July 16, 2019

The Fatal Flaw

Several years ago I wrote a screenplay that did okay in a contest. I made a couple trips to Burbank to pitch it, got no sustained interest, and gave up on it. Recently, someone who actually knows what he’s doing encouraged me to revise and re-enter it. Among other things, he introduced me to Inside Story: The Power of the Transformational Arc, by Dara Marks (2007). The book describes what the author calls “the essential story element” — which, it turns out, is remarkably apt not just for film but for life in general, and particularly for talking about economics, technology, and the workplace.

No kidding.

What is it?

The Fatal Flaw.

This is from the book:

First, it’s important to recap or highlight the fundamental premise on which the fatal flaw is based:

  • Because change is essential for growth, it is a mandatory requirement for life.
  • If something isn’t growing and developing, it can only be headed toward decay and death.
  • There is no condition of stasis in nature. Nothing reaches a permanent position where neither growth nor diminishment is in play.

As essential as change is, most of us resist it, and cling rigidly to old survival systems because they are familiar and “seem” safer. In reality, if an old, obsolete survival system makes us feel alone, isolated, fearful, uninspired, unappreciated, and unloved, we will reason that it’s easier to cope with what we know that with what we haven’t yet experienced. As a result, most of us will fight to sustain destructive relationships, unchallenging jobs, unproductive work, harmful addictions, unhealthy environments, and immature behavior long after there is any sign of life or value to them.

This unyielding commitment to old, exhausted survival systems that have outlived their usefulness, and resistance to the rejuvenating energy of new, evolving levels of existence and consciousness is what I refer to as the fatal flaw of character:

The Fatal Flaw is a struggle within a character
to maintain a survival system
long after it has outlived its usefulness.

As it is with screenwriting, so it is with us as we’re reckoning with the wreckage of today’s collision among economics, technology, and the workplace. We’re like the character who must change or die to make the story work: our economic survival is at risk, and failure to adapt is fatal. Faced with that prospect, we can change our worldview, or we can wish we had. Trouble is, our struggle to embrace a new paradigm is as perilous as holding to an old one.

What’s more, we will also need to reckon with two peculiar dynamics of our time: “echo chambers” and “epistemic bubbles.” The following is from an Aeon Magazine article published earlier this week entitled “Escape The Echo Chamber”:

Something has gone wrong with the flow of information. It’s not just that different people are drawing subtly different conclusions from the same evidence. It seems like different intellectual communities no longer share basic foundational beliefs. Maybe nobody cares about the truth anymore, as some have started to worry. Maybe political allegiance has replaced basic reasoning skills. Maybe we’ve all become trapped in echo chambers of our own making – wrapping ourselves in an intellectually impenetrable layer of likeminded friends and web pages and social media feeds.

But there are two very different phenomena at play here, each of which subvert the flow of information in very distinct ways. Let’s call them echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Both are social structures that systematically exclude sources of information. Both exaggerate their members’ confidence in their beliefs. But they work in entirely different ways, and they require very different modes of intervention. An epistemic bubble is when you don’t hear people from the other side. An echo chamber is what happens when you don’t trust people from the other side.

An echo chamber doesn’t destroy their members’ interest in the truth; it merely manipulates whom they trust and changes whom they accept as trustworthy sources and institutions.

Here’s a basic check: does a community’s belief system actively undermine the trustworthiness of any outsiders who don’t subscribe to its central dogmas? Then it’s probably an echo chamber.

That’s what we’re up against. We’ll plow fearlessly ahead next time.

 

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: When We Move, We Can Achieve the Impossible.”

Bus Riding Economists

Lord, I was born a ramblin’ man
Tryin’ to make a livin’ and doin’ the best I can[1]

A couple economists took the same bus I did one day last week. We’ll call them “Home Boy” and “Ramblin’ Man.”. They made acquaintance when Ramblin’ Man put his money in the fare box and didn’t get a transfer coupon. He was from out of town, he said, and didn’t know how to work it. Home Boy explained that you need to wait until the driver gets back from her break. Ramblin’ Man said he guessed the money was just gone, but the driver showed up about then and checked the meter — it showed he’d put the money in, so he got his transfer. Technology’s great, ain’t it?

Ramblin’ Man took the seat in front of me. Home Boy sat across the aisle. When the conversation turned to economics, I eavesdropped[2] shamelessly. Well not exactly — they were talking pretty loud. Ramblin’ Man said he’d been riding the bus for two days to get to the VA. That gave them instant common ground:  they were both Vietnam vets, and agreed they were lucky to get out alive.

Ramblin’ Man said when he got out he went traveling — hitchhike, railroad, bus, you name it. That was back in the 70’s, when a guy could go anywhere and get a job. Not no more. Now he lives in a small town up on northeast Montana. He likes it, but it’s a long way to get to the VA, but he knew if he could get here, there’d be a bus to take him right to it, and sure enough there was. That’s the trouble with those small towns, said Home Boy — nice and quiet, but not enough people to have any services. I’ll bet there’s no bus company up there, he chuckled. Not full of people like Minneapolis.

Minneapolis! Ramblin’ Man lit up at the mention of it. All them people, and no jobs. He was there in 2009, right after the bankers ruined the economy. Yeah, them and the politicians, Home Boy agreed. Shoulda put them all in jail. It’s those one-percenters. They got it fixed now so nobody makes any money but them. It’s like it was back when they were building the railroads and stuff. Now they’re doing it again. Nobody learns from history — they keep doing the same things over and over. They’re stuck in the past.

Except this time, it’s different, said Ramblin’ Man. It’s all that technology — takes away all the jobs. Back in 09, he’d been in Minneapolis for three months, and his phone never rang once for a job offer. Not once. Never used to happen in the 70’s.

And then my stop came up, and my economic history lesson was over. My two bus riding economists had covered the same developments I’ve been studying for the past 15 months. My key takeaway? That “The Economy” is a lazy fiction — none of us really lives there. Instead, we live in the daily challenges of figuring out how to get the goods and services we need — maybe to thrive (if you’re one of them “one-percenters”), or maybe just to get by. The Economy isn’t some transcendent structure, it’s created one human transaction at a time — like when a guy hits the road to make sense of life after a war, picking up odd jobs along the way until eventually he settles in a peaceful little town in the American Outback. When we look at The Economy that way, we get a whole new take on it. That’s precisely what a new breed of cross-disciplinary economists are doing, and we’ll examine their outlook in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, I suspect that one of the reasons we don’t learn from history is that we don’t know it. In that regard, I recently read a marvelous economic history book that taught me a whole lot I never knew:  Americana: A 400-Year History of American Capitalism (2017)  by tech entrepreneur Bhu Srinivasan. Here’s the promo blurb:

“From the days of the Mayflower and the Virginia Company, America has been a place for people to dream, invent, build, tinker, and bet the farm in pursuit of a better life. Americana takes us on a four-hundred-year journey of this spirit of innovation and ambition through a series of Next Big Things — the inventions, techniques, and industries that drove American history forward: from the telegraph, the railroad, guns, radio, and banking to flight, suburbia, and sneakers, culminating with the Internet and mobile technology at the turn of the twenty-first century. The result is a thrilling alternative history of modern America that reframes events, trends, and people we thought we knew through the prism of the value that, for better or for worse, this nation holds dearest: capitalism. In a winning, accessible style, Bhu Srinivasan boldly takes on four centuries of American enterprise, revealing the unexpected connections that link them.”

This is American history as we never learned it, and the book is well worth every surprising page.


[1] From “Ramblin’ Man,” by the Allman Brothers. Here’s a 1970 live version. And here’s the studio version.

[2] If you wonder, as I did, where “eavesdrop” came from, here’s the Word Detective’s explanation.

 

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: When We Move, We Can Achieve the Impossible.”

On the Third Hand, Continued

Will the machines take over the jobs?

In a recent TED talk, scholar, economist, author, and general wunderkind Daniel Susskindl[1] says the question is distracting us from a much bigger and more important issue: how will we feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves if we no longer work for a living?:

If we think of the economy as a pie, technological progress makes the pie bigger. Technological unemployment, if it does happen, in a strange way will be a symptom of that success — we will have solved one problem — how to make the pie bigger — but replaced it with another — how to make sure that everyone gets a slice. As other economists have noted, solving this problem won’t be easy.

Today, for most people, their job is their seat at the economic dinner table, and in a world with less work or even without work, it won’t be clear how they get their slice. This is the collective challenge that’s right in front of us — to figure out how this material prosperity generated by our economic system can be enjoyed by everyone in a world in which our traditional mechanism for slicing up the pie, the work that people do, withers away and perhaps disappears.

Guy Standing, another British economist, agrees with Susskind about this larger issue. The following excerpts are from his book The Corruption of Capitalism. He begins by quoting Nobel prizewinning economist Herbert Simon’s 1960 prediction:

Within the very near future — much less than twenty-five years — we shall have the technical capacity of substituting machines for any and all human functions in organisations.

And then he makes these comments:

You do not receive a Nobel Prize for Economics for being right all the time! Simon received his in 1978, when the number of people in jobs was at record levels. It is higher still today. Yet the internet-based technological revolution has reopened age-old visions of machine domination. Some are utopian, such as the post-capitalism of Paul Mason, imagining an era of free information and information sharing. Some are decidedly dystopian, where the robots — or rather their owners — are in control and mass joblessness is coupled with a “panopticon” state[2] subjecting the proles to intrusive surveillance, medicalized therapy and brain control. The pessimists paint a “world without work.” With every technological revolution there is a scare that machines will cause “technological unemployment”. This time the Jeremiahs seem a majority.

Whether or not they will do so in the future, the technologies have not yet produced mass unemployment . . . [but they] are contributing to inequality.

While technology is not necessarily destroyed jobs, it is helping to destroy the old income distribution system.

The threat is technology-induced inequality, not technological unemployment.”

Economic inequality and income distribution (sharing national wealth on a basis other than individual earned income) are two sides of the issue of economic fairness — always an inflammatory topic.

When I began my study of economics 15 months ago, I had never heard of economic inequality, and income distribution was something socialist countries did. Now I find both topics all over worldwide economic news and commentary and still mostly absent in U.S. public discourse (such as it is) outside of academic circles. On the whole, most policy-makers on both the left and right maintain their allegiance to the post-WWII Mont Pelerin neoliberal economic model, supported by a cultural and moral bias in favor of working for a living, and if the plutocrats take a bigger slice of pie while the welfare rug gets pulled on the working poor, well then so be it. If the new robotic and super-intelligent digital workers do in fact cause massive technological unemployment among the humans, we’ll all be reexamining these beliefs, big time.

I began this series months ago by asking whether money can buy happiness, citing the U.N.’s World Happiness Report. The 2018 Report was issued this week, and who should be on top but… Finland! And guess what — among other things, factors cited include low economic inequality and strong social support systems (i.e., a cultural value for non-job-based income distribution). National wealth was also a key factor, but it alone didn’t buy happiness: the USA, with far and away the strongest per capita GDP, had an overall ranking of 18th. For more, see this World Economic Forum article or this one from the South China Morning Post.

We’ll be looking further into all of this (and much more) in the weeks to come.


[1] If you’ve been following this column for awhile and the name “Susskind” sounds familiar, a couple years ago, I blogged about the future and culture of the law, often citing the work of Richard Susskind, whose opus is pretty much the mother lode of crisp thinking about the law and technology. His equally brilliant son Daniel joined him in a book that also addressed other professions, which that series also considered. (Those blogs were collected in Cyborg Lawyers.) Daniel received a doctorate in economics from Oxford University, was a Kennedy Scholar at Harvard, and is now a Fellow in Economics at Balliol College, Oxford. Previously, he worked as a policy adviser in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and as a senior policy adviser in the Cabinet Office.

[2] The panopticon architectural structure was the brainchild of legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham. For an introduction to the origins of his idea and its application to the digital age, see this article in The Guardian.

 

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: When We Move, We Can Achieve the Impossible.”

Race Against the Machine, Continued

Rational choice theory is a cornerstone of conventional economic thinking. It states that:

Individuals always make prudent and logical decisions. These decisions provide people with the greatest benefit or satisfaction — given the choices available — and are also in their highest self-interest.

Presumably Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates had something like this in mind when they published an open letter in January 2015 urging that artificial intelligence R&D should focus “not only on making AI more capable, but also on maximizing the societal benefit,” To execute on this imperative, they urged an interdisciplinary collaboration among “economics, law and philosophy. computer security, formal methods and, of course, various branches of AI itself.” (Since its release, the letter has garnered another 8.000 signatures — you can sign it, too, if you like.)

The letter’s steady, rational four paragraphs praise how technology has benefited the human race, and anticipate more of the same in the future, but its reception and the authors’ comments in other contexts are not so measured. As a result, the letter has become a cheering section for those who think humanity is losing its race against the robots.

Consider, for example, the following from an Observer article:

“Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history,” wrote Stephen Hawking in an op-ed, which appeared in The Independent in 2014. “Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.” Professor Hawking added in a 2014 interview with BBC, “humans, limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded by A.I.”

Elon Musk called the prospect of artificial intelligence “our greatest existential threat” in a 2014 interview with MIT students at the AeroAstro Centennial Symposium. “I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish.” Mr. Musk cites his decision to invest in the Artificial Intelligence firm, DeepMind, as a means to “just keep an eye on what’s going on with artificial intelligence. I think there is potentially a dangerous outcome there.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has also expressed concerns about Artificial Intelligence. During a Q&A session on Reddit in January 2015, Mr. Gates said, “I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.”

Or consider this Elon Musk comment in Vanity Fair:

In a startling public reproach to his friends and fellow techies, Musk warned that they could be creating the means of their own destruction. He told Bloomberg’s Ashlee Vance, the author of the biography Elon Musk, that he was afraid that his friend Larry Page, a co-founder of Google and now the C.E.O. of its parent company, Alphabet, could have perfectly good intentions but still “produce something evil by accident”—including, possibly, “a fleet of artificial intelligence-enhanced robots capable of destroying mankind.”

In other words, Hawking, Gates, and Musk aren’t just worried about machines taking over jobs, they’re worried about the end of the world — or at least the human race. This Washington Post op-ed piece thinks that might not be such a bad thing:

When a technology is so obviously dangerous — like nuclear energy or synthetic biology — humanity has an imperative to consider dystopian predictions of the future. But it also has an imperative to push on, to reach its full potential. While it’s scary, sure, that humans may no longer be the smartest life forms in the room a generation from now, should we really be that concerned? Seems like we’ve already done a pretty good job of finishing off the planet anyway. If anything, we should be welcoming our AI masters to arrive sooner rather than later.

Or consider this open letter written back to Hawking, Gates, and Musk, which basically says forget the fear mongering — it’s going to happen no matter what you think:

Progress is inevitable, even if it is reached by accident and happenstance. Even if we do not intend to, sentient AI is something that will inevitably be created, be it through the evolution of a learning AI, or as a byproduct of some research. No treaty or coalition can stop it, no matter what you think. I just pray you do not go from educated men to fear mongers when it happens.

As usual, we’re at an ideological impasse, with both sides responding not so much according to the pros and cons but according to their predispositions. This article suggests a way through the impasse:

At the beginning of this article, we asked if the pessimists or optimists would be right.

There is a third option, though: one where we move from building jobs around processes and tasks, a solution that is optimal for neither human nor machine, to building jobs around problems.

The article is long, well-researched, and… well, very rational. Too bad — conventional thinking aside — other research shows we rarely act from a rational outlook when it comes to jobs and the economy… or anything else for that matter.

More on that next time.

 

 

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: When We Move, We Can Achieve the Impossible.”

Gonna Be a Bright, Bright, Sunshiny Day

We met Sebastian Thrun last time. He’s a bright guy with a sunshiny disposition: he’s not worried about robots and artificial intelligence taking over all the good jobs, even his own. Instead, he’s perfectly okay if technology eliminates most of what he does every day because he believes human ingenuity will fill the vacuum with something better. This is from his conversation with TED curator Chris Anderson:

If I look at my own job as a CEO, I would say 90 percent of my work is repetitive, I don’t enjoy it, I spend about four hours per day on stupid, repetitive email. And I’m burning to have something that helps me get rid of this. Why? Because I believe all of us are insanely creative . . . What this will empower is to turn this creativity into action.

We’ve unleashed this amazing creativity by de-slaving us from farming and later, of course, from factory work and have invented so many things. It’s going to be even better, in my opinion. And there’s going to be great side effects. One of the side effects will be that things like food and medical supply and education and shelter and transportation will all become much more affordable to all of us, not just the rich people.

Anderson sums it up this way:

So the jobs that are getting lost, in a way, even though it’s going to be painful, humans are capable of more than those jobs. This is the dream. The dream is that humans can rise to just a new level of empowerment and discovery. That’s the dream.

Another bright guy with a sunshiny disposition is David Lee, Vice President of Innovation and the Strategic Enterprise Fund for UPS. He, too, shares the dream that technology will turn human creativity loose on a whole new kind of working world. Here’s his TED talk (click the image):

Like Sebastian Thrun, he’s no Pollyanna: he understands that yes, technology threatens jobs:

There’s a lot of valid concern these days that our technology is getting so smart that we’ve put ourselves on the path to a jobless future. And I think the example of a self-driving car is actually the easiest one to see. So these are going to be fantastic for all kinds of different reasons. But did you know that “driver” is actually the most common job in 29 of the 50 US states? What’s going to happen to these jobs when we’re no longer driving our cars or cooking our food or even diagnosing our own diseases?

Well, a recent study from Forrester Research goes so far to predict that 25 million jobs might disappear over the next 10 years. To put that in perspective, that’s three times as many jobs lost in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it’s not just blue-collar jobs that are at risk. On Wall Street and across Silicon Valley, we are seeing tremendous gains in the quality of analysis and decision-making because of machine learning. So even the smartest, highest-paid people will be affected by this change.

What’s clear is that no matter what your job is, at least some, if not all of your work, is going to be done by a robot or software in the next few years.

But that’s not the end of the story. Like Thrun, he believes that the rise of the robots will clear the way for unprecedented levels of human creativity — provided we move fast:

The good news is that we have faced down and recovered two mass extinctions of jobs before. From 1870 to 1970, the percent of American workers based on farms fell by 90 percent, and then again from 1950 to 2010, the percent of Americans working in factories fell by 75 percent. The challenge we face this time, however, is one of time. We had a hundred years to move from farms to factories, and then 60 years to fully build out a service economy.

The rate of change today suggests that we may only have 10 or 15 years to adjust, and if we don’t react fast enough, that means by the time today’s elementary-school students are college-aged, we could be living in a world that’s robotic, largely unemployed and stuck in kind of un-great depression.

But I don’t think it has to be this way. You see, I work in innovation, and part of my job is to shape how large companies apply new technologies. Certainly some of these technologies are even specifically designed to replace human workers. But I believe that if we start taking steps right now to change the nature of work, we can not only create environments where people love coming to work but also generate the innovation that we need to replace the millions of jobs that will be lost to technology.

I believe that the key to preventing our jobless future is to rediscover what makes us human, and to create a new generation of human-centered jobs that allow us to unlock the hidden talents and passions that we carry with us every day.

More from David Lee next time.

If all this bright sunshiny perspective made you think of that old tune, you might treat yourself to a listen. It’s short, you’ve got time.

And for a look at a current legal challenge to the “gig economy” across the pond, check out this Economist article from earlier this week.

 

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.

Too True to be Too Funny

Did you see the Sprint Super Bowl ad (click the image), where a scientist gets laughed out of his lab by his impertinent artificially intelligent robots? It was funny, but in that groaning kind of way when humor is just a bit too true. Let’s break down the punchline: “My coworkers” says the scientist, talking about robots “laughed at me.” He responds to the robotic peer pressure with the human feeling of shame, and changes his cell phone provider to conform.

Wow. Get used to it. It could happen to you. True, the robots’ sense of humor was pretty immature. He chastises them, “Guys, it wasn’t that funny.” But they’ll learn — that’s what artificial intelligence does — it learns, really fast. They’ll be doing sarcasm and irony soon — that is, when they’re not busy passing a university entrance exam, managing an investment portfolio, developing business strategy, practicing medicine. practicing law, writing up your news feeds… and generally doing all those other things everybody knew all along that robots surely would never be able to do.

Miami lawyer Luis Salazar used to think that way, until he met Ross. This is from a NY Times article from last March:

Skeptical at first, he tested Ross against himself. After 10 hours of searching online legal databases, he found a case whose facts nearly mirrored the one he was working on. Ross found that case almost instantly.

Ross is not a human. “He” never went to law school, never took a legal methods class, never learned to do research, never had a professor or partner critique his legal writing. “He” is machine intelligence. Not only did he find the clincher case in a fraction of the time Salazar did, he also did a nice job of writing up a legal memo:

Mr. Salazar has been particularly impressed by a legal memo service that Ross is developing. Type in a legal question and Ross replies a day later with a few paragraphs summarizing the answer and a two-page explanatory memo.

The results, he said, are indistinguishable from a memo written by a lawyer. ‘That blew me away,’ Mr. Salazar said. ‘It’s kind of scary. If it gets better, a lot of people could lose their jobs.’

Yes, scary — especially when you consider the cost of legal research: click here and enter “legal research” in the search field. Among other things, you’ll get an article about Ross and another about the cost of legal research. If Ross is that good, he could save a lot of firms a lot of money… and eliminate a lot of jobs along the way. (The Ross Intelligence website is worth a visit — there’s attorney Salazar on video, and an impressive banner of early adopting law firms, with a lot of names you’ll recognize.)

And speaking of things that were never supposed to happen, the NY Times article cites a McKinsey report that, using technology then available, 23 percent of a lawyer’s work could be fully automated. Given the explosion of AI in the past year, we are already way beyond that percentage.

How are you going to compete with that? You’re not. Consider this story from a source we’ve visited several times already (the book Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland):

In 2010, DLA Piper faced a court-imposed deadline of searching through 570,000 documents in one week. The firm . . . hired Clearwell, a Silicon Valley e-discovery company. Clearwell software did the job in two days. DLA Piper lawyers spent one day going through the results. After three days of work, the firm responded to the judge’s order with 3,070 documents. A decade ago, DLA Piper would have employed thirty associates full-time for six months to do that work.

Note the date: that happened eight years ago. Today, the whole thing would happen a lot faster, with much less human involvement.

I tried to get a robot to write this blog post, but didn’t succeed. Articoolo.com looked promising: “Stop wasting your time,” its website trumpets, “let us do the writing for you!” The company is obviously fully in tune with the freelance job market we’ve been talking about: “You no longer have to wait for someone on the other side of the world to write, proofread and send the content to you.” I tried a few topic entries, but the best it could do was to admit it had written an article but it wasn’t up to standards, so sorry… But then, it’s only available in beta. Give it time to learn.

I also sent an inquiry to the people at Ross Intelligence, asking if Ross could write an article about itself. I never heard back — he’s probably too busy signing up more firms to hire him.

More on robots and artificial intelligence next time.

 

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.

The Super Bowl of Economics: Capitalism vs. Technology

Technology is the odds-on favorite.

In the multi-author collection Does Capitalism Have a Future?, Randall Collins, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, observes that capitalism is subject to a “long-term structural weakness,” namely “ the technological displacement of labor by machines.”

Technology eliminating jobs is nothing new. From the end of the 18th Century through the end of the 20th, the Industrial Revolution swept a huge number of manual labor jobs into the dustbin of history. It didn’t happen instantly: at the turn of the 20th Century, 40% of the USA workforce still worked on the farm. A half century later, that figure was 16%. I grew up in rural Minnesota, where farm kids did chores before school, town kids baled hay for summer jobs, and everybody watched the weather and asked how the crops were doing. We didn’t know we were a vanishing species. In fact, “learning a trade” so you could “work with your hands” was still a moral and societal virtue. I chose carpentry. It was my first fulltime job after I graduated with a liberal arts degree.

Another half century later, at the start of the 21st Century, less than 2% of the U.S. workforce was still on the farm. In my hometown, our GI fathers beat their swords into plowshares, then my generation moved to the city and melted the plows down into silicon. And now the technological revolution is doing the same thing to mental labor that the Industrial revolution did to manual labor — only it’s doing it way faster, even though most of us aren’t aware that “knowledge workers” are a vanishing species. The following is from The Stupidity Paradox: The Power and Pitfalls of Functional Stupidity at Work:

1962… was the year the management thinker Peter Drucker was asked by The New York Times to write about what the economy would look like in 1980. One big change he foresaw was the rise of the new type of employee he called ‘knowledge workers.’

A few years ago, Steven Sweets and Peter Meiksins decided they wanted to track the changing nature of work in the new knowledge intensive economy. These two US labour sociologists assembled large-scale statistical databases as well as research reports from hundreds of workplaces. What they found surprised them. A new economy full of knowledge workers was nowhere to be found.

The researchers summarized their unexpected finding this way: for every well-paid programmer working at a firm like Microsoft, there are three people flipping burgers at a restaurant like McDonald’s. It seems that in the ‘knowledge’ economy, low-level service jobs still dominate.

A report by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics painted an even bleaker picture. One third of the US workforce was made up of three occupational groups: office and administrative support, sales and related occupations, and food preparation and related work.

And now — guess what? — those non-knowledge workers flipping your burgers might not be human. This is from “Robots Will Transform Fast Food” in this month’s The Atlantic:

According to Michael Chui, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute, many tasks in the food-service and accommodation industry are exactly the kind that are easily automated. Chui’s latest research estimates that 54 percent of the tasks workers perform in American restaurants and hotels could be automated using currently available technologies — making it the fourth-most-automatable sector in the U.S.

Robots have arrived in American restaurants and hotels for the same reasons they first arrived on factory floors. The cost of machines, even sophisticated ones, has fallen significantly in recent years, dropping 40 percent since 2005, according to the Boston Consulting Group.

‘We think we’ve hit the point where labor-wage rates are now making automation of those tasks make a lot more sense,’ Bob Wright, the chief operations officer of Wendy’s, said in a conference call with investors last February, referring to jobs that feature ‘repetitive production tasks.’

The international chain CaliBurger, for example, will soon install Flippy, a robot that can flip 150 burgers an hour.

That’s Flippy’s picture at the top of this post. Burger flippers are going the way of farmers — the Flippies of the world are busy eliminating one of the three main occupational groups in the U.S. And again, a lot of us aren’t aware this is going on.

Burger flipping maybe to particularly amenable to automation, but what about other knowledge-based jobs that surely a robot couldn’t do — like, let’s say, writing this column, or managing a corporation, or even… practicing law?

More to come.

 

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.

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.

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.