Why are we not getting the results we desire?

I recently viewed a TV interview with Russell Brand where he made a believer out of me. For many years I have teetered from one side of the fence to the other. From apathy to involvement in our political systems. I've held just about every belief there has been. I thought, "why vote? it doesn't change anything." to "you must vote! It is your duty as a citizen! You must exercise the rights your forefathers fought to give you!"

But when I saw Russell Brand in the interview I was slapped in the face with a fact and it left me with one question. Why aren't we getting what we want out of our political system? our educational system? our economic system? our justice system? The fact is that it's not working. Russell was right, and it didn't take any amount of profound thinking to come to the conclusion. We have massive inequality. I'm careful not to use the word "poverty" here as many educated, studious people will argue that "studies show" that our quality of life is rising, that the poverty issue is getting better than it was 100 years ago. However, we do have massive inequality. The cliche applies, "the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer".

Inequality. Inequality in pay vs work. Inequality in Justice vs crimes. Inequality in health vs wealth. Inequality education vs opportunity. There always seems to be a certain elite group of people that exude the most horrendous behaviour, some of it criminal behaviour, and never get the consequences that you or I would get. Politicians lie about spending, drinking and driving, abusing power for personal gain. Those same politicians get caught and walk away free. CEOs and Leaders of multinational companies get compensation nearly 500 times that of a regular worker and when they do a poor job, not only do they get fired, but they get multimillion dollar golden parachutes. Celebrities can commit murder, posses drugs on multiple occasions yet avoid jail time. Bankers can defraud entire COUNTRIES of trillions of dollars and be allowed to continue operating with bonuses instead of punishments. Yet if the average person, like you or I, would do any of these things we most certainly would wind up bankrupt, without a job and only a few months or weeks of money in the bank or in jail.

A famous quote "Stupidity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". And that's exactly what we're doing.

So Why are we not getting the results we desire? I believe it's because the system is delivering exactly what it was designed to produce. Voting doesn't matter when there is no real choice. Banking doesn't matter when you don't make enough money to pay the bills, let alone the interest rates. Using our courts does not matter when you need boat loads of money and time to get the smallest change.

The funny thing about revolution is it keeps coming around. Rome fell, the Ottoman empire fell, Britain fell, and the US will fall too. My question here is When will the next revolution come? and will it be just a political revolution in a country? or a geopolitical revolution that shakes our very world and it's systems to the core?

I believe that there are people and powers that seek to keep things from changing, but that only lasts for so long. We cannot live in a world where change is happening at an exponential rate without our systems changing along with it. When we can communicate ideas to the world in seconds, when we discover technology so fast that the latest and greatest equipment is outdated within days after it's discovered there is no way the systems of old can hold.

So what will the new world systems look like? Will it be even more and drastically inequitable? Will it be some sort of utopian state? What will our economic models look like if machines eventually do all the work for us? What will financial systems be like if noone uses money anymore?

What will you do when revolution comes?

Why do you want kids to stay in school?

On Friday I was on an unusual schedule. I worked from home and took the train in for a Dr's appointment for 1pm instead of commuting in at regular hours. I actually enjoy running on an "off" schedule as it helps me change my frame of reference, working while others aren't and vica versa.

After my doctor's appointment I was walking to the office and came up to the train station that I normally get off at and witnessed to men (perhaps boys) get off the train. They immediately piqued my interest as they were wearing fairly extreme attire. One was "sagging" as much as one can sag without exposing their junk (actually it was quite impressive that the person could actually move without their pants falling off). The other had bleached white hair that was cut into a very low trimmed mohawk. Both were fitted with usual "street" wear that screamed "I'M A BADASS GANGSTA!!!". As they walked by, with lit cigarettes hanging out of their mouth I noticed on the back of one of their shirts the saying "Gangster is as gangster does" and two things when through my head.

1. Hey! That's grammatically correct!
2. Stay in School kids.

And it made my think.... Would "staying in school" really help these two individuals? and why do we assume "staying in school" is the path to "staying out of trouble" or "a good life"? I really think that the whole "Stay in school" philosophy is old and is not much more than a fear tactic. I think of the TEDTalk "The danger of a single story" where people often hear one idea and immediately conjure up a stereotypical story about a person, a group of people or even the idea itself.

In this case someone says "stay in school kids" usually when referencing someone who isn't fitting the normal mold in life. Someone who is not wealthy, or behaving respectfully, or in a state of despair. I'm sure almost everyone remembers some point in their childhood walking past a beggar in the streets, or sitting next to an addict on the bus and their parents, chaperone, friend, or collegue pointing them out and saying "stay in school kids". As if the absence of school was the single contributor to these people's woes. The lack of reading and writing skills led to addiction. The lack of health class led to a person becoming schizophrenic or not attending math class made someone choose to drop out of school and pursue life outside of academia.

I really think that using this phrase "Stay in school kids" is dangerous. Our educational paradigms are being challenged. With the introduction and growth of the internet and smart phones and other mobile devices, we no longer have to rely on schools and educational systems as being the only avenue to information. 20 years ago, conducting research was something that usually had to happen in close proximity to a library. Now that literature and information is at your finger tips. Getting an "advanced education" involved paying thousands of dollars to a university or college, committing day time hours to attending classes and ensuring you were in good political standing with your professors. With the invention of Edx, MITx, iTunes U, and Khan Academy this level of education is free, available in whaterver timeframe you want and doesn't require kissing a professor's ass to get a good grade... I even question if grades are really relevant anymore. Are they?

We used to use degrees, grades, certificates as a way of proving someone had a minimum level of knowledge in a specific area. That they could apply critical thinking skills. We still do. Employers still demand higher levels of education, but I wonder if they're getting the return on investment. I often see employment ads that state "Must have a bachelor's degree." It doesn't state what relevant field of study they're looking for only that the person has a bachelor degree. When I asked hiring managers what skill or qualification they were hoping the degree would prove I often get shrugs and puzzled looks. They don't know. Most cannot translate how a "degree" will demonstrate the job performance they're looking for in that particular job.

I then start to ask "What was the education path for successful people?" and what I find is that a lot of people didn't "stay in school". Einstein, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs are classic examples of those who didn't stay in school. I do not see anyone accusing them of being unsuccessful. However, they are just a few (and I realize they are extreme cases). Interestingly enough, 2 of those 4 are still alive and I wonder if it's the start of a trend. Others who did finish the formal path of getting degrees only view the academic portion as one element to their success. Seeking and getting the right experience and mentoring were critical elements to their success. Also having a passion for their field was huge.

(Please note.... I have not done extensive interviews with thousands of people. This is just casual conversation and reading I've done. Ironically, I'm sure the academics who read this will want to tear my thoughts apart with arguments like "you haven't done proper research" and "where's the peer reviewed documentation to prove your theories?")

So I question.... is the saying "stay in school kids" outdated? cliche? even dangerous?

Are people starting to realize that formal education is not the best (or only single) path to "success"?
Should we be showing there are more ingredients to "success" than just education?
Should we be telling our kids "stay in school.... and make sure you get out and experience the world!"?
Are employers missing out on opportunities by excluding hiring informally educated individuals?
Are employers missing out on diversifying their talent pool by only hiring formally educated individuals?
How will employers gauge this in the future? What will employers ask for instead of "a degree"?
how will educational institutions deal with this trend? As most of them focus their marketing on "get your degree here! Our degrees are the best!"

Who is at fault? Rape

Recently saw the video linked here.

At first I was offended. I thought that the poet was trying to say "It's this girl's fault that she couldn't have enough self esteem to stand up for herself and she got raped". Then I started thinking about the story he told as a precursor to the poem and I wondered.

Was he really trying to say it was her fault? or was he trying to say it was his fault for not helping her realize her self worth?

I watched it 4 or 5 times and tried to find deeper meaning and realized I was just asking deeper questions of myself. To the point where I wasn't even asking "Who is at fault when someone gets raped?" I was asking myself... "What would I do if I got raped?" "What actually drives people to rape others?" and an even better question.... "What can I do to help?'

I remember watching a video many years ago about a South American activist who came to New York to talk about the activities he and his "followers" were taking to battle oppression in Brazil and during the question period of his presentation someone asked "What can we do to help? What should we do to stop similar behavior in America?" The man responded with something like (I'm paraphrasing here) "When you're in dire straits you don't spend a lot of time questions what you can do. You know what you MUST do and you do it"

So then I asked myself "WHY aren't I helping?" am I not in a situation where I feel the need to help?

Which is more important? The Question or the Answer

I've been raised all my life to believe that "having the answer" is good and "not having the answer" is bad. My parents taught me this when I was young. My teachers taught me this in school and I'm reminded of it almost any time I have a conversation or play a game.

From answers a poll, to taking a test, to participating in a contest. The second someone asks a question and you have the right answer you are praised. If you have the wrong answer you are considered "stupid", "incompetent", "unwise", "inexperienced". I believe the reinforcement behind this behaviour is mainly from school testing where you get a "pass" or a "fail" depending on how many questions you answer correctly. As we grow into adults this fear of failing translates into people being scared to answer questions. We've all heard the saying "better to let someone think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Yet, I think this behaviour actually goes further than that. Not only are people scared to answer questions, they are scared of questions.... period.... and the more complex the question the more fearful people are of it.

Yet, I observed something else. When you challenge (or question) someone's deeply held beliefs they usually fight back..... swiftly! and with zeal! Tell a deeply devout Christian that Jesus didn't exist and you will watch them enter into fight or flight mode. Either way they go it's usually accompanied by a spew of statements that they believe to be true. In this state of fight or flight I believe that people are actually vulnerable to suggestion. They have no choice but to think critically about the subject matter to defend their belief.

So therein lies the key. To me, the question is more important than the answer and going forward I want to focus on questioning things rather than ever getting to the "answer". This blog will not be an exercise in swaying people's opinions but truly exploring questions in an attempt to get people thinking.