February 19, 2018

Learning to Learn

“I didn’t know robots had advanced so far,” a reader remarked after last week’s post about how computers are displacing knowledge workers. What changed to make that happen? The machines learned how to learn.

This is from Artificial Intelligence Goes Bilingual—Without A Dictionary, Science Magazine, Nov. 28, 2017.

“Imagine that you give one person lots of Chinese books and lots of Arabic books—none of them overlapping—and the person has to learn to translate Chinese to Arabic. That seems impossible, right?” says . . . Mikel Artetxe, a computer scientist at the University of the Basque Country (UPV) in San Sebastiàn, Spain. “But we show that a computer can do that.”

Most machine learning—in which neural networks and other computer algorithms learn from experience—is “supervised.” A computer makes a guess, receives the right answer, and adjusts its process accordingly. That works well when teaching a computer to translate between, say, English and French, because many documents exist in both languages. It doesn’t work so well for rare languages, or for popular ones without many parallel texts.

[This learning technique is called] unsupervised machine learning. [A computer using this technique] constructs bilingual dictionaries without the aid of a human teacher telling them when their guesses are right.

Hmm. . . . I could have used that last year, when my wife and I spent three months visiting our daughter in South Korea. The Korean language is ridiculously complex; I never got much past “good morning.”

Go matches were a standard offering on the gym TV’s where I worked out. (Imagine two guys in black suits staring intently at a game board — not exactly a riveting workout visual.) Go is also ridiculously complex, and mysterious, too: the masters seem to make moves more intuitively than analytically. But the days of human Go supremacy are over. Google wizard and overall overachiever Sebastian Thrun[1] explains why in this conversation with TED Curator Chris Anderson:

Artificial intelligence and machine learning is about 60 years old and has not had a great day in its past until recently. And the reason is that today, we have reached a scale of computing and datasets that was necessary to make machines smart. The new thing now is that computers can find their own rules. So instead of an expert deciphering, step by step, a rule for every contingency, what you do now is you give the computer examples and have it infer its own rules.

A really good example is AlphaGo. Normally, in game playing, you would really write down all the rules, but in AlphaGo’s case, the system looked over a million games and was able to infer its own rules and then beat the world’s residing Go champion. That is exciting, because it relieves the software engineer of the need of being super smart, and pushes the burden towards the data.

20 years ago the computers were as big as a cockroach brain. Now they are powerful enough to really emulate specialized human thinking. And then the computers take advantage of the fact that they can look at much more data than people can. AlphaGo looked at more than a million games. No human expert can ever study a million games. So as a result, the computer can find rules that even people can’t find.

Thrun made those comments in April 2017. AlphaGo’s championship reign was short-lived: it was unseated a mere six months by a new cyber challenger that taught itself without reviewing all that data. This is from “AlphaGo Zero Shows Machines Can Become Superhuman Without Any Help,” MIT Technology Review, October 18, 2017.

AlphaGo wasn’t the best Go player on the planet for very long. A new version of the masterful AI program has emerged, and it’s a monster. In a head-to-head matchup, AlphaGo Zero defeated the original program by 100 games to none.

Whereas the original AlphaGo learned by ingesting data from hundreds of thousands of games played by human experts, AlphaGo Zero started with nothing but a blank board and the rules of the game. It learned simply by playing millions of games against itself, using what it learned in each game to improve.

The new program represents a step forward in the quest to build machines that are truly intelligent. That’s because machines will need to figure out solutions to difficult problems even when there isn’t a large amount of training data to learn from.

“The most striking thing is we don’t need any human data anymore,” says Demis Hassabis, CEO and cofounder of DeepMind [the creators of AlphaGo Zero].

“By not using human data or human expertise, we’ve actually removed the constraints of human knowledge,” says David Silver, the lead researcher at DeepMind and a professor at University College London. “It’s able to create knowledge for itself from first principles.”

Did you catch that? “We’ve removed the constraints of human knowledge.” Wow. No wonder computers are elbowing all those knowledge workers out of the way.

What’s left for human to do? We’ll hear from Sebastian Thrun and others on that topic next time.


[1] Sebastian Thrun’s TED bio describes him as “an educator, entrepreneur and troublemaker. After a long life as a professor at Stanford University, Thrun resigned from tenure to join Google. At Google, he founded Google X, home to self-driving cars and many other moonshot technologies. Thrun also founded Udacity, an online university with worldwide reach, and Kitty Hawk, a ‘flying car’ company. He has authored 11 books, 400 papers, holds 3 doctorates and has won numerous awards.”

 

Kevin Rhodes writes about individual growth and cultural change, drawing on insights from science, technology, disruptive innovation, entrepreneurship, neuroscience, psychology, and personal experience, including his own unique journey to wellness — dealing with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

Check out Kevin’s latest LinkedIn Pulse article: Leadership and Life Lessons From an Elite Athlete and a Dying Man.

Brave New (Jobs) World

“The American work environment is rapidly changing.
For better or worse, the days of the conventional full-time job may be numbered.”

The above quote is from a December 5, 2016 Quartz article that reported the findings of economists Lawrence Katz (Harvard) and Alan Krueger (Princeton, former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers) that 94% of all US jobs created between 2005 to 2015 were temporary, “alternative work” — with the biggest increases coming from freelancers, independent contractors, and contract employees (who work at a business but are paid by an outside firm).

These findings are consistent with what we looked at last time: how neoliberal economics has eroded institutional support for the conventional notion of working for a living, resulting in a more individuated approach to the job market. Aeon Magazine recently offered an essay on this topic: The Quitting Economy: When employees are treated as short-term assets, they reinvent themselves as marketable goods, always ready to quit. Here are some samples:

In the early 1990s, career advice in the United States changed. A new social philosophy, neoliberalism, was transforming society, including the nature of employment, and career counsellors and business writers had to respond. (Emphasis added.)

US economic intellectuals raced to implement the ultra-individualist ideals of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and other members of the Mont Pelerin Society…In doing so… they developed a metaphor — that every person should think of herself as a business, the CEO of Me, Inc. The metaphor took off, and has had profound implications for how workplaces are run, how people understand their jobs, and how they plan careers, which increasingly revolve around quitting.

The CEO of Me, Inc. is a job-quitter for a good reason — the business world has come to agree with Hayek that market value is the best measure of value. As a consequence, a career means a string of jobs at different companies. So workers respond in kind, thinking about how to shape their career in a world where you can expect so little from employers. In a society where market rules rule, the only way for an employee to know her value is to look for another job and, if she finds one, usually to quit.

I.e., tooting your own résumé horn is no longer not so much about who you worked for, but what you did while you were there. And once you’re finished, don’t get comfortable, get moving. (This recent Time/Money article offers help for creating your new mobility résumé.)

A couple years ago I blogged here about a new form of law firm entirely staffed by contract attorneys. A quick Google search revealed that the trend toward lawyer “alternative” staffing has been gaining momentum. For example:

This May 26, 2017 Above the Law article reported a robust market for more conventional associate openings and lateral partner hires, but included this caveat:

The one trend that we see continue to stick is the importance of the personal brand over the law firm brand, and that means that every attorney should really focus on how they differentiate themselves from the pack, regardless of where they hang their shingle.

Upwork offers “Freelance Lawyer Jobs.” “Looking to hire faster and more affordably?” their website asks. “ Tackle your next Contract Law project with Upwork – the top freelancing website.”

Flexwork offers “Flexible & Telecommuting Attorney Jobs.”

Indeed posts “Remote Contract Attorney Jobs.”

And on it goes. Whether you’re hiring or looking to be hired, you do well to be schooled in the Brave New World of “alternative” jobs. For a further introduction, check out these articles on the “Gig Economy” from Investopedia and McKinsey. For more depth, see:

The Shift: The Future of Work is Already Here (2011), by Lynda Gratton, Professor of Management Practice at London Business School, where she directs the program “Human Resource Strategy in Transforming Companies.”

Down and Out in the New Economy: How People Find (or Don’t Find) Work Today (2017), by University of Indiana Anthropology Professor LLana Gershon — the author of the Aeon article quoted above.

Next time, we’ll begin looking at three major non-human players in the new job marketplace: artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics. They’re big, they’re bad, and they’re already elbowing their way into jobs long considered “safe.”

 

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

Capitalism on the Fritz, Continued

Post-WWII neoliberal capitalism became a societal institution. Its most rudimentary unit was the concept of working for a living, which meant having a job. Jobs organized life, defined social identities, roles, and virtues, conferred status, supported assumptions about how life worked. Those assumptions held as long as the post-war recovery roared ahead, reinforced by the common human error of assuming happy days weren’t just here again but would continue on indefinitely — especially since we could trace the free market’s roots back a couple hundred years.

But the recovery didn’t keep roaring on. Those days are over — as evidenced by the consensus list of capitalistic fritzes from Rethinking Capitalism we looked at last time. Neoliberal economics met its match when it ran up against modern megatrends such as globalization and disruptive technologies, and when it did, it relinquished its function as a social institution we can rely on. Hence the list of fritzes.

Economic sociologist Wolfgang Streeck[1] reviews essentially the same list in his book How Will Capitalism End? (2017), and concludes that, “I suggest that all [of the developments on the list] may be aggregated into a diagnosis of multi-morbidity in which different disorders coexist and, more often than not, reinforce each other.” I.e., neoliberalism’s woes are greater than the sum of its microeconomic parts. Streeck characterizes the result as the “advanced decline of the capacity of capitalism as an economic regime to underwrite a stable society.”

Where does that leave us? Ryan Avent — senior editor and economic columnist for The Economist — says the following in his book The Wealth of Humans: Work, Power, and Status in the Twenty-First Century (2016):

The remarkable technological progress of the digital age is refracted through industrial institutions in ways that obscure what is causing what. New technologies do contain the potential to revolutionize society and the economy. New firms are appearing which promise to move society along this revolutionary path. And collateral damage, in the form of collapsing firms and sacked workers, is accumulating.

But the institutions we have available, and which have served us well these last two centuries, are working to take the capital and labour that has been made redundant and reuse it elsewhere. Workers, needing money to live, seek work, and accept pay cuts when they absolutely must. Lower wages make it attractive for firms to use workers at less productive tasks . . . [and reduce] the incentive to invest in labour-saving technology.

This process will not end without a dramatic and unexpected shift in the nature of technology, or in the nature of economic institutions.

As we’ll see in future posts, technology has already moved far enough along that any “dramatic and unexpected shift in the nature of technology” is unlikely to backtrack — instead is far more likely to accelerate the erosion of societal economic norms. As for a shift in “the nature of economic institutions,” there is no replacement economic system waiting in the wings. The result, says Streeck, is that we are entering an “age of entropy,” where we are likely to remain for the foreseeable future. He describes it as follows:

Social life in an age of entropy is by necessity individualistic… In the absence of collective institutions, social structures must be devised individually bottom-up, anticipating and accommodating top-down pressures from the markets. Social life consists of individuals building networks of private connections around themselves, as best they can with the means they happen to have at hand. Person-centred relation-making creates lateral social structures that are voluntary and contract-like, which makes them flexible but perishable, requiring continuous networking to keep them together and adjust them on a current basis to changing circumstances. An ideal tool for this are the new social media that produce social structures for individuals, substituting voluntary for obligatory forms of social relations, and networks of users for communities of citizens.

He’s speaking in general, sociological terms, but his description closely mirrors the realities of the kind of résumé creating, network building, and job seeking that dominate the current world of temporary, part-time, contract labor, which makes up the vast majority of new jobs created in this century. These new jobs are not the same jobs that characterized the former workplace model; working for a living has taken on a whole new meaning. Among other things, we now have what some are calling the “Gig Economy,” the “On-Demand Economy,” or even the “Quitting Economy.”

More on that next time.


[1] Of interest is this December 14, 2017 interview with Prof. Streeck entitled “Farewell, Neoliberalism” on his website.

 

Kevin Rhodes is on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. His past blog posts for the CBA have been collected in two volumes — click the book covers for more information.

Capitalism on the Fritz

Capitalism on the Fritz[1]

In November 2008, as the global financial crash was gathering pace, the 82-year-old British monarch Queen Elizabeth visited the London School of Economics. She was there to open a new building, but she was more interested in the assembled academics. She asked them an innocent but pointed question. Given its extraordinary scale, how as it possible that no one saw it coming?

The Queen’s question went to the heart of two huge failures. Western capitalism came close to collapsing in 2007-2008 and has still not recovered. And the vast majority of economists had not understood what was happening.

That’s from the Introduction to Rethinking Capitalism (2016), edited by Michael Jacobs and Mariana Mazzucato.[2] The editors and authors review a catalogue of chronic economic “dysfunction” that they trace to policy-makers’ continued allegiance to neoliberal economic orthodoxy even as it has been breaking down over the past four decades.

Before we get to their dysfunction list, let’s give the other side equal time. First, consider an open letter from Warren Buffett published in Time last week. It begins this way:

“I have good news. First, most American children are going to live far better than their parents did. Second, large gains in the living standards of Americans will continue for many generations to come.”

Mr. Buffett acknowledges that “The market system . . . has also left many people hopelessly behind,” but assures us that “These devastating side effects can be ameliorated,” observing that “a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace.” With this compassionate caveat, he is definitely bullish on America’s economy:

In the years of growth that certainly lie ahead, I have no doubt that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. We must not settle for less.

So, apparently, is our Congress. The new tax law is a virtual pledge of allegiance to the neoliberal economic model. Barring a significant pullback of the law (which seems unlikely), we now have eight years to watch how its assumptions play out.

And now, back to Rethinking Capitalism’s dysfunction’s list (which I’ve seen restated over and over in my research):

  • Production and wages no longer move in tandem — the latter lag behind the former.
  • This has been going on now for several decades,[3] during which living standards (adjusted) for the majority of households have been flat.
  • This is a problem because consumer spending accounts for over 70% of U.S. GDP. What hurts consumers hurts the whole economy.
  • What economic growth there has been is mostly the result of spending fueled by consumer and corporate debt. This is especially true of the post-Great Recession “recovery.”
  • Meanwhile, companies have been increasing production through increased automation — most recently through intelligent machines — which means getting more done with fewer employees.
  • That means the portion of marginal output attributable to human (wage-earner) effort is less, which causes consumer incomes to fall.
  • The job marketplace has responded with new dynamics, featuring a worldwide rise of “non-standard’ work (temporary, part-time, and self-employed).[4]
  • Overall, there has been an increase in the number of lower-paid workers and a rise in intransigent unemployment — especially among young people.
  • Adjusting to these new realities has left traditional wage-earners with feelings of meaninglessness and disempowerment, fueling populist backlash political movements.
  • In the meantime, economic inequality (both wealth and income) has grown to levels not seen since pre-revolution France, the days of the Robber Barons, and the Roaring 20s.
  • Economic inequality means that the shrinking share of compensation paid out in wages, salaries, bonuses, and benefits has been dramatically skewed toward the top of the earnings scale, with much less (both proportionately and absolutely) going to those at the middle and bottom. [5]
  • Increased wealth doesn’t mean increased consumer spending by the top 20% sufficient to offset lost demand (spending) by the lower 80% of income earners, other than as reflected by consumer debt.
  • Instead, increased wealth at the top end is turned into “rentable” assets — e.g., real estate. intellectual property, and privatized holdings in what used to be the “commons” — which both drives up their value (cost) and the rent derived from them. This creates a “rentier” culture in which lower income earners are increasingly stressed to meet rental rates, and ultimately are driven out of certain markets.
  • Inequality has also created a new working class system, in which a large share of workers are in precarious/uncertain/unsustainable employment and earning circumstances.
  • Inequality has also resulted in limitations on economic opportunity and social mobility — e.g., there is a new kind of “glass floor/glass ceiling” below which the top 20% are unlikely to fall and the bottom 80% are unlikely to rise.
  • In the meantime, the social safety nets that developed during the post-WWII boom (as Buffett’s “rich family” took care of “all its children”) have been largely torn down since the advent of “workfare” in the 80’s and 90’s, leaving those at the bottom and middle more exposed than ever.

The editors of Rethinking Capitalism believe that “These failings are not temporary, they are structural.” That conclusion has led some to believe that people like Warren Buffett are seriously misguided in their continued faith in Western capitalism as a reliable societal institution.

More on that next time.


[1] I wondered where the expression “on the fritz” came from, and tried to find out. Surprisingly, no one seems to know.

[2] Michael Jacobs is an environmental economist and political theorist; at the time the book was published, he was a visiting professor at University College of London. Mariana Mazzucato is an economics professor at the University of Sussex.

[3] “In the US, real median household income was barely higher in 2014 than it had been in 1990, though GDP had increased by 78 percent over the same period. Though beginning earlier in the US, this divergence of average incomes from overall economic growth has not become a feature of most advanced economies.”  Rethinking Capitalism.

[4] These have accounted for “half the jobs created since the 1990s and 60 per cent since the 2008 crisis.” Rethinking Capitalism.

[5] Meanwhile, those at the very top of the income distribution have done exceedingly well… In the US, the incomes of the richest 1 percent rose by 142 per cent between 1980 and 2013 (from an average of $461,910, adjusted for inflation, to $1,119,315) and their share of national income doubled, from 10 to 20 per cent. In the first three years of the recovery after the 2008 crash, an extraordinary 91 per cent of the gains in income went to the richest one-hundredth of the population.” Rethinking Capitalism.

 

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

My Year in Economics: The New Divide

Fourteen months ago I shared an espresso with one of my daughters in Seoul, at a place called the Minibus Café because of the mint condition classic VW bus parked in front. (As you can see, the Asian version is more mini than the ones we see in the States). We talked about what she’s observed through her expat life as well as what was going on back home, covering topics such as globalization, disruptive technologies, the polarization of opinions and lack of public discourse, the “new economy” and its new paradigm job market, populist pushback political movements… all topics that have found their way into this blog series. I told her someone in her generation — maybe her — ought to go to grad school (probably in London, I guessed) and develop a fresh economic model capable of making sense of this bewildering avalanche of change.

“Maybe you should,” she replied.

And so I did, but minus grad school, London. and the fresh economic model. Instead, over the past year I became an economics autodidact, logging 30+ books and hundreds of online articles on economics, jobs, and technology (I get about 10 a day in my email feeds from all around the world). What I’ve learned hasn’t so much explained the world in economic terms, it has turned that world inside-out and upside-down.

Right away, I encountered two persistent themes, which I’ve mentioned before but will again:

  1. There is a dominant line of economic analysis taking place mostly in the rest of the world (and among sympathizers in U.S. academia) that is absent in the U.S. policy-making debate.

As Silicon Valley entrepreneur, economics writer, and TED speaker Martin Ford writes in Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future (2015), “In the field of economics the opinions all too often break cleanly along predefined political lines. Knowing the ideological predisposition of a particular economist is often a better predictor of what that individual is likely to say than anything contained in the data under examination.”

  1. Economic opinions are as hopelessly politically polarized as about everything else, so that any attempt to inject the worldwide analysis into the domestic conversation gets the instant “talk to the hand” response.

Instead of dialogue and inquiry, there’s a dominant “might makes right” and “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality among U.S. policymakers — in both government and business — that makes our public discourse (such as it is) either dismissive or blind to insights from the rest of the world.

I’ve come to call this insularity the “New Divide,” for reasons I explain below. It’s not difficult to understand where it comes from: the USA is unquestionably the world’s dominant economic force, and we citizens, as a whole, are the beneficiaries of the highest personal income and net worth on the planet. In my former estate planning and family business succession law practice, I saw every single day how the free market of neoliberalism had prospered hard-working Americans.

This past year, though, I learned that this wasn’t because all my clients were specially gifted in finance and business (although some probably were), they were also riding a massive thirty-year worldwide economic growth trend. (While visiting my daughter in South Korea, I witnessed its “Miracle on the Han River” firsthand.) Still, although the post-WWII economic surge did indeed lift all economic boats around the world, it especially did so in America, and if you compare averages (always a dodgy business), the best the rest of the prosperous First World can boast is roughly 70% of the average wealth of the average American.

All of which makes it easy for Americans to think the Econ 101 supply and demand version of capitalism we learned in school is doing just fine. (Textbook guru Robert Samuelson said it’s probably the only economics any of us remember.) On the other hand, my reading and research over the past year has confirmed something else I noticed in the last years of my law practice: the self-made, middle class, rags-to-riches millionaire-next-door has increasingly become an historic icon that shows little prospect of a reprise. Not only that, but economics commentators around the rest of the world rarely agree that our Econ 101 model ain’t broke — or that it’s even fixable.

It’s been like finding out that a friend I never see anymore hasn’t been doing so well, and that’s why: I feel chagrined, like I might have asked, maybe sought them out. Econ 101 capitalism is a remarkably enduring concept that still gets the majority of air time, but was nowhere to be found in the course of my informal studies. Instead, certain disturbing trends — job dissatisfaction, meaning malaise, spiking suicide rates related to meaning malaise, income and wealth inequality, the newly stratified working class system, meaningless jobs, the breakdown in the historical link between productivity and higher earnings, chronic unemployment among young people — are not only worldwide, they’ve been going on long enough to become systemic and unlikely to self-correct.

Finding out about all of that has often left me with a heightened feeling of angst about the world my kids are growing up in (the same world I’m growing old in) that has sometimes made my year investigating the dismal science of economics feel dismal indeed. In that frame of mind, it seems unlikely the New Divide will be bridged any time soon, if ever, and the more we turn a blind eye and deaf ear to global opinions about economic welfare and functionality, the more likely it is that things can’t end well for us. (It’s been fascinating to see many of these troubling economic themes emerging in the protests in Iran.)

Hence, the New Divide. I borrowed the term from a favorite song by a favorite band, Linkin Park — if you know the band, you know they’ve often expressed their own apocalyptic angst. The song came to mind particularly because of the lyric “give me reason to prove me wrong.” I’ve been looking to be proven wrong about what I’ve been learning, but haven’t found it. Instead, the New Divide and its revelations keep asserting themselves, demanding a fresh reckoning.

And reckon we will in the coming weeks and months of blog posts. Next time we’ll look at a consensus list of how our outlook on capitalism has been failing us, and the week after we’ll look at the mega-reality behind the list. Until then, you might take a moment for the song.

Linkin Park performed New Divide at the release party of — ironically — the movie Transformers. Watching the performance again was made more poignant for me by front man Chester Bennington’s suicide earlier this year. Here’s the video:

And here are the lyrics:

I remember black skies
The lightning all around me
I remember each flash
As time began to blur
Like a startling sign
That fate had finally found me
And your voice was all I heard
That I get what I deserve

So give me reason
To prove me wrong
To wash this memory clean
Let the floods cross
The distance in your eyes
Give me reason
To fill this hole
Connect this space between
Let it be enough to reach the truth that lies
Across this new divide

There was nothing inside
The memories left abandoned
There was nowhere to hide
The ashes fell like snow
And the ground caved in
Between where we were standing
And your voice was all I heard
That I get what I deserve

So give me reason
To prove me wrong
To wash this memory clean
Let the floods cross
The distance in your eyes
Across this new divide

In every loss in every lie
In every truth that you deny
And each regret and each goodbye
Was a mistake too great to hide
And your voice was all I heard
That I get what I deserve

So give me reason
To prove me wrong
To wash this memory clean
Let the floods cross
The distance in your eyes
Give me reason
To fill this hole
Connect this space between
Let it be enough to reach the truth that lies
Across this new divide
Across this new divide
Across this new divide

 

Kevin Rhodes is on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. His past blog posts for the CBA have been collected in two volumes — click the book covers for more information.

Willful Blindness

We heard last time from Mats Alvesson and André Spicer and their book The Stupidity Paradox about “functional stupidity” — what happens when we stop thinking for ourselves and go along with the dumbing-down of our workplaces.

Prof. Spicer gave a TEDx Talk based on the book, beginning with a story from first-year torts: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company. You may recall that Ford’s upper management went ahead with the Pinto as originally designed, despite the infamous “Pinto Memo” finding that $11.00 worth of alterations per vehicle would have made it a whole lot safer. The result was the largest product liability damage award ever against a car manufacturer (as of that time). Clearly a case of “functional stupidity.”

Functional stupidity is the result of what psychologists call “cognitive bias”: engaging with experience only after we’ve filtered it first to conform to our habitual perceptions, assumptions, and prejudices. Journalist, filmmaker, and CEO Margaret Hefferman wrote the book on the subject: Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at our Peril (2011). Here’s her TED talk, and here’s a BrainPickings article about her book and about cognitive bias in general. Ms. Heffernan is a marvelous storyteller — she recounts story after jaw-dropping story from all arenas of life.

Cognitive bias is especially ironic in the legal profession, since the law itself doesn’t let you get away with it: the rule of “willful blindness” makes you culpable if you intentionally decide not to know about wrongdoing or deliberately fail to make a reasonable inquiry into it. “See no evil” isn’t going to fly.

How can we shake off our cognitive biases? As a friend of mine says, “The trouble with blind spots is you can’t see them.” Not only can’t we see them, we don’t want to either — and it doesn’t work to make them someone else’s problem. I ran several Google searches looking for articles about lack of independent thinking in the workplaces. Tweak my search as I might, it kept turning up advice like this one from Harvard Business Review, which trots out this worn out bit of conventional management advice: “It’s the employees’ fault, so here’s how a manager can fix them.” I really expected more from the HBR.

Instead of getting occupied with the speck in someone else eye when we’ve got a log in ours, we might follow the example of Ray Dalio, founder and chairman of hedge fund heavyweight Bridgewater Associates, who created a firm culture around “radical truth and radical transparency.” This is from the company’s website:

Our unique success is the direct result of our unique way of being. We want an idea meritocracy in which meaningful work and meaningful relationships are pursued through radical truth and radical transparency. We require people to be extremely open, air disagreements, test each other’s logic, and view discovering mistakes and weaknesses as a good thing that leads to improvement and innovation. It is by continually striving together for the highest levels of truth and excellence that we create meaningful work and meaningful relationships.

That last line is worth repeating:

It is by continually striving together for the highest levels of truth and excellence
that we create meaningful work and meaningful relationships.

Mr. Dalio’s firm culture is as cognitive-bias-busting as they come. If you’re intrigued, you might treat yourself to his talk. Click here or on the image below and scroll down a couple turns.

Whether or not you’re inclined to embrace Bridgewater’s radical firm culture, learning to see past our biases and get a fresh look might be a good addition to a New Year’s Resolutions list. Just an idea….

We’ll continue our search for a new perspective on economics and the workplace in 2018.

 

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

The Stupidity Paradox

Every day I ride a bus that has a row of seats up front that are folded up, with a sign next to them:

NOTICE
Seats Not in Service
The bus manufacturer has determined
that these seats not be used.

I’ve seen that sign for over a year. Never really thought about it. But recently I wondered: you don’t suppose both those seats and the sign were installed in the factory? It could happen — cheaper than a recall maybe. If so, it would be right in line with this week’s topic: a kind of on-the-job behavior that professors and business consultants Mats Alvesson and André Spicer[1] call The Stupidity Paradox.

Their book by that name began when they were sharing a drink after a conference and found themselves wondering, “Why was it that organisations which employed so many smart people could foster so much stupidity?” They concluded that the cause is “functional stupidity” — a workplace mindset implicitly endorsed because it works.

“We realized something: smart organisations and the smart people who work in them often do stupid things because they work — at least in the short term. By avoiding careful thinking, people are able to simply get on with their job. Asking too many questions is likely to upset others — and to distract yourself. Not thinking frees you up to fit in and get along. Sometimes it makes sense to be stupid.”

In fact, stupidity works so well it can turn into firm culture:

Far from being “knowledge intensive,” many of our most well-known chief organisations have become engines of stupidity. We have frequently seen otherwise smart people stop thinking and start doing stupid things. They stop asking questions. They give no reasons for their decisions. They pay no heed to what their actions cause. Instead of complex thought we get flimsy jargon, aggressive assertions or expert tunnel vision. Reflection, careful analysis and independent reflection decay. Idiotic ideas and practices are accepted as quite sane. People may harbour doubts, but their suspicions are cut short. What’s more, they are rewarded for it. The upshot is a lack of thought has entered the modus operandi of most organisations of today.

I.e., it pays to be stupid on the job: you get things done, satisfy expectations, don’t stand out from the crowd, aren’t labelled a troublemaker. We learned all of that in middle school; we learn it again on the job.

We learn from management:

A central, but often unacknowledged, aspect of making a corporate culture work is what we call stupidity management. Here managers actively encourage employees not to think too much. If they do happen to think, it is best not to voice what emerges. Employees are encouraged to stick within clearcut parameters. Managers use subtle and not so subtle means to prod them not to ask too many tough questions, not to reflect too deeply on their assumptions, and not to consider the broader purpose of their work. Employees are nudged to just get on with the task. They are to think on the bright side, stay upbeat and push doubts and negative thoughts aside.

And then we school ourselves:

Self-stupifying starts to happen when we censor our own internal conversations. As we go through our working day, we constantly try to give some sense to our often chaotic experiences. We do this by engaging in what some scholars call “internal reflexivity.” This is the constant stream of discussion that we have with ourselves. When self-stupidification takes over, we stop asking ourselves questions. Negative or contradictory lines of thinking are avoided. As a result, we start to feel aligned with the thoughtlessness we find around us. It is hard to be someone who thinks in an organization that shuns it.

Back to the seats on my bus… A “manufacturer” is a fiction, like “corporation” is a fiction: both act through humans. Which means that somewhere there’s an employee at a bus manufacturer whose job is to build those seats. Someone else installs them. Someone else puts up the sign. And lots of other people design, requisition, select, negotiate, buy, ship, pack and unpack, file, approve, invoice, pay bills, keep ledgers, maintain software, write memos, confer with legal, hold meetings, and make decisions. All so that the “manufacturer” — i.e., the sum total of all those people doing their jobs — can tell me not to sit there.

Functional stupidity is as common as traffic on your commute. We’ll look more into it next time.


[1] Mats Alvesson is Professor of Business Administration at the University of Lund, Sweden, University of Queensland, and Cass Business School, City University of London. André Spicer is Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Cass Business School, City University of London.

 

Kevin Rhodes is on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. His past blog posts for the CBA have been collected in two volumes — click the book covers for more information.

Could Be Worse

Meaningless work is not inevitable, but we’re often prevented from taking remedial action because our thinking has become corrupted with feelings of powerlessness. As Studs Terkel said in his book Working:

You know, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It’s the same with powerlessness.
Absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.

If we believe there’s something patriotic, virtuous, even sacred about the way we have always viewed working for a living, then if we feel despair about our jobs it must be a personal problem, a character flaw. We ought to put up, shut up, and get cracking. The shame associated with that kind of judgment is absolutely disempowering. As long as we hold onto it, we’ll stay stuck in workplace despair and meaning malaise — a state of mind poet Richard Cecil captures in “Internal Exile,” collected in Twenty First Century Blues (2004):

Although most people I know were condemned
Years ago by Judge Necessity
To life in condos near a freeway exit
Convenient to their twice-a-day commutes
Through traffic jams to jobs that they dislike
They didn’t bury their heads in their hands
And cry “oh, no!” when sentence was pronounced:
Forty years accounting in Duluth!
Or Tenure at Southwest Missouri State!
Instead, they mumbled, not bad. It could be worse,
When the bailiff, Fate, led them away
To Personnel to fill out payroll forms
And have their smiling ID photos snapped.

And that’s what they still mumble every morning
Just before their snooze alarms go off
When Fluffy nuzzles them out of their dreams
Of making out with movie stars on beaches.
They rise at five a.m. and feed their cats
And drive to work and work and drive back home
And feed their cats and eat and fall asleep
While watching Evening News’s fresh disasters —
Blown-up bodies littering a desert
Fought over for the last three thousand years,
And smashed-to-pieces million-dollar houses
built on islands swept by hurricanes.

It’s soothing to watch news about the places
Where people literally will die to live
When you live someplace with no attractions —
Mountains, coastline, history—like here,
Where none aspire to live, though many do.
“A great place to work, with no distractions”
Is how my interviewer first described it
Nineteen years ago, when he hired me.
And, though he moved the day that he retired
To his dream house in the uplands with a vista,
He wasn’t lying—working’s better here
And easier than trying to have fun.

Is that the way it is where you’re stuck, too?

Good question. How would you answer it?

True, one of the factors behind job wretchedness is internal exile: we’re estranged from what we really want out of our work, or we’ve given up on ever having it, and so we settle for could be worse. But there’s more to it than that. There are external factors at work, too — global winds of change propelling people who want to work with passion in directions they never thought they’d be going.

There are krakens out there in the deep. One of them is something two business writers call the “Stupidity Paradox”: a prevalent workplace model that — like the bureaucracies we looked at last week — encourages obeisance to rules (we might say “best practices”) at the cost of independent thinking.

We’ll look at the Stupidity Paradox next time.

 

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

The Secret Joys of Bureaucracy

“So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments
for inspectors to inspect inspectors.”

-Buckminster Fuller

We met anthropologist David Graeber last time. His book The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy takes on a universally-acknowledged kind of modern workplace drudgery: the mind-numbing bureaucracies built around filling in forms. This is from an interview in The Guardian:

A few years ago David Graeber’s mother had a series of strokes. Social workers advised him that, in order to pay for the home care she needed, he should apply for Medicaid, the US government health insurance programme for people on low incomes. So he did, only to be sucked into a vortex of form filling and humiliation familiar to anyone who’s ever been embroiled in bureaucratic procedures.

At one point, the application was held up because someone at the Department of Motor Vehicles had put down his given name as “Daid”; at another, because someone at Verizon had spelled his surname “Grueber.” Graeber made matters worse by printing his name on the line clearly marked “signature” on one of the forms. Steeped in Kafka, Catch-22 and David Foster Wallace’s The Pale King, Graeber was alive to all the hellish ironies of the situation but that didn’t make it any easier to bear. ‘We spend so much of our time filling in forms,’ he says. ‘The average American waits six months of her life waiting for the lights to change. If so, how many years of our life do we spend doing paperwork?’

The matter became academic, because Graeber’s mother died before she got Medicaid. But the form-filling ordeal stayed with him. “Having spent much of my life leading a fairly bohemian existence, comparatively insulated from this sort of thing, I found myself asking: is this what ordinary life, for most people, is really like? Running around feeling like an idiot all day?”

In other words, it’s almost 2018 — with all our smart technology, you’d think we could do better — for the people on both sides of the bureaucratic desk. The interview continues:

[Graeber] quotes with approval the anarchist collective Crimethinc:

Putting yourself in new situations constantly is the only way
 to ensure that you make your decisions unencumbered
 by the nature of habit, law, custom or prejudice
 – and it’s up to you to create the situations.

That’s good paradigm-shifting advice. We could follow it all the way to eliminating “the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy.” As you would expect, a whole bunch of enterprising software developers are already on it — here’s a software list. In fact, if it’s a dull, repetitive job, we probably already have technology that can do it better than humans can.

But that would eliminate all those mind-numbing bureaucratic jobs. Then what? Then it’s time for the second half of the Buckminster Fuller quote above:

The true business of people should be to go back to school
 and think about whatever it was they were thinking about
before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

A friend of mine was a chimney sweep. He’d be up on the roof, shaking down soot with his long-handled brushes, and downstairs his helpers would screen off the fireplace and capture the soot with a high-powered vacuum before it ruined the homeowner’s den. “Don’t wallow in it,” he’d tell them.

That’s also good paradigm-shifting advice. Trouble is, our brain wiring loves to wallow in the old ways of doing things — including filling in forms — at least until, as the saying goes, the pain of status quo becomes greater than the pain of change.

We’ll be looking more at workplace paradigm shifts in the coming weeks. But first, next time we’ll let a poet help us wallow a bit more in workplace drudgery.

 

Kevin Rhodes is on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. His past blog posts for the CBA have been collected in two volumes — click the book covers for more information.

Bullshit Jobs

“Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do.”
Oscar Wilde

Radio journalist Studs Terkel interviewed hundreds of people for his 1974 book Working. Here are a couple quotes from it:

Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying.

Most of us have jobs that are too small for our spirit. Jobs are not big enough for people.

Apparently not much has changed in the 43 years since Working came out. Consider this from The Power of Meaning, by Emily Esfahani Smith (2017):

Today, about 70 percent of all employees either are “not engaged” in their work—that is, they feel uninvolved, uncommitted, and unenthusiastic about it—or are “actively disengaged” from it, and less than half of all workers feel satisfied with their jobs.

Or consider anthropologist David Graeber’s widely circulated 2013 article On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant:

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

“Virtually no one talks about it.” Why not? The Financial Times ran an article a couple months ago called Britain’s Joyless Jobs Market Can Be Bad For Your Health. (It’s here, but you’ll have to subscribe to read it.) It makes the same point as the following quote from the article published by the Lawyers Assistance Program of British Columbia which we looked at a few weeks ago:

[I]t is unhealthy to do meaningless, unchallenging, uncreative work, especially for those that are intelligent and well trained.

Seems like a pretty uncontroversial thing to say, but you can’t tell from the nastiness in the comments that follow the article — one more sad case of polarized opinions talking past each other and the loss of meaningful discourse. Not only can’t we talk about economics, but apparently we also can’t talk about how crummy jobs ruin our health.

Why has it become so inflammatory to suggest that boring, meaningless work might not be a good thing? Because of the widespread “truths” about work that have become culturally sacred. To many — maybe most — people, work represents a moral good, no matter how boring, trite, thoughtless, and demeaning.

One person who isn’t afraid to talk about it is Rutgers history professor James Livingston. He says the following in his book No More Work: Why full employment is a bad idea (2016):

Work means everything to us. For centuries—since, say, 1650[1]—we’ve believed that it builds character (punctuality, initiative, honesty, self-discipline, and so forth). We’ve also believed that the market in labor, where we go to find work, has been relatively efficient in allocating opportunities and incomes. And we’ve also believed that even if it sucks, the job gives meaning, purpose, and structure to our everyday lives—at any rate we’re pretty sure that it gets us out of bed, pays the bills, makes us feel responsible, and keeps us away from daytime TV.

Those beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous, because there’s not enough work to go around, and what there is of it won’t pay the bills—unless, of course, you’ve landed a job as a drug dealer or a Wall Street banker, becoming a gangster either way.

[Work] no longer functions as either a moral calendar or an economic calculator. You will learn nothing about character by going to work at the minimum wage because the gangsters or the morons at corporate headquarters control your opportunities; you will learn nothing about the rationality of the market because the same people determine your income.

More next time.


[1] 1650 is the year René Descartes died.

 

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

Some Suggested Reading

Last week was a rich one for new articles on the topics we’ve been exploring lately, such as economic inequality, neoliberalism, globalization, and the need for an economic paradigm shift. If you’re so inclined, you might like to check these out:

This article from The Boston Review, by Dani Rodrick, an economist whose research covers globalization, economic growth and development, and political economy. He is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He was previously the Albert O. Hirschman Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (2013-2015), and is President-Elect of the International Economic Association. Here’s a sample from the article:

As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it denotes a preference for markets over government, economic incentives over social or cultural norms, and private entrepreneurship over collective or community action. It has been used to describe a wide range of phenomena—from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the Clinton Democrats and Britain’s New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of the welfare state in Sweden.

The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalization, privatization, or fiscal austerity. Today it is reviled routinely as a short-hand for the ideas and the practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash.

As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of its useful ideas.

We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism’s adherents and disseminators—the neoliberals? Oddly, you would almost have to go back to the early 1980s to find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism.

This report from Credit Suisse on the state of global wealth, as summarized here by Time Magazine. Again, a sample:

In its annual report on the state of global wealth, Credit Suisse says 1.1 million new millionaires were created in the U.S. in 2017. That brings the total number of millionaires in the U.S. up to approximately 15,356,000, or about one in every 20 Americans.

Americans now account for 43 percent of the world’s millionaires.

Yet not everyone is benefiting from the booming global economy. Credit Suisse finds that across all global regions, wealth inequality has increased from 2007 to 2016. And in every region of the world except for China, they say, median wealth has actually declined. Despite its plurality of millionaires, the U.S.’s median wealth of $55,876 puts it 21st place in the world, alongside Austria and Greece.

Median wealth per adult favors countries with lower levels of wealth inequality, Credit Suisse said, and there is exceptionally high disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S.

This article from the World Economic Forum, written by Alberto Gallo, Portfolio Manager and Head of Macro Strategies for Algebris Investments, a London-based asset management company which specializes in the global finance sector. The subject is economic inequality. Here’s a sample:

Paul Ryan, speaker of the House of Representatives, recently stated that “in our country, the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life.”

Yet the idea that every American has an equal opportunity to move up in life is false. Social mobility has declined over the past decades, median wages have stagnated and today’s young generation is the first in modern history expected to be poorer than their parents. The lottery of life – the postcode where you were born – can account for up to two thirds of the wealth an individual generates.

Finally, I just finished the book Grave New World: The End of Globalization, The Return of History, by Stephen D. King (2017). Mr. King is Senior Economic Advisor to HSBC as well as an author, journalist, consultant. and specialist advisor to the House of Commons Treasury Committee. His other books include Losing Control: The Emerging Threats to Western Prosperity (2010) and When the Money Runs Out: The End of Western Affluence (2013). Grave New World is unique among those I’ve read in that it offers a multi-national history of globalization:

Globalization is often regarded as ‘one-way traffic’. In the modern age, we think of extraordinary advances in technology… Seen through these technological advances it is easy to believe that globalization is inevitable; that distances are becoming ever shorter; that national borders are slowly dissolving; and that, whether we like it or not, we live In a single global marketplace for goods, services, capital and labor.

Technology alone, however, does not determine globalization, and nor does it rule out competing versions of globalization at any one moment in time.

Globalization is driven not just by technological advance, but also by the development — and demise — of the ideas and institutions that form our politics, frame our economies and fashion our financial systems both locally and globally. When existing ideas are undermined and institutional infrastructures implode, no amount of new technology is likely to save the day.

Our ideas and institutions shift with alarming regularity… Even when patterns of globalization endure for many centuries, they can break down remarkably quickly, leading to dramatic changes in fortune.”

Happy reading! And Happy Thanksgiving! See you next week for a look at “bullshit jobs.”

 

Kevin Rhodes is on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. His past blog posts for the CBA have been collected in two volumes — click the book covers for more information.

The Tide May Be Rising, But Some Boats Are Sinking

Last week I quoted from Ryan Avent’s book The Wealth of Humans: Work, Power, and Status in the Twenty-First Century (2016), which makes the following points:

  • The rising tide of neoliberal economic policy did in fact lift all boats from the post-WWII years through its heyday in the 70’s and 80’s.
  • In particular, it benefited the wealth and income of individual wage-earners — most dramatically in countries where government-centric models such as social democracy and communism had previously been in charge.
  • But since then, continued allegiance to neoliberal policy has had the reverse effect, resulting in rapidly growing economic inequality which is leaving wage-earners behind.
  • The problem seems to be that, since the 80’s, the “lifts all boats” paradigm has not kept pace with the altered economic dynamics brought on by globalization and the technological revolution. The result has been a shift in wealth creation and sustainable income away from the wage-earners neoliberalism once benefited.
  • Continued allegiance to the neoliberalism is undermining the traditional concept of working for a living.

This week, we’ll finish with Arent’s analysis, again quoting from his book:

  • As a result of the above, the continuing viability of neoliberal economic policy is being questioned.

Around the world, dissatisfaction with the fruits of economic integration fuels inward-looking political movements: protectionist in some places, separatist in others. Some politicians find themselves able to gain traction by playing identity politics or by criticizing institutions of liberal democracy. Many succeed through withering critiques of the elites who minded the tiller over the last few decades. Faith in markets and their ability to generate broad-based growth has been shaken.

  • Questioning neoliberalism also challenges its support base of cultural, societal, and national institutions.

In a way, it would be much easier if the robots were simply taking all the jobs. Solutions might not be any more straightforward to come by, but the sight of millions of robot dog-walkers and sanitation workers strutting through crowds of unemployed humans would at least be clarifying.

Instead, the remarkable technological progress of the digital age is refracted through industrial institutions in ways that obscure what is causing what. New technologies do contain the potential to revolutionize society and the economy. New firms are appearing which promise to move society along this revolutionary path. And collateral damage, in the form of collapsing firms and sacked workers, is accumulating.

But the institutions we have available, and which have served us well these last two centuries, are working to take the capital and labour that has been made redundant and reuse it elsewhere. Workers, needing money to live, seek work, and accept pay cuts when they absolutely must. Lower wages make it attractive for firms to use workers at less productive tasks . . . [and reduce] the incentive to invest in labour-saving technology.

  • A new economic paradigm seems to be indicated, but its coming won’t be easy.

This political era [the post-war surge of neoliberalism] is at an end.

[I]ncomes must rise. Not just the incomes of China’s middle class and the rich world’s 1 per cent. But achieving higher incomes is a fraught business, both economically and politically.

This process will not end without a dramatic and unexpected shift in the nature of technology, or in the nature of economic institutions.

Neoliberalism’s apparent faltering threatens many economic ideas that have come to be held sacred, such as the notion of working for a living, which we saw a few posts back is revered as a moral virtue by Communists and Christians alike. These kinds of notions are deeply rooted in the minds —literally, in the neurological wiring — of the human beings who have inherited them and the values they stand for. As such, they are much more than economic ideas, they are the personal and cultural narratives that define our identities and guide our choices, both individually and collectively.

These kinds of entrenched cultural ideals will not go quietly into the night. Instead they will retrench and aggressively pushback against an interloper. Next time, we’ll look at one of those reactionary responses: the advent of “bullshit jobs,” which contribute much to current workplace dissatisfaction.

And just for fun, here’s the “not go quietly into the night” speech from Independence Day, and here’s Dylan Thomas’s “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night.”

 

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.