Robin's Interesting Thoughts

One of the ideas that stuck with me after reading Nonviolent Communication (Rosenberg, 3rd ed. 2015), is that words such as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘better’, ‘worse’, ‘right’, and ‘wrong’ can often be problematic. For example:

In expressing our feelings, it helps to use words that refer to specific emotions, rather than words that are vague or general. For example, if we say, ‘I feel good about that,’ the word good could mean happy, excited, relieved, or a number of other emotions. Words such as good and bad prevent the listener from connecting easily with what we might actually be feeling. (p. 43)

Notice how Rosenberg very intentionally did not say that using vague words is bad or wrong — which would of course be a contradiction! Rather, he walked the talk and described a specific problem that can arise when such words are used. (Elsewhere in the book he describes all sorts of terrible problems that can arise from using judgmental language including “right” and “wrong”.)

Part of what’s poignant about this is how easy it is for my mind to jump to the simplified version: that using these words is bad or wrong. They appear frequently in conversation, social media, news, and books. So now every time I notice one, I have an opportunity — I can judge the wrongness/badness of the writer, or I can simply become curious and see if I can think up a more specific way to phrase what they may have meant (helping to improve my own communication skills). Sometimes my mind does both. Sometimes I end up liking the author’s word choice a lot.

In a way, the most remarkable thing about Nonviolent Communication is that it is a self-help book (which we would presume to contain some ideas about what sort of behavior is good or bad) written entirely without resorting to judgmental language like “good”, “right”, “should”, and “must”. Instead, everything is framed as techniques that can be employed to achieve certain goals or qualities.

If our objective is only to change people and their behavior or to get our way, then NVC is not an appropriate tool. The process is designed for those of us who would like others to change and respond, but only if they choose to do so willingly and compassionately. The objective of NVC is to establish a relationship based on honesty and empathy. (p. 81)

I think it is critically important to recognize that someone who does not practice nonviolent communication is not bad or wrong. They may be suffering unnecessarily, but they are doing their best.

I sometimes wonder why our culture finds brain physiology so compelling. For example, I often see science writing that goes something like this: “After performing [some mental or physical task], subjects displayed improved [memory, cognition, sleep, mood]. But not only that, MRI scans showed that their brains literally changed size and shape!”

That’s like saying: “After [some exercise program], subjects were able to lift on average 20 more pounds than they were at the start of the program. But not only that, their muscles literally changed size and shape!”

Issue 1: If the goal is to lift more weight, then the details of what happened physiologically are irrelevant to whether or not the intervention was a success. (Either the participants got stronger or they didn’t.)

Issue 2: The fact that physiological change occurred should have been obvious, since any change in behavior or ability must be reflected in our physical bodies.

Similarly in the brain-training studies, if the goal is to achieve improved cognition, sleep, mood, etc., then the details of what happened physiologically don’t have any bearing (positive or negative) on whether the intervention was a success. (If cognition/sleep/mood had not been affected, even a radical observed change in brain size would not change the fact that the intervention failed. Conversely, if no brain changes had been observed, that wouldn’t detract from any success the intervention enjoyed — it just means that the anatomical aspect of the change has not yet been discovered.)

Likewise, the fact that a physiological change occurred should not have been surprising. Unless you believe that minds somehow avoid the laws of physics, they must have a physical representation in the body. So any change in thinking or behavior must be represented physiologically somewhere. While it is indeed exciting that neuroscientists are able to see some of these changes in brain scans, their existence is expected — it confirms the known laws of physics.

Yet it seems to be a continuing source of surprise that just by thinking, you can change the physical structure of your brain.

Perhaps it’s a surprise that thinking is that real.

As more of us learn how to observe and change our own patterns of thought — and witness the very real effects on our emotions, behaviors, and psychosomatic physical illnesses — maybe then the realness of thinking will become less of a surprise.

“Kathleen was 35 years old and… came from a large Catholic family. She had been stuck in early adolescence for years and was destined to stay there for the remainder of her life, as many parochial school students do, having learned from the nuns that the most important thing in life was to put on an act for parents and overseers and live your real life on the side.”

-Brad Blanton, Radical Honesty (p. 45)

It’s interesting that everyone seems to be unhappy with the “mainstream media”. Those “on the left” tend to feel that the pursuit of “unbiased” reporting is lending credibility to candidates and stories that simply aren’t credible. Meanwhile, those “on the right” tend to believe that the pursuit of “the facts” is at best a distraction from what they care about, and at worst an elaborate scheme to cover up elitist conspiracies.

Is it possible for the media to address these concerns without going out of business or fragmenting into the “echo chambers” we are now seeing of special-interest news feeds that are not helping anyone to understand each other better?

• Can journalists acknowledge that everyone is biased, and therefore that pretending to be truly unbiased is inauthentic?
• Can scientists acknowledge that all facts are human creations, and as such are inherently prone to some uncertainty?
• Can religious leaders acknowledge that all scripture requires human interpretation, and as such is also inherently prone to some uncertainty?
• Can laypeople acknowledge that some important truths are difficult or impossible to understand without years of training and effort?
• Can politicians acknowledge that they, like all people, have made devastating mistakes?

In short, how do we present the news of the day authentically, humbly, and realistically? (How would Jesus, or the Buddha, report the news?)

 

“Begin by drawing on the warmth of friendship that you know exists potentially in your mind and direct it to yourself. Notice how much peace, happiness, and benevolence you possess already. Make yourself aware of how much you need and long for loving friendship.

“Next, become conscious of your anger, fear, and anxiety. Look deeply into the seeds of rage within yourself. Bring to mind some of your past suffering. You long to be free of this pain, so try gently to put aside your current irritations, frustrations, and worries and feel compassion for your conflicted, struggling self.

“Then bring your capacity for joy to the surface and take conscious pleasure in things we all tend to take for granted: good health, family, friends, work, and life’s tiny pleasures.

“Finally, look at yourself with upeksha (“even-mindedness, non-attachment“). You have failings, but so does everybody else. You also have talents and, like every other being on the planet, you deserve compassion, joy, and friendship.”

-Karen Armstrong, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life (p. 85-86)

“Meditation… is a discipline that helps us to take greater control of our minds and channel our destructive impulses creatively.”

-Karen Armstrong, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life (p.84)

I’m deeply excited about the future of self-managed organizations, but I’m uneasy about the way some of these organizations are undergoing the transition. Perhaps this is captured in the opening paragraph of an article from The Atlantic: “This spring, by order of the CEO, Tony Hsieh, the company abolished managers, eliminated job titles, denounced its own organizational hierarchy, and vested all authority in a 10,000-word constitution….”

There’s clearly something ironic about abolishing managers “by order of the CEO.” In the old system, of course, the CEO did have the power to declare such a change. But to begin a glorious new era of empowered employees by commanding it? That feels to me like a dangerous precedent, and a recipe for all the sorts of problems that self-management is intended to solve.

I realize that this sort of transition is going to be difficult no matter what, and I don’t claim to have any magic solutions. But I do wonder what alternatives might be explored that are more in the spirit of empowerment, wholeness, and purpose. Could the CEO invite teams to experiment with self-management, and support their efforts if and when they proceed? Could the CEO begin to practice self-management, at least within her own team of executives? Could the CEO share with the rest of the company his own authentic hopes and fears about a potential transition?

And what is a CEO to do if the company as a whole does not want the freedom, responsibility, uncertainty, and pain that comes with such a transition? Wouldn’t it be against the spirit of a compassionate community to force such a change? And anyway, wouldn’t such force merely arouse suspicion, resentment, and resistance from those who it is forced upon?

In Zappos’ case, anyone who did not want to transition were invited to leave the company with generous severance pay. I like the individual freedom in this, but again I worry about the precedent: not everyone is welcome in this community.

I suspect there is still a lot of opportunity for creativity and experimentation in helping organizations transition to self-management more gradually, organically, and compassionately.

 

“To be alive is by definition messy, always leaning towards disorder and surprise. How we open or close to the reality that we never arrive at safe enduring stasis is the matter, the raw material, of wisdom.”

-Krista Tippett, Becoming Wise (p. 67)

John Gruber, on the departure of Sal Soghoian from Apple and the apparent dissolution of the macOS automation team:

Part of my argument for why I feel so much more productive on a Mac than an iPad revolves around the automation technologies that Soghoian’s group developed. […] I find this to be a profoundly worrisome turn of events for the future of the Mac. […] On a personal note, I’ve known Sal for a long time. I first met him at a WWDC in the early years of Daring Fireball.

I too met Sal at WWDC years ago. (I knew one of the engineers on his team from grad school.) Even in 2008 I wondered about the future of the automation team, for the simple reason that the WWDC session on automation technologies was always scheduled in the smallest room, in the last time slot, on the last day (when many attendees had already left town).

I see these automation tools as experiments of sorts, exploring which programming-like tasks users can accomplish without needing to actually learn to program. AppleScript, for example, adopted an experimental English-language like syntax that aimed to be more approachable than other programming languages. Apple’s more recent Automator app used more of a graphical, lego-block approach. Both of these rely on other apps to surface third-party functionality in a way that is accessible to the automation tool. It’s not clear how many people ever really used these tools.

Meanwhile, the Mac moved over to Unix and gained 30 years worth of command-line automation tools. Now it’s often easier to copy and paste a Terminal command from a web search than it is to set up an Automator workflow. And the developer community continued to grow and ship new automation-related apps and scripting languages, for everything from text editing to web design to server maintenance. So the Mac is not losing its ability to be automated — on the contrary, there are more ways to do it than ever before.

Now Apple has thrown its weight behind different, related efforts: it’s not hard to imagine Siri becoming capable of many of the things Automator could do (even Automator’s robot icon foreshadowed this). And perhaps Apple’s Swift Playgrounds app, designed to help anyone learn how to program, can be seen as an assertion that previous automation technologies were too limiting — you may as well dive in and learn to code.

I think it’s a testament to Soghoian’s commitment that the automation tools team lasted as long as it did — and that the Mac has such an abundance of automation tools today. I’m not really sure what the team’s dissolution means for the future, but I think the space is still ripe for exploration. I hope Apple, Soghoian, and the developer community will continue to experiment.

“When I tell people my team only works five hours a day, their response is always, ‘That’s nice, but it won’t work for me.’ The 9-to-5 is so ingrained in their minds that they can’t imagine anything else. But you can reduce your hours by 30% and maintain the same level of productivity.”

-Stephan Aarstol, The Five Hour Workday