The Power of Us

 In a university course we were taught that one of the triggers for prejudice was pride in our own group.  If your group is so good it must mean they are better than other groups.   In other words a bias can lead to a prejudice.  The authors contend that we get our social identity by the groups we associate ourselves with.

We are who we identify as.  We have multiple identities, but some give more conscientiousness.  We have a need to belong, but many of us want to retain some distinctiveness and others want a higher status.  Group identity can help direct us to do things co-operating.

The inter-net has enabled more people with the same interests to find each other.  Once aware connections are much easier.

You belong to a wide range of groups, some of which are taken for granted and others that you are fervently proud about.  You have a gender, a racial/ethnic background, an education, an age, etc. etc. and all of these and many more are groups you a member of.

Sports fans allied to teams feel good when their team wins.  Fans can even accept transformations if they are winning.  A good example might be Mohamad Saleh who joined the Liverpool soccer team and subsequently hate crimes were reduced in the area.  In Iraq after ISIS impacted area there had been fear between Christians and Muslims.  Adding some Muslims to Christian teams lessened tensions and again winning helps toleration.

Apple users originally felt a little rebellious and perhaps a little smug.  I became one of them by the fact that an employer used them.  I found them easier to operate than a PC.  We notice and took pride that the Apple logo is a product on display on tv. shows and movies

Some groups seem crazy and believe things that the rest of us find bonkers.  The key to facing countervailing evidence is social support.   Erich Fromm is quoted"An illusion shared by everyone becomes a reality."

Groups often have a hierarchy.  There are no leaders without followers meaning everyone has some power Pointed out by Mark Van Vugt.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html
 

Trump told his base that they were victims.  Others were to blame.  His base group consisted partly of those who felt outsiders were to blame for their diminished circumstances while others felt that others were threatening their rising standards.   Sometimes it is easier to form a group that is against something than is for something.

Sometimes it is easier to manipulate groups.  Robert Mueller uncovered that Russians did interfere in the 2016 election by using Facebook to encourage rallies for and against Trump as they wanted to inflame conflict.  To cross a divide it is better to avoid inflammatory words and allow for interaction that lessens antagonism

Groups tend to make better decisions when people can express divergent views.  If a leader encourages all views a sense of fairness will also tend to better decisions.  Opposing views are more likely to be accepted if they can be made in the long term interests of the group.  Leaders can help make everyone feel they belong and can help guide in a positive or negative direction.

Inequality is increasing.  The richest 10% control 85% of the wealth.  The pandemic not only increased inequality, but exposed the illegitimacy of it.  We need a leader like Nelson Mandela.  It has been suggested that like Republicans have linked gun rights, abortion, racism and homophobism the Democrats could unite environmentalists and human rights advocates into one group that benefits everyone.

Climate change initially encountered a lot of skepticism, but over time gained some credibility, but lately losing ground.  Conservatives do not accept that human caused climate change is real and increasing.  Vested interests are funding misinformation and are finding a receptive audience along partisan lines.   We are all earth beings, but few of us see it that way.

Astronauts for the first time in human history got a different perspective.  They got to see the earth as a whole and realized they were a part of it.  We all are.  Some problems such as pandemics and climate change are global in nature and we can deal more effectively if we all see ourselves as earth beings.  How we get more attention to solve global problems is to expand our concept of a group.

E.O. Wilson is quoted   "The real problem of humanity is the following:  "We have a paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology."  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/11/edward-o-wilson-tackles-meaning-of.html

There are many dimensions to being a group member which are explored in this fascinating book.  Their last words were to point out that the future depends on what we do as group members to make a better world.

Acknowledgements can be revealing.  The two authors did not initially like each other, but  had been assigned to the same sub basement room in the University of Toronto psychology department.  Circumstances conspired to make them find their commonalities and learn to work together (as a small group).

Freedom and the law

 The truck convoy to Ottawa has inspired me to point out the short sighted thinking involved that affects everyone.

Laws seem the opposite of freedom, but are they really?  A phrase learned as a youngster, "Your freedom ends at my nose."  In this modern age we recognize that we can be hurt by more than just a punch-we know about pollution, climate change, cigarette smoke, drunk drivers, shoddy construction, opioids  and viruses.  Consider there are also people who would like to cheat us and we all want protection against the many varieties of that effort.   Laws including mandates could be considered as regulations:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/10/regulation-how-we-protect-ourselves.html

Early in our primitive history we appreciated that a strong man could pretty much get his way and in effect had the most freedom. However our ancestors, i.e. the ones that survived long enough to propagate realized there were common (less civilized) enemies, even more deadly than our strongest man.  Even the strongest man recognized he needed the support of those weaker.  Collective rights might not have been articulated in the early stages of our development, but in effect they were the mechanism that helped us survive.  In less civilized times viable Leaders might seem to be in charge, but only because others allow them to be:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

As mankind "advanced" some people did indeed become very powerful and could exploit others.   An historical example was King John in England, but he reached a limit when he wanted more money to go to war and was forced to accept the Magna Carta which was a critical step on the way to democracy.  Since then other men (and some women) have reached the heights of power usually by exploiting others.  

More recently wealthy elites have leveraged their resources to control  and exploit the masses.  The American political system depicts one example:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/07/dark-money-by-jane-mayer.html

On the other hand there really is such a thing as "the tyranny of the majority."  Often progressive ideas are resisted by the status quo.  Misinformation or intimidation is used to get one's way.   

There is a need for a balance.  The majority should be respected, however should you disagree, by all means protest.  The majority needs to listen to the minority and evaluate their message.  In our current situation accurate information is vital.  If the anti vaxxers are adamant they are right they still need to respect the rights of the rest to protect ourselves and our loved ones.  Isolation seems the most logical option. 

Truck drivers play an important role in our economy and certainly are critical in our supply chain that is under stress.  I am a proud son of a trucker who thought a lot deeper than the convoy truck drivers.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/06/remembering-my-father.html

JOE BIDEN DEMONSTRATES LEADERSHIP

A confession to start.  I thought Kamala Harris should have been the presidential nominee so being picked as the Vice President candidate almost seems like a consolation prize.  On the other hand Joe Biden proved himself to be above personal vindictiveness, a quality that should be appreciated more than usual in contrast to the current president.

What to like about Kamala Harris?  Barely heard of her before the judicial hearings, but I loved the way she systematically handled William Barr and Brett Kavanagh.  She certainly earned Trump's dismissive characterization of "nasty."  But she has a lot more going for her when you dig deeper.  As a prosecutor she tackled large corporations.  She officiated at an historical gay marriage.  She was tough on crime. There will be criticisms from some quarters that she wasn't tough enough or too tough, but it should be pointed out she was pragmatic and pushed as far as she thought prudent.

Somewhere along the way, Biden realized that there were a few women who were qualified to be president and their time was overdue.  He also realized that black lives really do matter and he needed to cater to that, although he seriously considered a few women including Amy Klobuchar before she recognized the party would benefit from a black leader.  Joe is known to like Elizabeth Warren who had done him a big favor in one debate and lately Governor Gretchen Witmer.  So the process narrowed the decision, but Kamala Harris still stood out.

Kamala's confrontation with Biden at a primary debate was said to be a mark against her.  Personally she seemed the better prepared and bold candidate.  However she apparently offended a number of established Democrats and her support dried up.  She was realistic and decided to drop out in the interest of both herself and the party.  Biden is said to value loyalty and to want someone he can work with and recalled how Kamala had worked with his son Beau on some efforts he supported.

Contrast that with Trump who seemed to pick foxes to guard the henhouse.  One of his early strategic supporters was Jeff Sessions.  Sessions is not someone I admire, but he had enough sense to know, ethically (and politically) he had to recuse himself from the Russian query.  Trump thinking of only protecting himself found a way to fire Sessions and has continued to do everything he could to humiliate the man who played an important role in his rise to power.

Trump knows how to manipulate prejudice to serve his goals, but continuously demonstrates he has little empathy for his rabid supporters.  Instead of pushing a healthy agenda as best he could, he prefers to continuously stoke prejudice against blacks, Mexicans, Iranians, Chinese, etc.  Trump  while insecure has an enormous ego that drives him to take advantage of ignorance for his own selfish benefit.

Abraham Lincoln is revered for his wisdom.  Choosing his cabinet he selected some of his rivals, partly to keep them under control, but also he recognized they were capable.  Barrack Obama in choosing his Vice President, did not have a close relationship, but recognized that Biden would balance the voters' perceptions of himself.  They came to mutual respect and it was actually Biden who successfully pushed for same sex marriage.  Check out a review of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/11/team-of-rivals-has-lessons-for-today.html

Mike Pence was a clever choice for Trump, although he didn't particularly think so.  Paul Manafort realized Trump was not going to be easily accepted by evangelicals although his policies favored their needs.  Pence gave Trump credibility with evangelicals and other religious conservatives. With his own presidential aspirations thwarted Pence has decided his best path to influence and future office prospects is to suck up to Trump, no matter how ridiculous (and even detrimental to Americans).

Trump has made it easy for the Democrats to position themselves as the party of rational thinkers.  Inevitably they have to cater to special interests, financial and others, but they are doing so by trying to please a wide variety of Americans.  Whereas the Republican primary contenders back in 2015-2016 often seemed to try to one up on their toughness, the Democrats tried to prove they were the more rational candidate.   Dropping climate change agreements, and the Iranian agreement were indications that long term thinking was for sissies.  Their handling of the Covid-19 pandemic shows a willingness to kowtow to an ignorant man.  In all fairness many Republicans know better, but kept quiet in their own quest for power.

Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren all brought good ideas to the party.  Bernie Sanders was perhaps the most rational of all, but was too scary for some.  I hope if and when the Democrats get to power they treat those brave enough to declare their candidacy to help push an agenda that really serves the people.  Trump supporters seem oblivious to rational thinking even when it is in their best interest, so unless the Democrats have an overwhelming victory they will encounter stubborn resistance while the entrenched wealthy manipulate the ignorant.

DANIEL GOLEMAN'S LOOK AT FOCUS IS RIVETING.

Daniel Goleman helped us become more aware of Emotional Intelligence, even though we always suspected there was something more critical than intelligence to being successful.  Goleman constantly pursues social psychological factors for our success and happiness.

Focus is a problem for me and the author proved it on page 16.  He also wrote about the increasing distractions offered by our internet world that weaken society as a whole.  Multi tasking is not the best way to extract the most out of this book.

Focus is an old concept, but not necessarily fully understood.  Most of us think of it as a substitute for concentration, but you always have a focus, although you might not be conscious of it.  The automatic part of your brain evolved to help you survive.

He starts with what might be called the wandering mind.  You know, where your mind drifts to one idea and then to another seemingly unrelated.  Goleman explains this is normal--your automatic brain has an enormous number of details stored in it.  Creativity is the result of linking all these minutiae in unique ways and often these links come with little effort. Many of those with ADD (attention deficit disorder) are in fact more creative.

Goleman differentiates between automatic control and executive control.  Executive control is where you make conscious decisions.  Automatic control requires less energy

Video games are often argued as bad, but in reality they have potential to develop attention.  They become bad when  they encourage obsessive behavior.  Obsessed youngsters do worse in school and improve when cut off.  Video games can encourage violence or calming.

Everything is part of a bigger system.  While you are focusing on some small (maybe important) detail you will need to be aware of how that detail fits into a greater whole. An example given is the efforts to develop electric cars overlooking the fact that for the most part the energy often still comes from coal utilities and can eventually lead to more road construction.  Looking at the overall energy system can lead to better solutions.  Understanding a system requires enough time for feedback loops to be witnessed.

In a New Zealand study done in Dunedin it was concluded that no mental skills matter as much in life success as executive control.  By that they mean the ability to ignore impulses, filter out irrelevant facts and stay focused on goals.  Impulse/executive control can be developed.

In Singapore they have few natural resources and have realized people are critical to economic success.  They have embarked on a program to develop emotional intelligence which they have found also boosts health and reduces crime.  The strategies a person develops (or is guided to) can help develop attention.  Mindfulness helps develop attention

Strategy boils down to what should be focused on.  Involves deciding what not to do as well as what to do.  Exploitative strategies focus on established patterns and are focused on improving efficiencies.  Exploratory strategies are aimed at discovering new information and new patterns.

Goleman spends quite a few pages on leadership.  Leaders need to balance focuses on their inner self, the outer circumstances and other people.  Ideally they will be empathic, but have self-control.  Leaders know how to get to the point that needs focus by a group.  One effective method is to tell stories.  A really good book on that is "Tell to Win" and you can learn about it and how I used it to develop a story at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/06/tell-to-win-offers-winning-formula.html

I am also reminded of another blog about a wonderful Bollywood movie that explains how a story teller discovered his talent:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/02/tamasha-wonderful-story.html

An interesting quote from Greystone Bakery,"We don't hire people to bake brownies.  We bake brownies to hire people."  They are noted for hiring ex convicts and believe in giving people a chance.

The author concludes "We must ask ourselves in the service of why exactly are we using whatever talents we might have."

Daniel Goleman has lots of interesting perspectives on psychology you might find beneficial.  Check his website:  http://www.danielgoleman.info

LEADERS ARE "SELECTED" BY FOLLOWERS

Leadership is a popular topic mainly because most of us are attracted to the rewards and others because of the good that leaders can accomplish.  The authors, Mark van Vugt and Anjana Ahuja identify three perks of being a leader--salary, status and sex. They study evolution to better understand leadership.  Most books deal with the how to get to be a leader or how to lead, but don't really touch the follower aspect.

Leadership means nothing without followers.  Why does anyone want to follow another person?  The authors go back to pre-history, our hunter-gatherer days to understand.  In the end they favor some of the earliest practices and suggest adaptations to modern reality.  Back in the African savannah days of our history, groups were small and it became crucial to co-ordinate activities to survive.  Circumstances dictated a level of equality creating a balance between leaders and followers.

A strong person might be the leader, but they could not survive without followers.  Leadership emerges whenever there is a need for social co-ordination for example with basic human activities as hunting, food gathering, sleeping, migrating.  Groups with better direction will outperform other groups.

We needed strong leaders to make decisions regarding food and protection from external forces (wild animals, human enemies).  We valued strength and intelligence.  The groups tended to be small  and members knew each other very well.  If a leader became too arrogant there were ways of controlling them.  Undermining leaders with gossip and public discussion, mockery and disobedience.  Similar strategies were seen with chimpanzees, but with humans we added desertion of our leaders.  This was one step short of more extreme measures such as assassination.

Leadership was often dispersed among different skills such as hunting, medicine, warring, tool making, etc.  Although there often was a tendency for one leader to gain more roles it was also resisted by the followers.

The Agricultural Revolution which came after a million or so years of evolution changed the balance.  For the first time wealth could be accumulated and some individuals could get more rewards with power.  Groups became bigger and everyone did not know everyone.  Chimpanzees tend to form groups around 50, but humans with greater brain power could handle groups of 150.  Once beyond that, the process becomes less personal.  Leadership is too often romanticized whereas in many cases quiet leadership is more effective.

After diagnosis, what are the prescriptions for today?

Dominance is dangerous.  We should favour followers more than we do currently.  Distributive leadership should be encouraged.  Consensual decision making has been a key factor in the success of the human race.  

Followers chose leaders on criteria important in the African savannahs that are no longer as crucial.  We do not need as much emphasis on strength, height or the male gender as before.  The authors suggest we minimize our natural bias although that is much easier said than done.

Authors point out today leaders tend to be picked from the top down.  Some progressive companies encourage involvement of subordinates.  The advantage is that the followers will have more respect for those who give them their direction.

We should be concerned about the pay (and other perks) gap between CEO's and their workers.  It not only causes resentment, but it also attracts selfish people who do not always have the best interest of their subordinates top of mind.

At an individual level the authors suggest their readers should find their own niche and develop skills that benefit the group they are in.

Mark and Anjana offer many suggestions for how we should go forward that merit further discussion.   Professor Mark Van Vugt, evolutionary, social and organizational  psychologist based in the Netherlands has a website worth investigating at http://www.professormarkvanvugt.com/