'Are You a Leader or a Follower'?

This conversation has infected popular culture for the last decade or more, made much worse by all of these blunt instruments that attempt to pass themselves off as 'tests' in attempts to tell you something about yourself.  Be a ladder climber!  Shatter the glass ceiling!  Be this!  Be more of that!  I don't know where I saw it, probably LinkedIn, but some article raised the 'are you a lion or a lamb' debate...again.  Talk about continuing to go about it all wrong. 

The argument made a thousand times over on a daily basis assumes that it is highly desirable to be a 'leader', or, more likely, thought of and worshiped as one.  The deification of this term has gotten completely out of hand.  It also assumes those who are 'followers' need to work hard on those aspects of themselves to be more of a 'leader' themselves or they'll never reach any kind of success.  Success, measured financially, mind you...and those arguments make people writing books and selling seminars a lot of money in this arena.  The problem I have with the positions posed is that they always appear to make a generalized judgment call about you - you are either one or the other; you're either yinked or yangked.  This diminishes people into people into being, or at least think they are being, something less than what they very likely are.

Now, it is fine to be a leader, but I also challenge the way it is presented.  If this were a formal article for something like The Atlantic or Salon.com I'd bother digging up examples of everything I've read, tidy up my rhetoric (maybe...I miss Christopher Hitchens immensely...incendiary fuck that he was), repeat myself less and make it all presentable in a way that might fetch me some bloody cash.  I'd love to make a living lending my opinions, thoughts on solutions, problems, everything.  Save maybe global macroeconomics I have an opinion on just about everything. 

Where was I?  Wherever I was, I remember thinking that the Myers-Briggs test, while fun, didn't quite get it right either.  I saw another article recently criticizing that test.

Had to go looking:
http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/why-myers-briggs-is-totally-useless-but-wildly-popular/?_r=0


Just another way to categorize people into those selectable traits you want to hire, trimming off the fat.  Just wait til you can go to the Gene Counter and order up the type of human or clone you need.  Of course, people learned a long time ago how to circumvent many requirements, and they'll continue to break those peoples' rules.  Great, isn't it?  But - if you exhibit the traits a hiring entity wants, you're hired.  The cynical, sarcastic twist of thought is that it saves much time and money in terms of not having to get to know the person, or they don't bother and it becomes a long-term, festering mistake.  The fun part is how hard people are bitten by this in the end.  Most publicly, many people are elected to extremely high positions in government when they have absolutely no business being there.  Stay the course...ICEBERG!!!!  Oh, wait...never mind...it'll melt completely by the time we get to it.  Won't it?  

But I digress. 

True leaders lead inadvertently - when they are so unabashedly passionate about something that they spend much of their life working on it, and it shows.  They lead only by the example (yes...!  Where has this phrase gone?!!) they demonstrate.  Actions > Words.  They are not looking for people to lord over or delegate to.  They are not seeking notoriety, but a little credit where it is due sometimes helps immensely as it can be empowering, and it most often comes from those who benefit directly from those actions being presented.  True leaders will find it difficult to delegate, at least at first, until whoever is trying to lend a hand works with them to create a productive dynamic.  Everyone knows someone like this, and if they are even remotely like-minded they'll want to follow, to help, to participate.  Ultimately to dedicate part or much of themselves as well.  Even though most pseudo-leaders flail around pitifully, they usually have some measure of fear to dish out to keep people in line.  Following.  Grudgingly. 

The way I see it, which is painfully obvious to anyone capable of kinder-caliber critical thinking*, is that a person has traits of both depending on what the subject or task at hand might be.  A person might be relatively benign at their primary job but they might be the icebreaker for a massive local movement to assist homeless through their church.  Or vice-versa.   Not everyone is a leader at everything they do.  If you encounter someone who is trying to be, then that should raise red flags.

*I should mention that I would very, very seriously consider adopting the election of children over some of our current governing officials and those occupying the most highly paid layers of corporations. 

The true solution is to get people to ask questions about themselves and find answers to what makes them tick, not to be told what they are by someone else's outline of definitions.  When a person truly knows themselves they find their passions and act accordingly.  I think we know where that leads us. 




©2015 Michael Pichahchy

Monsanto

I'm afraid we're going to need to burn, sterilize and rebuild every square meter of Monsanto-infected soil on this planet if it is, if we are...going to survive. 



©2014 Michael Pichahchy

Competition or Cooperation?

As with so many subjects, this one also exists as a woefully pulpified equine.  I had a fleeting thought earlier, and, yes, it hurt, but it made me want to write again; in effect bringing my own bat.  I have dozens of other docs I should be putting more effort into.  Or, random deity forbid, something financially gainful.  My apologies.  

There are countless arguments regarding whether cooperation or competition does a better job in achieving a higher bar.  This seems something of a paradox, as in debating (which feels like competition itself, derp) which is more effective just perpetuates the underlying problem.  I think what I am trying to do, as I also attempt to claw my way back to my original, miniature, model train of thought, is strive for understanding, not pose my personal view, per se.  Not really an argument or debate.  At least not in calling it that I suppose.  

Thus I am trying to pose this as the third alternative to cooperation and competition, if only verbally.  "If only verbally"?  What does that even mean?  There I go again, trying (subconsciously?) to be all cool and shit as a writer and falling flat on my face.  Good luck trying to stay with me, by the way.  I am having trouble myself so welcome to the fray.

OK, it isn't a third option.  I am sure some other backyard philosopher has worked this out fully, or at least more coherently, but I haven't found it.  Maybe you have?  With over seven billion people out there now I doubt there are many truly original thoughts, and just because Google isn't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  What was I saying?  Oh, yeah - understanding is just what you cooperate or compete to achieve.  Again, in this case, at any rate.  It could also be the pursuit of realization of something or some other goal.  I am trying to leave sports out of it as my brain personally doesn't quite equate 'winning' with 'understanding'.  I prefer to think of it as attaining some degree of success, reaching a goal, a milestone.  That and I've never felt any emotional connection to sports...to that kind of competition.  Winning never did anything for me.  I completely get being part of a team trying to achieve something, but not at the expense or duress of someone, anyone, else. It is even evident in the workplace in many cases, unfortunately. 

That said, understanding feels like it has closer ties to cooperation. It feels like there is more room for ease of effort; there is an elasticity to cooperation.  It feels forgiving, progressive.  Competition, to me, feels like a tight, rigid, narrow avenue to pursue.  Sometimes this does conjure a critical pressure point, in terms of something having to give.  A pressure cooker might blow up and make a horrible mess but there might just be something splattered on the wall that yields a new perspective. 

As I write this I am highly aware that this is just how my brain works.  I've also never written about this before so I'm finding it difficult to eloquent my thoughts.  I'd love to hear something similar from people who operate the complete opposite.  They're wired to compete, to win.  Neither is likely right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it is just another example of the anomalies, the iterations that make us up.  Each has its place, in moderation, and with guidelines, not rules?  I'll say that this is where we I feel the need to cooperate with each other to better understand each other. From my perspective I don't see how competition has any real chance of getting us there; we could do so much more cooperatively. 




Bleh, this is a mess.  Please forgive my musings...I might try to clean it up later.  I have this intractable urge to think publicly now, and I'd really like everyone else to as well, in any manner they see fit.  Consider this another straw in the hut of our global understanding as a species; the more we communicate, using any and every medium possible, the better chance we have of answering everyone's questions.  I read a lot more in the way of others' blogs now, on all sorts of topics as well.  Of course, this is no substitute for hot tea, campfire, blankets, friends and starlight, is there. 



© 2014 Michael Pichahchy

Cynicism and Sarcasm: Understanding Them and How to Play Nice

Cynicism and Sarcasm: Understanding Them and How to Play Nice

cyn·i·cism (copied from Google Search)

ˈsinəˌsizəm/

noun

noun: cynicism; noun: Cynicism

    1.

    an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.

    "public cynicism about politics"

    synonyms:      skepticism, doubt, distrust, mistrust, suspicion, disbelief; More

    pessimism, negativity, world-weariness, disenchantment

    "theirs was a childhood of absent parents and broken promises, so cynicism was hardly a surprise"

    antonyms:      idealism

        an inclination to question whether something will happen or whether it is worthwhile; pessimism.

        "cynicism about the future"

    2.

    a school of ancient Greek philosophers, the Cynics.

sar·casm (copied from Google Search)

ˈsärˌkazəm/

noun

noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms

    the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

    "his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"

    synonyms:      derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing;

    irony;    cynicism

We don’t get to choose our genetic makeup, and sometimes it feels we have little control over that which we are exposed or expose ourselves to, environmental or otherwise.  We are mostly able, however, to decide how we react to whatever it is we’re posed with. 

We can all relate to a multitude of difficulties we witness being experienced by others.  It used to be that you could only share experiences with others living in your local vicinity.  Then came easier transportation, paper correspondence, then electricity and voice calling, and with the construction of the Internet and its various tools we can now share with up to a billion others across the globe in seconds if we wish, depending on who is watching.  In other words, ideas travel fast…for better or for worse, depending on your perspective. 

My personal flavor of classically-defined cynicism is borne mostly of witnessing the global population explosion (it has almost doubled in the 45 years I’ve existed, 1969-present) and its various effects.  Fighting over access to resources…whether they be water, education or a Park Avenue penthouse.  The unfortunate part is that it is all too easy to lose yourself in this proverbial pit of despair; it breeds a very untrusting personality, and, in my case, being an introvert to begin with, a sometimes painful desire to stay away from people, never truly knowing what their motivations are.  Couple that with competition for said resources.  Not healthy when in truth you love meeting and exploring anything and everything with the monumental number of fantastic human beings out there.  Sharing.  So why is this so powerful?  Is it an addiction?  A form of depression seems likely…I haven’t even looked at DSM V yet…geez. 

For me, and likely (obviously?) millions of others, my sarcasm is conjured  primarily by my cynicism, among a smattering of other things.  Sarcasm…somehow I must say that I relish the partial definition in ‘to convey contempt’.  It oozes distaste of something or someone.  This is what got its claws so unfathomably deep into me…contempt.  Sarcastic contempt for those who focus on what I consider small, ‘stupid’ things.  Things of a small mind.  I won’t state my evolving list here, but if you’re reading this at least a few have entered your mind.  Consider popular culture – how often do you find yourself ‘deriding, mocking, ridiculing, scorning, sneering and scoffing at’ something or someone?  Unabashed displays of sarcasm toward people and their ideas.  I know.  Me too.  We all have those avenues we know exist that we just avoid…we avoid them because they likely conjure unhealthy responses from ourselves.  I’ll get to those later. 

Thinking the rest of the world is stupid is infectious.  The world is stupid.  Right?  The world of humans at any rate – the rest of it, in and of itself, is positively brilliant.  But, when your view is limited, you tend to focus on a small scene (please forgive my photography fixation) and thus have only limited exposure.  Limited exposure breeds a narrow interpretation of the world.  Stupid!  Like if you move to a city where you know virtually nobody and all you see are the negatives.  Dumb drivers, self-absorbed types, they’re all over everywhere but the density in a city allows for much more contact with them.  Caught up in their own motivations. 

Now, I’ve always been a very self-deprecating person.  I know I am intelligent by most measures but I flatly refuse to take myself seriously.  Unless I have what I genuinely believe is a good idea or work of art then I will try to get it out there; mostly for the intrinsic satisfaction that I’ve produced something for the benefit and/or enjoyment of others (though I wouldn’t mind being paid for it).  Fortunately I picked that up somewhere…I don’t recall where or how…and I don’t recall ever not being like that; I know it is a large part of my own mental and emotional survival.  It has helped me to successfully fend off that completely destructive notion that ‘I am better than everyone else’.  To me, that really means going off the deep end.  I’ve grappled with that part of my own ‘dark side’ if you will and it is not pretty.  It is not who I have been, who I am, and if I have any continued say, never a part of who I will become.  It is important to allow yourself to feel and think these thoughts but more important to try to understand them and how they’re a part of you; I’ll leave this subject for another article.  J 

I often see cynicism and sarcasm as being something of a tag-team of drugs, and they compliment/compound each other to a bewildering extent.  They are coping mechanisms.  Not being a typically addictive personality, they feel like what I consider to be my battle with (and finally my defeat of?… w0ot!) alcoholism since my mom’s latest cancer recurrence now four-and-a-half years ago which ultimately led to her death.  OK, maybe not quite as severe, but you get the point.  Self-medication; something as a salve to the sometimes painful ideas, words and actions of others.  This is where I have traditionally fallen back on the ‘sense of humor’ aspect of the two.  A sarcastic sense of humor; a cynically playful sense of humor.  Humor and laughter are therapy, right?  We see this as well in all aspects of our popular culture.  At least, what I deem to be the constructive facets of cynicism and sarcasm carry their own senses of humor.  Painful but healing, in a manner of speaking, as I usually view it as being combined with an attempt at understanding.  Those who are just plain mean are just compounding whatever the problem is; if the humor isn’t there they are purely destructive.  Even if they are posing solutions in their continued negativity they are still not going to be as effective as they could be, unless their purpose is to keep people beaten down into apathy.  The outlet…we all know that if you don’t have a playfully creative outlet for the sarcasm and cynicism that builds it will fester inside of and destroy you. 

Allowing yourself to feel something, even something ostensibly negative and destructive, is an important part of self-awareness, as long as it is identified, compartmentalized, understood and morphed into something constructive.  Not unlike being moltenly frustrated or angry at something and washing the dishes instead of breaking them.  Or, even better, making a new one.  Allowing yourself to laugh at and with the darkness inside of you that is sarcasm and cynicism is far more healthy than stewing in the perceived stupidity in others.  Besides, it is fun. 

© 2014 Michael Pichahchy