you about a copied truth you don't want to let go of.

I remember a tutor once telling her class to think critically at all costs.  I remember that same tutor, the following week, telling a student that their critical thinking was simply resistance to the traditional truth.  You can't have it both ways.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

I'm not suggesting we do anything differently.  Only that, perhaps, we could become more aware of exactly how much of a role copying plays, even in adult life.  Then we might better understand group-think, politics, social media, and many other aspects of behaviour.  In my psychology training, copying was, as I see it, vastly underplayed.  It was as though the tutors and textbooks were ashamed that things could be that simple.  After all, it's creativity that makes us human... isn't it?  I wonder.  I really wonder.

A SUMMARY

Humans are natural copiers.  But we pretend we are not.  We pretend that we have reasons for everything we do, when often we have simply copied what others do.  Recent interactions between politics and social media have presented us with a frightening truth about how manipulable we are.  And yet we can't quite accept that this is how we function.  Perhaps we should be more honest with ourselves, and admit that most of our lives are copied.  Perhaps, only then, can we engage our critical and strategic brains effectively.  First, we need to realise exactly how far our urge to copy extends.

So I challenge you.  I say you are not original.  And if you think you are... how are you going to prove me wrong?

KEEPING THE PEACE

It takes a strong person, and a lot of integrity, to remain steadfastly connected to a calm perspective when everyone around you wants you to take sides.

Recently there has been a lot of fuss about Russia.  I don't mean to demean the fuss, but to put it into context, international relations have always had their ups and downs, and at times of great political heat, populations tend to get caught up in the bias.  I was thinking how it relates to the fuss that goes on in families - the same accusations, the same misinformation, the same provocations, the same reactiveness.  I was wondering what could be learned.

There are a few characteristics of these times.  Remember, perhaps, the Iraq war(s), and how various pieces of 'information' were assembled into dossiers and presented as fact.  In particular, chemical and biological weapons, it was implied, existed, and were quite possibly to be used.  Wording was found that pushed the known truth to its boundaries and slightly beyond, to maximise acceptance of the desired political stance.  The public and Members of Parliament were made to feel disloyal if they did not join the lying (or twisting of the truth); if they did not, they were accused of being traitorous in some way.

What are the main things that change when things get intense?

SWEEPING STATEMENTS ARE MADE

Think of the last argument you had with a loved one.  I bet it was hard to avoid statements like 'You always...'  When we're annoyed, and in the heat of the moment, our angry selves take over, and make the truth subservient to our personal needs. We are inclined to borrow from the truth to support our own perspective.  It's not how it should be, but we do it because we think we are under attack.

Currently, politicians are lining up to show their loyalty to the UK by inventing new phrases about 'Russian Oligarchs' and 'Putin's henchmen'.  The implication is that Russia (we don't really know what we mean by this) is somehow irredeemably bad, and will always do bad things.  The only option, apparently, is to stand up to Russia, to ostracise it, reduce its influence, and starve it of resources, until it comes to its senses and gives in.  Life is not that simple, but we don't care; we just want a clear enemy.

STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE ARE REDUCED

Governments have an advantage here.  Logically, they must keep a part of government private, to do investigations.  Politicians have access to such investigations before the public.  Therefore, politicians are in a position to imply anything they like, and to hint that someone, somewhere, in the private realm, has disclosed evidence to them.  No member of the public can challenge that.

In this way, at times of threat and haste, no one has time to wait for conclusions.  Politicians have great power, in that they can assert what they like, and loyal staff will not contradict them, for fear of being disloyal.

The temptation to manipulate public opinion is so great, that politicians use it en masse, and then cannot turn back, because they might seem to be supporting 'the other side', whatever that other side, that enemy, might currently be.

Again, think of the last time you got upset with a loved one.  During an argument, or an intense situation, we can be tempted to speak first, and check our facts later.  It is almost impossible for us to restrain this urge to pretend we know more than we do.   We are desperate to gain control of the story, and so we assert what we can, especially when no one can prove us wrong.  Religion can be misused in this way.  Who can argue if someone says that God has inspired their point of view?  

IF YOU'RE NOT FOR US, YOU'RE AGAINST US

Suddenly, when politics gets intense, a 'for or against' mentality applies.  In personal relationships, too, we make the same distinctions.  Watch a couple splitting, and you will often see a great wariness about the 'story' that gets put out.  Friends' loyalties are tested, as each ex-partner tries to ascertain who is 'on their side'.  Families often divide on biological lines, and one or other party can lose a lot of friends overnight.

In the current frenzy about 'Russia', Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition, has been accused several times of being somehow allied with the enemy, when he simply calls for restraint, and patience, in waiting for evidence to come through about the truth of a situation.  It takes a strong person, and a lot of integrity, to remain steadfastly connected to a calm perspective when everyone around you wants you to take sides.  But it's how wars start, and we'd do well to look at Mr Corbyn's example, whatever our political perspective.  Waiting is unfashionable, but it often pays off in the modern intense political arena.  A lot can change in a few days or hours.

TO SUMMARISE WHAT CAN GO WRONG

So, in families, or among friends, or in politics, three things in particular can go wrong:

1. We start making sweeping statements about our enemies

2. We stop waiting for evidence, and pretend we know things we don't

3. We start trying to alienate those who disagree with us

In personal lives, the kind of things we say include:

'John was always difficult.  I think he's got a psychological disorder.  I saw him with Jane the other day.  He's such a nasty piece of work.  I don't know what she's thinking.'

In political lives, the kinds of things we say include:

'Jeremy has always had links to socialist governments.  He's unelectable.  He's now trying to defend Putin.  I don't trust him.'

THE MIX OF FACT AND FICTION

In all our lives, all the time, fact and fiction are linked.  That's why we read books, return to life, read more, live more... fact and fiction are fused in an alliance which helps us learn about life.  In a right relation with each other (when our intentions are compassionate), they help us.  In a wrong relation with each other (when our intentions are malicious), they turn our minds upside down.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

So what's a better way to be?  Well, remember that famous poem 'If' by Rudyard Kipling:

'If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...'

That poem advocates maintaining a peaceful calm and a clear perspective whatever the circumstances.  It's worth a re-read.

In the meantime, maybe, to protect yourself against all the truth-bending:

1. Stop talking so much, and just listen.

2. Wait and see.

3. Be compassionate towards everybody.

There may be a time when you need to take sides and fight.  But just make sure you're not being manipulated in the moment.  Make sure you're not accidentally fighting someone else's battle.  Make sure your intentions are free of bias.

SUMMARY

Modern politics is increasingly 'in the moment' and frantic.  To protect ourselves, and the truth, we need to get better at listening, waiting, and being compassionate.  That way, we can't be manipulated into fighting other people's battles.  We can stay free to make peace.

HOW WORKPLACES COULD IMPROVE MENTAL HEALTH

Requiring a doctor’s certificate for time off can trap staff at home, fearful that they must be completely ‘well’ to return. In contrast, a continuous-protection, ‘how can I help?’ attitude can break the cycle.  Photo by Asdrubal luna on Unsplash

Workplaces make a lot of noise about mental health, especially the big ones.  But I wonder whether some of the central ways to improve mental health are being missed, through a misguided attempt to look good at the expense of real change.

The UK is still stuck in a kind of dark ages when it comes to managing mental health.  We haven't yet worked through several of its ethical dilemmas, I suspect for fear of being politically incorrect.  The result is a strange mix of attitudes, hypocrisies and legal conundrums which leave employees and HR departments reeling.

THE BIG TENSIONS

Three tensions perhaps dominate when it comes to mental illness.  If an organisation cannot work out its policies with regard to these tensions, then it will be stuck in limbo.  Everyone involved will be left with an uncomfortable feeling that the right solution has not been found.

TENSION 1 - THE MEDICAL MODEL Vs EXISTENTIAL AWARENESS

An organisation that focuses on the medical model will find itself constantly asking for medical evidence of mental illness. 

• This leads to further unhappiness in the employee, as they repeatedly return to doctors and hospitals to ensure that the right evidence is available
• It also encourages some employees to stereotype their symptoms in order to 'achieve' a recognised diagnosis
• Furthermore, it creates a problem if the employee recovers.  At the point where illness recedes, the employee's protection can disappear overnight.  Sometimes this leads to a relapse, as it is the only way the employee can access further help

An organisation that focuses on an existential model has a better chance of providing consistent support.  (By existential, I mean taking the employee's valid human experience seriously at all times, regardless of diagnosis.) This is because:

• The employee's subjectivity is respected, and to a large extent their view is treated as evidence in its own right
• Employees are allowed to be themselves, without having to conform to particular symptomatic rules
• The border between 'ill' and 'well' is soft rather than hard, meaning that care can be offered irrespective of the employee's state

Even so, an existential model has its problems.  Old-style administration does not work, as 'illness' cannot be 'proven' in the same ways.  Organisations are terrified of being taken advantage of, and therefore are at a loss of how to invent new approval systems for, say, time off, without requiring medical opinion.

TENSION 2 - AN ILLNESS MODEL VERSUS AN ABILITY CONTINUUM

Most organisations still function on an illness model.  If you're ill, you take time off.  If you're well, you come back.  Some organisation do offer flexibility, but it's slightly clumsy.

• An illness model dehumanises employees with emotional difficulties, as it implies that they need to be 'cured', rather than perhaps changing the organisation itself to make space for different emotional responses
• An illness model can misdirect attention away from an unhealthy organisation, and scapegoat employees, who might be perfectly healthy if it weren't for emotional toxicities in the organisation itself

Some organisations now operate on more of an ability continuum.  This has some advantages:

• Employees are encouraged to be open about what they feel they cannot do.  Focus can then be on finding ways to overcome the issue together, rather than forcing interpretation 'inside' the individual employee
• Organisations can become more flexible, as a problem solved for one employee can help thousands of others

Again, an ability continuum has some issues.  Not least, it can be expensive to adapt an organisation to incorporate different abilities.  It can feel inefficient.  This is not a problem for me, because I think efficiency is overrated.  But efficiency is still worshipped in many economies.

TENSION 3 - A PERFECT PUBLIC IMAGE VERSUS AN IMPERFECT PUBLIC IMAGE

This is the biggie.  We still exist in a world where organisations try, prima facie, to portray a perfect image.  Everything must be said right, everything must be seen to be done right.  You can see it when scandal hits: heads roll, as though we could easily identify the 'imperfect' staff, and by sacking them suddenly make our organisation 'perfect' again.

Many organisations operate on the perfect public image model because the public expects them to.  Particularly charities.  The recent furore over Oxfam staff conduct is a case in point.  A big 'imperfect' label has been plastered all over Oxfam.  Now, it thinks, it must not stop until it can give itself a big 'perfect' label again.

• Being perfect is unrealistic.  We are discovering that in personal lives: we now need to apply it to organisations.  The perfect public image model can lead to good staff being sacked in order to appease, and to falsely reinventing the organisation as re-perfected
• Perfect public images are by nature oppressive to both employees and customers.  Everybody has to be fake.  A kind of fake-speak evolves to take care of the mythical perfection.  Phrases like 'we are doing everything we can' are born, which essentially mean nothing, but sound perfect
• Information is withheld.  On a perfect image model, no one can find out anything bad about the organisation.  So staff are punished if they speak outside the organisation's world, and everything difficult is referred to a legal department

However, some organisations have worked out that this is all an illusion.  They go for the imperfect public image model.  They allow themselves to make mistakes, and do not scapegoat those mistakes; they own them and discuss them.

• Openly imperfect organisations show themselves to be evolving
• Openly imperfect organisations enhance mental health by reducing the requirement to fake everything, which is a key cause of mental illness in its own right
• Being open about imperfection means that problems do not have to go into purdah while they are 'resolved'.  Think of the pain for families when the NHS has to keep quiet about a bad patient experience.  Think of the pain of NHS employees who are told to keep quiet while 'investigations' are carried out.  Openly imperfect organisations know that the truth does not need keeping quiet, except where respect demands specific discretion

SUMMARISING THE THREE TENSIONS

In general, we could divide the world of organisations into two types:

TYPE 1 - WE ARE PERFECT, AND WHEN SOMEONE IS ILL WE SIGN THEM OFF.  THAT'S OUR DUTY DONE

You can see this through the eyes of those who are off work with stress.  Often, there is little contact with the organisation.  I remember during my counselling training, when my father was dying, I took time out.  At exactly that point, when I asked what support would be available, the answer was: 'While you are on interruption, and we will not be able to provide any contact, support or counselling.'  So there you are, even an organisation that existed to train counsellors, was unable to see its way to actively support those who needed time out.  More than that, they saw it as their legal duty to dissociate.

Look out for organisations that insist on appearing to do everything perfectly.  Governments do this.  In the quest to appear to root out badness, they will sack individuals at a moment's notice, and then blithely say they have got rid of the problem.  High-performance organisations often do this: their message, to themselves and others, is: 'We are all well; if someone is ill, they cease to be functionally part of our operation.  So we remain well.'

The logic is undeniable, but so is the inhumanity.

TYPE 2 - WE ARE OPENLY IMPERFECT, IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD.  WE LISTEN TO THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF EMPLOYEES, AND WE TRY TO MAKE NEW THINGS POSSIBLE TO HELP.  OUR DUTY IS NEVER DONE.

In these organisations, the experience of the stressed can be different.  Instead of 'Come back when you are well', the message is 'How can we help you through?'  There is never a point at which the organisation disengages. 

Look out for organisations that are open about their faults.  Look out for leaders and managers who, instead of seeking fake perfection, get their hands dirty and are prepared to involve themselves in problem resolution. They are rare, but intensely valuable.  

There is a humanity is such organisations which is not logical, but you will know it when you experience it.  It feels warm, as though you are being allowed to make yourself at home.

A SUMMARY

Personally and professionally, to encourage mental health in all those around you, maybe try the following:

1. Listen to, and accept, their personal account of their experience, and work with that
2. Try not to divide people into those you feel are unworthy of their problems, and those who are having 'real' problems.  It is arrogant to require some kind of certificate of authenticity for other people's unhappiness
3. Focus on how you can help individuals do their next thing.  Adaptations might happen in you, in your joint environment, or in them, but it is unlikely that the only solution is for the other person to adapt.  It makes no sense
4. Be openly imperfect.  Everyone can then breathe a sigh of relief, and get on with negotiating life calmly, without your frantic insistence that 'everything is fine', and your constant scapegoating when it is not.

For organisations, in particular:

1. Respect every employee's personal experience.  Don't invent an ideal employee and only listen to them
2. Let employees take time out when they decide; don't always be requiring independent proof.  You wouldn't do it to your partner (I never heard anyone say to their partner 'can I have a doctor's certificate?' when time out was requested!)
3. Focus on enabling employees.  Adapt, adapt, adapt
4. Think about how, in your conduct and your publicity, you can quit being all perfect and patronising, and start being openly friendly and imperfect.  The public will like you better that way anyway

IN A COUPLE OF SENTENCES

Companies, please ditch the constant requirement to appear perfect.  Especially senior management.  It's not healthy, and it's not even believed. 

Instead, make a home for people where they can be themselves, and negotiate their empowerment with them as they go.

EVIDENCE VERSUS FAITH

Photo by Stephen Mayes on Unsplash

There is a great movement at the moment towards evidence-based practice, in all walks of life.  Ironically, it has arisen as a political reaction.  In the UK, there has been an evidence-based response to two events in particular.  Firstly, the election of Donald Trump as president of the US.  And secondly, the election of exit from the European Union as the UK's chosen path.

Donald Trump has not been afraid to make statements of fact which are open to being disproved.  A famous example was his implication about the size of the crowd at his inauguration.  Many media miles were travelled performing fact checks on this and other claims.  It has become a bit of a game to wait for a claim, check it for evidence, report the evidence, and debunk the claim.  Donald Trump humself doesn't seem to mind too much.  Once the statement has been made, he is on to something else, getting interested in a new thing.  His is not a mind that wants to dissect the past with a fine toothcomb.  I can't imagine him as an archeologist.

Politicians arguing the case for or against the UK's exit from the EU, too, have put claims out there which have later been the object of controversy and challenge.  Here, the most famous message was 'We send the EU £350 million a week.  Let's fund our NHS instead.'  Again, it has been a favourite game to check this for evidence, and challenge the claim.  Again, the producers of such slogans are often on to new projects, and find themselves somewhat hampered by the political archeologists who insist on digging up evidential controversy.

LIFE IS NOT A LABORATORY

However, I suggest that those on the side of evidence are missing a trick.  They are using typical laboratory techniques for assessing statements which are made out there in the field, outside the laboratory, where events can often overtake our controlled thinking.  There is a danger that they will be found, still in their white coats, debunking myths, when life on Earth has ended.  If so, they will have failed to convince.

The evidence-gatherers have been part of a generation of passive citizens who have taken part in funded experiments.  Their nurturing has been done in a safe school environment, where the system is as follows:

1. You get funded for research

2. You do research in accordance with the rules

3. You publish your results

4. You are evaluated by your peers

5. You are given your reward

There is little to do in this environment but perpetuate the same evidence-based systems.  There is no army to apply factual claims.  There is not even any funding unless you are seen to be useful by someone, whether is be a business wanting to further its aims, or a student wanting to further their career.

The fact-producing arena, in short, has no talons.  It waits at the bird table, and feeds on whatever seeds are thrown at it.

HOW STATESMEN DIFFER

This is not the world of the statesman.  (It's a gendered word.  I'd rather say statesperson.  But statesman is the familiar word.)  The statesman does not live in the laboratory.  A good statesman will be familiar with the produce of scientific research, certainly, and will take it into account.  But, primarily, the role of the statesman is to lead.

Statemen thrive on myth.  Don't get me wrong, I don't mean myth in the sense of lies.  I mean myth in terms of engaging stories which tell a truth.  And the truth here is different from laboratory truth.  The truth of myth is a story which holds all the world together with what I call a 'felicity' - in other words, a good producer of myth happily joins together all the complexity of the world in an inspiring moment of simplicity.  This inspiring moment of simplicity is what is experienced as truth, but it is not so well understood by current journalists.

Religious leaders are statesmen of a sort (although much of the honing of speeches is done by others after the event).  They are held up as examples of how life can be simplified into something inspiring.  This kind of truth frees us up to act in simple ways without being hampered by the complexity of everything.

The system for statesmen is different:

1. You experience a challenging life

2. You build up enormous reserves of inner strength

3. You share what you have learned

4. You gain a body of support

5. You are simplified into an ideal, an example to follow

Statesmen are more resilient.  They have an ability to reinvent themselves in response to complexity.  They are like sculptures sculpting themselves with their environment, seeking out new relationships with their surroundings.

THE BATTLE

So we have two versions of truth. 

• One collects data, in a well-behaved manner, according to established rules, and then publishes results.
• The other collects experience, often going against pre-established rules of conduct, and then shares learnings, gaining a body of support.

We can see this battle, for instance, in arguments between science and religion.  Representatives of science have methods, and only state things in accordance with those methods, however complex.  Many religious statespeople have learned to simplify life - that is their special truth - into wise sayings that are felicitous and transformative.

Adherents of religions who have learned to gain solace from the truth in its simplicity... they do not need the complexities of science to practise their religion.  Equally, adherents of science who have built careers from applying method... they do not need the simplicity of religion to help their lives to cohere.

There are two different functions happening here.  The truth that clarifies with simplification, and the truth that clarifies with method.

THE ATTRACTION

Look at the election battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Donald represented the truth that clarifies with simplification; and Hillary the truth that clarifies with method.

Perhaps a number of voters, in their evaluation, sought a presented truth that simplified the world into something they could handle.  Perhaps, in Hillary, a number of people saw someone who was a practised applier of method, comfortable and cold in her dealings.  Perhaps a number of people saw, in Donald, someone who eschewed method, but spoke with simplicity, based on experience.

I am not taking sides.  I am just looking at what might be happening in terms of the history of ideas.

MINGLING EVIDENCE AND FAITH

Evidence and faith can be complementary.  Statesmen do come along who are able to blend method and simplicity.

But often, political leaders come across as either unbearably methodical (with the public starting to use robot analogies); or unbearably simplistic (with the public starting to use madness analogies).

Perhaps change starts from within.  Perhaps we can start by learning two things:

1. Life is not all method.  However scientific you think you are being, lend a thought to our human need to simplify, to find a truth, a myth, a story, that felicitously holds the world together in a view we can assent to.

2. Life is not all simplicity.  Just when you think you have the simple truth in your hand, something will happen to wake you up out of your complacency, and you will have to modify your view in order to survive.

SUMMARY

Political events can polarise the public into representatives of scientific truth, and representatives of simple truth.  Leaders can seem firmly in one camp or the other.  We might benefit from learning that neither evidence, nor faith, need encompass everything.  Perhaps the science-y people could accept that many humans feel comforted by simple truths; and the faith-y people could accept that many humans feel comforted by facts. Perhaps a well-rounded politician appreciates the influence of both. 

THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMY

If your car is driving at a steady 60mph, do you design all car engines to run only at 60mph? Photo by nik radzi on Unsplash

There is a persistent problem, recurring and recurring, that is to do with an underlying illusion, and an assumption based on it.  The illusion is that a thought or action can be comprehensive; and the accompanying assumption is that there can be a story or method which resolves everything.  I call it a problem of economy, because, once we realise that all resolution is only partial, then we have to admit that, because we cannot comprehend everything, we are only offering ourselves economical sketches of the truth.

Put simply, our brains are not big enough to wrap up everything, and we had better therefore be humble about the systems we rely on.

THE MATERIAL ECONOMY

One example of how this works is out in our material economy - the economy that the news reports on regularly.  An economy is an invention of man, a word, to describe what happens when individual relationships spiral into systematic relationships.  The word business simply means 'doing things', and correspondingly an economy is simply 'a mass of things being done'.  When we describe an economy as growing, we are guessing, in aggregate, how much doing has been done this year.

In other words, the economy, as we describe it, is literally that - a shorthand description to simplify all our business relationships into something we understand.  Humans love summaries: so we invent one number, the Gross Domestic Product, to codify our simplified understanding.  And suddenly we have moved from perceiving several relationships, to perceiving only one number.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

One may well ask, what is the problem with this summarising, this being economical with the truth.  Whom does it harm? 

To answer that, I'd like to refer to what happens when recession strikes a modern economy.  When an economy is efficient and happy, everyone simplifies their thinking about it.  Valuing businesses becomes a simple question of profit multiples, for instance.  When life is good, there is no need to delve in, to make things complex.  We do the same in our personal lives.  Sometimes it takes a crisis to understand how complex relationships are.

Things, in fact, get so simple in the good times, that businesses start making profits on simple assumptions.  They mistake a temporary truth for an eternal one.  National lending companies operate on simple growth models.  Banks lend on simple formulae.

In short, humans become economical with the truth when there is no need to justify the truth.

Chains of business interactions start to depend on these simple assumptions, and on narrower and narrower margins.  If you feel that growth is going to be 5% for ever, then you can have 5,000 business sectors, each making easy money on 0.005% of that growth.

THE EFFICIENT ENGINE VS THE OPTIMAL ENGINE

The economy becomes like an efficient engine.  Honing itself until it can make money on practically nothing.  There grows a pyramid of hangers-on, all assuming one thing: things will go forward as they have been doing.

However, there is a problem.  Imagine that you are driving along a motorway at 60 miles per hour.  Your engine is working so efficiently, that you decide that all car engines should be designed to work only at 60 miles per hour or above.  After all, that seems to be the going speed.  

You can see that this is absurd.  You have simplified life into a few formulae that work for now.  If you redesigned all engines to work at 60mph, what would happen next?  Would you really be surprised when disaster strikes?

THE OPTIMAL ENGINE

When, suddenly, there is a traffic jam ahead, all hell breaks loose.  Your simple car economy is only built to run at 60mph in a straight line, and so your cars have no brakes, and little steering.  Suddenly there is a big pile-up.

You may feel this is silly.  I agree.  But then how we run economies is silly.  We make the same assumptions about efficiency, forgetting optimality.

We all know the optimal car has good brakes.  The optimal car is very steerable.  The optimal car knows how to achieve some efficiency at different levels of output.

In the same way, we need to build more complexity into our economies.  At the moment they are one-trick ponies, only designed to work at growth of a few percent per year.  Anything else, and we can't cope, and all argue with one another.

TRANSLATING THE CAR/ECONOMY ANALOGY TO OUR OWN IDEOLOGIES AND BEHAVIOUR

Psychologically, we are all at it.  We are all playing this game of oversimplifying life, and then getting caught short when things change.

It is how your mind is built.  That's the rule.  You go out and live, and your mind produces for you a simple story to fit what seems to be happening.  You get married, and your mind accepts a story that tomorrow will be much like today, and you will stay together.  But the complexity of experience doesn't fit our over-simplifying, and sooner or later, you will experience a crisis.

A DEFINITION OF CRISIS

From the point of view of cognitive economy, a crisis is the inevitable result of experiencing an event or change that throws into doubt your simplified model of life.  Your mind has necessarily simplified life, because you cannot possibly think all the thoughts that need to be thought in order to understand everything.  Simple you meets complex life.  And you see it as a disaster.

ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION RE-EVALUATED

How do anxiety and depresssion look from this angle?

Well, anxiety is the response of the mind to pressure beyond its ability to cope.  Something happens which calls into doubt our ability to control our world, and we throw an enormous panic, because we are suddenly reminded that everything is in doubt.  Call it existential angst if you like.  It is existential because we are simple beings, much simpler than experience.  So experience haunts and surprises us all the time.

Depression is the response of the mind to long-term pressure beyond its ability to cope.  In terms of support, it is a response to long-term neglect.  Something happens, and lasts, which calls into doubt our ability to control our world, and our constant panics haven't worked,  so instead of fluctuating in uncertainty, we slump into a kind of certainty that everything is terrible.  Call it existential depression if you like.  It is existential because we are arrogant beings, much prouder than experience.  So experience disappoints us all the time.  Depression is perhaps more realistic than anxiety - at least it has a world view that allows for a vast range of experience.  Even though, when we are depressed, we forget the positive side of life.  So it is still a simplification.

HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH ECONOMY AND ECONOMIES IN A DIFFERENT WAY?

We know our current methods are unsustainable.  Our simple models of the world, whether ideologies, or operating methods... they are just that, simple.  Our simple view of economies forgets the complexity of our environment, and the fact that it will be ruined soon if we carry on prioritising consumerism.  In our private lives, our cognitive economy manifests in our assumptions about others, our assumption that tomorrow will be like today, our desperate reliance on contracts to make life more predictable.

But you can't agree a contract with nature.  It refuses to allocate any being to sign on its behalf.

The only solution is to begin to operate with more wisdom, because wisdom is the ability to see beyond the simple models everyone is using in the present; it is the ability to accept that tomorrow we may wake up in a flood, or a fire, or a war, and everything will change.  If you like, if life is a journey, wisdom is our rucksack.  Our store of wisdom is there to help us when times vary, when economies break, when the complexity of life bursts through.

LIVING WITH WISDOM

Material wisdom may involve knowing that, sooner or later, everything is taken away from us.  It may involve questioning our reliance on simple economic growth models.  Ideological wisdom may involve allowing for the fact that our ideologies are all wrong by definition - too simple.  Psychological wisdom may involve recognising, consistently, that nothing we think now will ever be enough preparation for what happens next.  That our minds, and our bodies, are organised around simplifications of life, and those simplifications are not life itself.

SUMMARY

Our brains are built to simplify our experience into assumptions.  When the going is good, because there is no need to analyse, so we simplify even more, and take things for granted - habits, money, relationships, natural resources.  We become extremely efficient in our habits, and live in a blinkered world.  Then along comes a crisis, to remind us that life is more complex than our assumptions.  We fold in anxiety and depression.  Perhaps wisdom is knowing, in our bones, that tomorrow may not be like today.  Perhaps wisdom is being humble enough to understand that we are wrong before we start; that everything is in that sense an illusion; that we are always oversimplifying, economising, with our minds and bodies.  If we are lucky, that wisdom may make us better equipped to live in a universe that often doesn't do what we think it should.

WHY DO I HATE MY JOB?

A lot of people are unhappy with their jobs.  A lot.  Many articles are written about how to make a life you love, one that goes beyond the apparent slavery of our commercial world.  But why is it so difficult to make that escape?

ECONOMIES ARE DESIGNED TO ROPE YOU IN

The main trend, over the centuries, has been a move from the self-reliant community to the interactive market.  In a self-reliant community, you are born into a family, and that family is aware of its position in the local tribe.  As long as you play a role that is expected of you, in terms of food gathering or other maintenance, then you are rewarded with a sense of stability and food on your plate.  In contrast, in an interactive market, you are born into a family, but you are expected to leave that family and make your own way in a bigger society.  That society is composed of millions of individuals, and you are expected to find a role for yourself using your own initiative and creativity.

FROM COPYING TO CREATING

Essentially, the old way simply involved copying.  You did what you were born into, and you learned your habits from your immediate family.  You can see this behaviour in animal communities.  Habits and rituals are enforced by default.  There is very little reason to misbehave, as quiet compliance rewards you with your meals and a support system.  The new way is more difficult.  To live, you have to be proactive.  And there are so many choices.  Instead of just being a person, you have to try to define yourself as a lawyer, an accountant, a secretary, a teacher, a driver... society will not let you settle until you have told it your function.

KNOWING YOUR FUNCTION

The trouble is that these functions we all have to name are specialised.  And performing each function involves sacrificing or suppressing all the natural activity that is not contained within that function.  Thus, for example, a politician is generally required to be secretive and evasive, suppressing their natural desire to communicate freely.  Part of the attraction of Donald Trump, America's outspoken president, to his support base, is his unwillingness to perform in accordance with these expectations.  Doctors are required to suppress expressions of discontent; they have to be friendly to every patient.  Models are often required to suppress their desire to eat normally.  And so on.  Sportsmen, coal miners, taxi drivers, therapists... all have to suppress their whole selves, and only express a part.

THE ILLNESS THAT RESULTS

Much mental illness is borne of attempts to fit oneself into these stereotypes of specialists.  A politician may become depressed when forced to remain secretive about the government's ethical misdemeanours.  A sports person may break down when required to ignore their home and domestic life.  Think of the jobs you have had... you will, I'm sure, be able to point to ways in which each job forced you to suppress your natural responses.

STRESS

Stress, as well as depression, happens when we force ourselves into wrong-shaped holes.  Stress, in a way, is the short-term response to pressure in reaction to the environment... depression can evolve when our bodies get fed up with constantly mounting the short-term stress response, and slump away from confrontation.

MODERN JOBS CAUSE ILLNESS

I guess you could say that modern jobs cause illness.  They tend to be specialised, and those specialisms force us to narrow ourselves and our personalties into prescribed behaviours, and away from proscribed behaviours.  Some are lucky enough to find jobs that somehow suit them, that don't affront their nature.  But many find themselves playing the dangerous game of square-peg-in-round-hole.

WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

In a world where economies are pushing us into narrow, specialised roles and behaviours, what's the answer?  How can we regain our mental equilibrium?  Here are a few suggestions:

1. If you are an employer, ask yourself: 'Am I creating an environment in which my employees can be themselves?'  Are your employees forced to hide their true feelings in order to toe the line?  Are they forced to compromise their eating and sleeping patterns to ensure their work is done?

2. If you are an employee, ask yourself: 'Where and when do I feel my most natural self?  How can I best recreate that during a typical week?'  You may be able to create small wins, such as getting the right to eat when and how you want; creating forums at work where colleagues can be themselves for a while; giving yourself balancing activities to blow off steam.  If not, you may be able to move to a job where you feel less stressed, and more your natural self.

3. If you are not traditionally employed, you may be able to create a daily structure which matches what your body wants to do.  If you feel unnaturally lonely, then you may want to join support or activity groups; if you feel dominated by customers, or by the benefits office, then you may want to create 'safe havens' for yourself away from those pressures.

TREATING TIME, NOT MONEY, AS THE KEY

Let me ask you something.  I'm going to offer you two extreme scenarios, and I'd like you to imagine them:

Scenario 1: A life with no minutes at all in it, but with plenty of money.

Scenario 2: A life with no money at all in it, but with plenty of time.

Which would you choose?  Scenario 1, you may have noticed, is non-viable.  Quite literally.  You can't exist at all unless you are around for a period of time.  If you choose that option, you are like an Egyptian Pharaoh in a pyramid, dead already!  Scenario 2, you were built for.  In case you didn't know it, for millions of years, animals like you have been living lives with no money.  It's actually your naural state!  All this money stuff is a recent invention, a creator and a product of the economic age.

So try treating time as your currency.  What are you going to do today?  What wealth of experience are you going to discover in this waking time?  Never mind what you earn.  Just for a while, treat your time as the most important thing you have, and spend it in a way that feels natural to you, and that does kindness, not harm, to your body.

BREAKING THE RULES

In order to live more freely, you may have to say goodbye to promotions, pay rises, awards, that kind of thing.  But remember, these are the things your society has invented to trap you in the circle of wealth.  I am encouraging you to break the rules, and see what happens.  You will find that many of the rules are things you've absorbed and never questioned.  Here are a few rules I'd like you to think about breaking:

Rule 1: You have to start and finish your work at specific times.

Rule 2: You have to aim for advancement and promotion.

Rule 3: You have to use traditional job names to describe what you do in life.

Rule 4: You have to wait for orders in order to do your next thing.

Rule 5: You have to subordinate your natural self to the weird demands of your regulated environment.

RULES FOR A FEW DAYS

Put the other way round, and phrased positively, I am encouraging you to:

Invitation 1: Pay more attention to your natural rhythms, and take care of your body and mind.

Invitation 2: Pay more attention to your priorities, and let others own theirs.

Invitation 3: Be a whole person, rather than a narrow job description.

Invitation 4: Do some things because you feel moved to - follow your inner promptings rather than others' orders or requirements.

Invitation 5: Respect your natural self.  Nature's spent millions of years evolving you.  Use that inner wisdom.  See what it says.

A WARNING ABOUT GUILT

You will sometimes feel guilty.  That's how modern society works - it is designed to make you feel guilty if you depart from the behavioural norms it has created.  As soon as you drop a quest for status, you will be flooded with feature films in which the hero says 'never give up'.  That's partly because Hollywood and other film communities are encouraged to be thought-leaders: they are sometimes funded to produce stories which make you behave.  At other times they produce escapist stories to give you a second life on screen; so that you don't live that second life in reality.  But try abandoning the need to look to films for messages.  Try just listening to what your own body and mind are saying.  You may be surprised at how coherent, helpful and inspiring your own self is.  You just have to let yourself have enough space, so that your oppressive environment can't drown you out any more.  Nothing annoys supporters of social norms more than people who refuse to behave.  But I am asking you to give it a go.  So let the loud voice fall away.  And let your own quiet voice grow.

  

A NOTE ABOUT REGULATION

In paying attention to your own rhythms and priorities, it is often a mistake to ignore other people.  Many of your natural rhythms and behaviours are social ones, so experiment with what works for you.  Try to find communities which feel comfortable for you.  That kind of external regulation is a great comfort.  So when you find an environment in which you are happy to follow wise instructions, healthy timetables, good routines... then great.  This article is an encouragement to question whether your existing environment is right for you.  I'm not inviting you to leave all regulation; but I am encouraging you to look again at any blind obedience of regulations that are not in harmony with your natural self.

A FINAL NOTE ABOUT NATURE

I use the word natural quite loosely in this article.  Just to clarify a bit: I am offering encouragement to pay respect to our own being, and to the millions of years of past experiences which have gone into the formation of that evolved being.  If you feel an urge to do something different, then I wouldn't stand in your way.  But sooner or later, I suggest, your long-term, evolved being will have something wise to say; and when it speaks, maybe we can be polite enough to listen, to comprehend, to take it into account!