
This quote is so wrong that it makes me wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson is even aware of it’s existence…
Karl Popper has long ago produced ample proof that science is true only till proven wrong so it ever being true depends solely on us temporarily believing in it…
Maybe the guy who wrote this should have put it a little differently.
The good thing about the scientific mind-set is that whenever we find proof to the contrary it makes it easier for us to stop believing an erstwhile scientifically held truth.
And to continue from there.
Karl Popper: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Falsifiability: https://explorable.com/falsifiability
One can be a genuine expert in ‘something’ – and be able to explain in very few words that ‘something’ to any layperson with a functional brain, or an expert in bull-shit, one that is able to speak for ever about anything under this sun, without ever uttering a single interesting word about anything.
American political doctrine – rather voluntaristic if you ask me, despite it being already more that 200 years old – maintains that ‘separation of powers’ means that the three powers that need to be kept in balance – by carefully coding in the Constitution the role each of them has to perform – are the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary.
This arrangement proved to be resilient enough, otherwise it wouldn’t have survived for so long, despite it depending heavily on each of the teams involved performing their jobs with due diligence.
Watching a documentary about the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II – I just realized she’s been around for so long that the steamship that was christened in her honor, QE II, is already retired from service – I started to think that maybe things are a little different.
Farewell to the Forth
Sometimes after the ‘Recognition’, more precisely when she briefly curtsied in front of her subjects, it dawned on me that maybe those powers that need to balance themselves in order for the society as a whole to operate smoothly are the ever changing reality, tradition and will to change. Represented, of course, by the People, the Church and the Monarch.
This doesn’t catch the entire picture – each of us is heavily dependent on the environment into which we happened to be born – but clearly states the difference between us humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.
We are able to make conscious decisions and we love to apportion blame.
When engaging into our favorite pastime we’d better take into consideration two things: Our consciousness/rationality is limited and we can speak about blame only if intent was present.
We don’t have unlimited access to other people thoughts, nor can we see very far, so, in reality, we are aware of a very limited portion of the world around us. Moreover, no matter how confident we are in our minds, our processing power is also limited. So both our decisions and our ability to accurately apportion blame are not at all infallible. Far from it.
On the other hand blaming natural causes or even people who are not aware of (some) of the consequences produced by their actions for what has happened to us doesn’t make sense. A lighting doesn’t know that it frightens people and may wreak havoc in a city if the electric grid is knocked out of order, just as the ‘financial engineers’ who came up with the concept didn’t know, at first, what effects ‘securitization‘ will have upon the global financial markets.
Hey, you promised us something about manipulation and management, not another essay about financial markets manipulation!
True enough so let me discuss first what manipulation is: nothing but a psychological tool. Please note that I’m concerned here with the lofty notion of ‘thought manipulation’, not with the mere ability of ‘juggling’ objects into position….
Regardless of why or for what purpose it’s performed, manipulation remains a simple and very efficient tool that can be used even ‘pre-consciously’ – if you don’t believe me remember how toddlers manipulate their parents into buying them diverse things that are not only a complete waste of money but also sometimes dangerous for their long term health. In this case the manipulation is twofold: the merchandisers position certain items near the cashiers’ desks so that the children might not miss them.
As with any tool it’s up to the user (a.k.a. manipulator) to set the standards, what’s acceptable and what not.
Really? But what if the manipulator is not fully aware of the consequences of his acts? (Remember my digression into the subject of limited rationality/consciousness?) Could it be that the entire world might be shaken, even worse that it has already been, by the yet unforeseen consequences of a manipulation already underway?
Well, as no manipulator is that skilled as to be able to avoid detection for very long, the sad part about the whole thing is that most of the time we know/feel that we are being manipulated and allow it to happen out of laziness or complacency… This being exactly the moment when we should start blaming ourselves for our own lassitude.
Even more ‘interesting’ is how we rationalize the daily use of manipulation:
So, how much ‘out of their own interests’ is it acceptable for us to manipulate the thoughts of other persons? Specially when they are, after all, our close associates – either clients, subordinates, bosses or even colleagues, friends, relatives, close family.
And, given that sooner or later everybody realizes at least some of the manipulation he has been subjected to, the survival of our entire social life basically depends on how much manipulation each of us is disposed to submit to.
Rather scary, don’t you think? Specially if we take into consideration the fact that manipulators do not always know exactly what they are doing….
Don’t despair. There are people, among the ‘movers and shakers of this world’, who have noticed at least part of what’s going on and have started to act:
When more of us will get it that we’re all together in this, we’ll reinvent mutual respect and scale back manipulation to its natural status: a very useful tool for grabbing the attention of whomever we want to talk to. Used in this manner, like all decent advertisers do, manipulation becomes not only innocuous but also useful for both parties. One is able to get its message across and the other finds out easier what’s going on in this world.
There are costs to be incurred, of course. Those who refrain from more aggressive manipulation may loose some money at first and those who pay a lot of attention to the messages – precisely because they are no longer aggressively manipulative – may end up spending in this manner a lot more time than they used to until now. But if and when we’ll realize that long time survival is a lot more important than short time profit then we’ll foot the bill without much hassle.
Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, “Everything you do…” : https://www.facebook.com/drwaynedyer/photos/a.387583371029.167523.83636976029/10151331343881030/?type=1&theater
Segoviano, M., et all, Securitization, Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13255.pdf
Case Study, The Colapse of Lehman Brothers, Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp
Peeling, Nic, Principles of Management, Dorset House Publishing, http://www.dorsethouse.com/features/excerpts/exdpch1.html
Allen, Peter L., Toward a new HR. Philosophy, McKinsey Quarterly: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/Toward_a_new_HR_philosophy?cid=other-eml-alt-mkq-mck-oth-1504
Dolmanian, Sarchis, Profit, Might it be overrated?: https://nicichiarasa.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/profit-might-it-be-overrated/
‘I nearly fell off my chair when [the instructor] summed up: ‘You’ll find a good girl. If you find one who says ‘no,’ that’s the one you want.’ Photograph: Alamy
Click on the picture and read a very interesting article about what’s going on in some schools.
Before that I’d like you to consider something.
How, and what, am I supposed to teach you about a certain activity if the gist of my lesson is going to be that the best thing you can do, supposedly for a while (?!?), is to refrain yourself from engaging in that activity?
Duh…
First take a look here:
Had your laugh? Wiped your tears?
Now tell me whose question was the mommy answering?
Her daughter’s?
Or was she trying to get off her chest something that was nagging her since she’d been told by the good doctor: ‘congratulations, you have a beautiful baby girl!’?




