Category Archives: Selection

Artificial Selection Redux: Part 3

by

0

Intelligence

So, you’ve received a message but what do you do with it? That’s up to your intelligence. Like money, intelligence is a resource and, as with all resources, just having it isn’t enough. You need to do something with it. I’m sure most of us know someone who is ‘full of useless information’. Someone who’s accumulated seemingly random bits of knowledge here and there then stored them to be accessed when the time is right. I’m also sure a few of us have wondered how such a person might better themselves since they clearly have the capacity to take in information, process it, understand it then store it.

The problem is intelligence. They might have a good memory but they’re not utilising it effectively. Intelligence would allow them to do something with that ability. Stephen Fry, for example, has said he’s not really smart but he has a good memory. If that’s true then he’s used his memory intelligently to get to where he is. That and his comedic talent.

Intelligence gives us the facility of self-awareness. It allows us to measure ourselves against our peers as a benchmark to see if we’ve reached our peak in a certain area or do we have further to go? If we conclude we have further to go, then we seek the next objective and work towards that.

Intelligence allows us to recognise when things are going right or wrong for us. Through the balancing of logic, reason, emotional knowledge, sharpness, etc we can determine if our current trajectory is productive or not. This ability of foresight also comes under the banner of intelligence.

In short, intelligence allows us to know who we are, what we can do and where we need to go to achieve a certain goal. It allows us to evolve and change as we age.

Let’s say you have two sets of grandparents. Both are in their seventies but both lead very different lives. One set leads a fairly mundane and predictable life. Grandpa tends to the garden, reads a paper, watches TV and goes to sleep. Grandma does cooking, cleaning and goes walks. And that’s it for them. The other set plans world cruises, regularly has meetings with a financial adviser to mange their pensions and investments and generally keeps themselves active and sociable.

Who’s aged better? Who’s being more intelligent?

Correct. It’s the latter set because they have enough intelligence to know that looking after themselves, maintaining relationships outside of their marriage, going to new places and keeping on top of their finances all contribute to being able to have a good life for longer.

You want another example? Go look up any older actor working today. Let’s say, 50+ years old. Look them up on IMDB and see how many projects they’ve got on the go. Then go and watch an interview with them. When I say interview, I don’t mean a press junket for a new film they’re promoting. Go find an interview where they are being allowed to talk about themselves and their career on their own terms (A good one for starters is Terence Stamp). Look at their body language and how they express themselves. They’re animated, funny, coherent, compelling and articulate. Just from watching, you can see that this person has made a lot of decisions for themselves and learned a lot from them regardless of outcome. That’s intelligence in action. And you can see that in a number of areas.

I remember giving an interview for an Honours student at my old university and I talked about how students are more willing to do grunt work (call centres, waiting tables, working at fast food chains, etc) compared to, say, non-students. What I highlighted was that these people were intelligent enough to know that they weren’t going to be there for long. This wasn’t the end of the road. It was the beginning. And the skills and behaviours they learn in these places can be used once they’ve finished their degrees. I know this because I did it. I worked in a call centre for three years whilst I was studying. It wasn’t great (frankly, it was soul destroying but it was good money for being a student and evening hours allowed me to attend uni and work. It was a good deal) but I always told myself it was temporary because I was going to graduate and move on to something better. I knew, through intelligence, that I was more capable than the job I was doing. I just didn’t have the experience yet. The same can be said for now. I’m currently unemployed but I’m not sitting idle. I’m writing this blog because I have a novel I’m working on which I want to use to launch a writing career. That’s my long-term goal. The short to medium one is to build a readership. The even shorter one is tweaking my CV, searching daily for new roles and regularly using my network of recruitment agents. Intelligence also allows planning and creativity.

I’m not sitting about wallowing in misery. That’s not a productive use of time or energy. Did I need a break after over six years of not really having any? Yes. Did I want to do it this way? Heck, no. But the opportunity to find something I want to do has been given so, using intelligence, I’ve deemed it a wise move to get stuck into the thing I’ve neglected for some time. Writing.

So, intelligence is an excellent resource. It’s like having an OP superpower only much more toned down for us mere mortals. We can use it to see likely outcomes from a set number of options; we can reflect on the past to ensure anything negative isn’t repeated; we can make the most of the present by recognising the opportunities it offers and we can take all that information, weigh up the pros and cons of all the options using sound judgement and reasoned arguments to come to a clear, concise decision and plan of action.

You can see why the animals and plants don’t stand much of a chance. An overabundance of intelligence is deadly when channelled properly.

Network

“It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” is the old saying. There’s a lot of truth to it. I’ve seen it in action. When I was at Retail Bank HQ, we had a guy come in who just looked completely out of place. Long, wavy hair, uber laid back and overly friendly. He was like an uncomfortable hippy. Partly because he was. He’d just come from being a butcher in Tesco and, somehow, wound up having a job at one of the world’s biggest financial institutions. How does that happen, you ask.

Mum’s the word.

No, really. His mum got him the job. You see, she’d been working at the bank for years and was pally with the head of my department so, through that, her son got a job. Was he any good? Not really. He wandered in late most mornings, hid behind the parade of incompetence shown by his Greek colleague (who was actually very nice and more competent than him) and had to get bailed out by the more senior and far superior member of the team.

The behaviour continued for months. Under normal circumstances, such a show of unreliability and ineffectiveness would have seen this guy shown the door. But it didn’t happen. To be fair, he did suffer from anxiety and depression but so did I and I managed to come in on time and do my job so I don’t know why this one couldn’t. Maybe it was the steep learning curve of going from a butcher’s assistant to working with the HR systems of one of the biggest and most complex organisations on the planet. Again, under normal circumstances, he’d have been escorted off the premises.

My firm belief was that it was the politicking going on between the mother, head of the department and the manager that kept this guy in a job. The team complained about him (privately and out of earshot of anyone who might report it) and he didn’t really seem to improve. Within the first month of him starting, he tried to make friends with me (I already had him at arm’s reach so was on guard) and he revealed something I really don’t think was a good move.

“I don’t care how many arses I have to kiss. I’ll do it.” he told me.

That was the crux of his career right there. And from then on, I could see how he tried to make friends with senior managers and keep his own manager sweet as well as the department head. Generally, it didn’t work too well because he wasn’t mature enough to hold a deep and meaningful conversation with adults. So, he resorted to being the office idiot. When I watched The Big Lebowski for the first time, I realised this guy modelled himself exactly like Jeff Bridges. The attitude, tone of voice and, for the most part, the attire. It was insane how close this guy was to inhabiting the character. And he did sort of bumble his way into things. This kind of worked for him but, ultimately, no one took him seriously so no real work went his way. What worked more in his favour was getting a haircut and changing his attitude. He started coming in on time and wasn’t trying to be quite as pally with his manager but more showing he could take orders and see them through. In short, he either decided to become a competent worker or, I suspect more likely, to be competent at rimming.

What I learned about this person was that we wasn’t particularly good at networking in a corporate environment. In general, he wasn’t that good to talk to. Not enough variety of conversation.

And that’s a key component of building a wide-reaching network. Not just being able to talk about a variety of subjects but to have thoughts and opinions on them too. It allows people to find common ground with you which, in turn, may lead to admiration, respect, friendship and so on.

The ability to create a network makes many aspects of life much easier. A loving family will support and guide you no matter what. A good group of friends will share in your worst moments and celebrate in your best. A set of well-selected colleagues will make your life at work much more bearable especially when the proverbial hits the fan.

Knowing who to go to in a given circumstance is a key strategy for personal growth and maturity. You can have all the knowledge, talent, skills and resourcefulness going but they mean nothing if you don’t know someone who can provide a channel. Imagine if Lewis Hamilton didn’t know where his car went for repairs and maintenance. Or if Serena Williams didn’t know who supplied her gear. It would make them look pretty ignorant and arrogant since they have to work with those people to ensure they perform at their best.

Let’s go two or three decades back. Imagine if their parents never cared enough to seek out ways to get their talented children a shot on the world stage? We’d be deprived of two of the best athletes the world has seen.

Or imagine if Bruce Dickinson decided not to meet manager Rod Smallwood at a tent during a festival where they discussed him joining Iron Maiden as the new frontman. The band would have likely never made it out of the 80’s. Instead, they became one the biggest bands on the planet.

The point I’m making here is that your connections help determine your path. We’re told that the main reason people leave their jobs is because of poor culture and poor managers. It’s true but the reason it’s true is lack of connection. If you don’t feel like you belong to a place, you end up isolated and wayward. Lack of a good, supportive network can send people on dark and lonely paths and because they’re not in the network, no one sees them so it can get worse unless they bump into someone else who happens to have gone astray. And, depending on how they got astray, will help determine if that person forges a positive connection or continues alone and unconcerned for.

A network of people offers a mirror of yourself. You look at other people and you know why you get on with them. Because they have a piece of something that’s already within you. And vice versa for them. Our network represents us no matter how big or small.

And how you go about creating one is down to the final attribute.

Smart

This is the big kahuna. If the previous attributes were all weapons this would be John Wick.

To me, being smart is not about intelligence as many people seem to think. If that were true, all the intelligent people would be in far better places than they already are. Academics would be running the show and not politicians. Education would be of a far higher standard and…

Education. That reminds me. I read a BBC article (This one – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46019429) last year and I wasn’t surprised with its findings. The article says that there’s an increasing number of medical students who lack dexterity. Tasks like sewing fabric or cutting wood which were traditionally taught at home or at school are no longer done so. This led to a generation who didn’t really know how to use their hands ergo the students had to be taught these skills first before being taught how to sew tissue or cut through bone.

Intelligent people yet not so smart. The smart thing for them to do would be to have learned these skills ahead of time which, in turn, would have saved valuable time being used training said skills and teaching the skills they’re supposed to really learn.

Smart is being prepared so you can be more efficient when it comes to doing a particular task.

Smart is knowing the levels of all your other attributes and knowing which one to use and when. If you have an attractive personality but are also assertive, a smart person would use their personality more when at a party. Vice versa when in the office negotiating a deal. A not so smart person would suck at both.

Let’s take musicians. Many of them know that they’d never be where they are if it weren’t for talent. They knew they had it and were smart enough to work on it. They gave up all other pursuits and submitted themselves only to the music; They worked with what they had available be it cheap instruments, a garage or someone’s basement; They worked on the music and nothing but the music; They worked on making music they wanted to play but also people wanted to listen to; They drew in other people to get them listening to it; They made connections with the right people to get shows so more people could hear their music; And they let everyone around them know what was going so they could collaborate on all aspects of the music.

That example there shows all attributes being used and you can apply that to pretty much any scenario involving someone you think is successful or is on their way to success.

No matter what you think of Trump, he was smart enough to get himself elected. How it happened, we may never fully know but you don’t get the White House without being smart. I’m not going to turn this section into a vehicle for hating on Trump but you do have to hand it to him. The opportunity was there and it was taken.

He may not be the most articulate, humble, diplomatic or respectful leader but he was elected at a time when America wanted some real change and the Democrat candidate wasn’t convincing enough. So, for Trump, it was probably the best time to run for office.

Where was I headed with this last section? Oh, yes. Utilising your best attributes is a sign of being smart. Part of this, I believe, comes from the fact that we, as a species, have outgrown our environment. We went and created one of our own and so I use the term ‘smart’ in a holistic and evolutionary sense. In the way the smartphone has gone beyond the ability of making and receiving phone calls. It can still do that but it can do a heap of other stuff too.

We have gone beyond our relatively simple purposes. Yes, we still need to eat, breathe, drink, reproduce, sleep, etc but we do it now in a very different way than we used to. The bar was raised. We, in almost every sense, separated ourselves from our animal kin. They are no longer the competition. We are.

And it’s only really been in the last few centuries that we’ve been competing against each other. The fights started out over land, food, water and people. Then, when we could build, we fought over property.

Since there hasn’t been a conflict like WWII in over 70 years, we’ve had to compete in new ways and these attributes are becoming more and more crucial. People on decent wages are having to fight over where to live because people with property to sell charge higher prices than is perhaps reasonable.

We compete for jobs and have to show we’re driven, passionate, determined and innovative.

We even compete over popularity now. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Youtube are the platforms we use to determine whether to follow you or not regardless of whether your content’s any good or not.

Yes, to some extent, we’ve always done that but generally there was real meaning behind it. You’d follow a particular faith because you believed it would take you on a better path. You followed a company because it would give you security for life. You’d dedicate your life to a cause because it was a vocation and not because it looked good on your CV. Now, companies demand loyalty and commitment upfront which makes the competition even harder.

It would seem that thinking only about ourselves is a misguided notion to believing we’re making the smart choice.

Wrong.

By not being smart and utilising our attributes effectively, I believe we’re heading for a lot of uncertainty. If anything, I think we’re reaching a level where our artificial structures are starting to fail. Take the US presidential campaign and the UK referendum on the EU. In both instances, we had people desperate for change who voted for uncertainty over nothing. That’s a scary prospect and I think it will have a number of repercussions.

A big contributor to the respective political situations has come from people in positions of great power and influence with access to vast resources thinking they can play another game. They are thinking they can be above the selection process and it’s backfiring. Why? They’re not submitting to the will of their people; They’re not popular in any real way; They abuse the funds the people have handed over through taxation; They are wasting resources rather than being prudent, efficient and clever with them; They are not being clear in what they tell the people; And they are abusing any and all networks to cover themselves and cast themselves in a better light.

Go on. Apply those attributes to those two very current situations and tell me how you don’t get failure. What’s going on there isn’t smart. It’s dumb. Horrendously so. Painfully true as well.

Another problem with not being smart is that, if you have one, some or all of those attributes and you don’t use them then you’re not just a liability to others but you’re a liability to yourself. If you have the raw materials for success then go and refine them and turn them into an asset.

Take the character Forrest Gump. He wasn’t intelligent but he was smart. He built an influential network of people who were genuinely invested in him as a person. He did communicate clearly and he put himself through an awful lot which drew him a big following. The culmination of which saw Forrest being given a lot of money from his share in the investment of Apple Computers. He used that money to renovate his local church, build a medical centre for Bubba whilst giving Bubba’s family enough money to never have to work again. And he did these because he knew he wanted to.

These are smart decisions because he gave back to those who gave him what he needed to get to where he eventually arrived. From what I can recall of the character, he had six of the nine attributes (Money, Assertion, Network, Submission, Communication and Attractiveness) and made as best use of them as he could.

I want to end with this. The reason I called this ‘Artificial Selection’ is because we have subverted the natural order. People who have been placed differently in the natural world are able to get higher in our world. That’s great if you have a disability because you can achieve more of your potential as opposed to being left to suffer and wither. But what about those who may be less deserving of their place? They can use the world to their advantage to hide, plot and manipulate. The natural world is cruel but fair. You have to be strong to survive. In our world? Not so much.

The former CEO of RBS, Fred Goodwin, was able to get that spot through greed, narcissism and egotistical agendas. He was anti-social and, if you read the book ‘Shredded’ by Ian Fraser, you’ll learn he treated the banks’ resources like his own. Such a thing can only happen in a world where all the components can be moulded to fit your purpose. True, he had money, a network, a clear trajectory, intelligence, was articulate but the two main attributes missing for his role were attractiveness and submission. Being reclusive and controlling didn’t make him popular with shareholders, investors or clients. I believe these are two key attributes that make a great CEO and, with them missing, played a major role into why Fred Goodwin caused RBS to collapse and take ten years to turn a profit.

And that’s the problem. The mechanics of our world are human. The stock market is driven by emotion. If a favourable announcement is made, market sentiment pushes the value up to reflect excitement. A less favourable announcement pushes it down out of fear or panic. The stock market, like humans, is irrational and thus responds accordingly.

So, if we are to succeed whether individually or collectively, we must utilise our attributes as best we can.

As the saying goes, ‘Keep It Simple Stupid.’

Now, that would be smart.

Artificial Selection Redux: Part 2

by

0

In the second part of this blog, I will be going over the next two attributes I think we need in order to be selected for success.

Submission

It may sound contradictory but submission is an extremely useful behaviour to have in our man-made environment. Trade, debate, favours, negotiation, collaboration, conversation, hospitality all involve submission to varying degrees. What submission teaches is compromise and it promotes harmony because every transaction is mutually beneficial and is either redeemed now or later in the future through delayed gratification.

In romantic relationships, emotional availability is a key component to healthy interactions between both partners. If one or neither submits their feelings or is willing to give themselves for the good of the other then the relationship is in serious trouble or doomed to fail

Arguably, the most successful political regimes are submissive ones where an appointed or an elected leader must carry out their duty with the good of their country and their people at the forefront. They should not be there to run their own agenda. That would be domination because power, resources, influence, etc is being taken away with nothing being given in return. The only place, in my view, where we should be seeing domination is in sport. That’s where the art of competition comes alive and we want to see the battle between two sides to see which one comes out on top. It’s thrilling and exciting but that behaviour, if used outside of sport, comes with terrible consequences.

Going back to submissive regimes for a moment, if you look at monarchies, they married into other royal houses. This was, typically, the most successful way to expand and strengthen a kingdom. One family would submit a female member to a prince or king so they could produce an heir and, in return, they would get land, titles, maybe money, and the protection of the realm. Hence one act of submission (gain of a fertile princess or queen) results in another (gain of wealth and protection). A trade is done because the prince or king knows they can (excuse me for making this sound inhuman. I’m breaking the example down to base level components) create something better with the new element than it would be able to on its own. In other words, with his chosen female, he knows he can create a better kingdom.

In democratic nations, we can take the progression of each one and compare against those under tyrannical rule or dictatorship. For the most part, a democracy will allow a person to choose where they live, where they are educated, where they work, where they socialise, shop, etc. They are given civil liberties and social freedoms. Their views can be expressed (submission) but they cannot be forced upon others (domination) as other people are entitled to their views. The same cannot be said under tyranny or dictatorship. From what I’ve reasonably observed, people in these regimes are told what to say, what they cannot say, where to go, when they should be at home, where they can work, where they can be educated, etc. In others words, dominant societies end up oppressing, suppressing, repressing and depressing their people. They cannot express themselves how they’d like and they cannot do as they please. This causes anger but that anger cannot be expressed because of a larger, overshadowing emotion.

Fear.

Dominance brings about fear. Usually, a fear of loss whether that be land, property, income, family or your own life. Being dominated (in the truest sense) creates a lot of fear which creates a lot of stress and people who are stressed don’t function well. But that’s fine if you’re a dictator or tyrant because you want control of all the people, land, property, resources and wealth anyway. Your country, in turn, won’t do very well. Just look at Africa. How many billions in aid has been sent over the last thirty years? It should have made a significant difference but it hasn’t. Yes, those countries are improving but not at the rate they should have. Part of the reason is financial domination. The corrupt governments take the money and either use it to buy weapons and drugs to sell on the black market or…they invest it back into the countries that gave them the money; Make money on the world’s stock exchanges and become even richer without having to spend a penny of their own cash.

Take families. If parents don’t submit themselves to being a parent then the child will grow up neglected. That neglect will likely manifest into fear which, as they get older, usually turns into resentment and anger. That’s dangerous. The same happens in romantic relationships. Devotion and commitment are submission in different forms and we all know that you must invest (another form) in order to make a relationship grow and flourish. Same can be said for so many things.

In democratic nations, people are generally more relaxed and able to enjoy life more. For the most part, this culminates in improved productivity hence its generally democratic nations that are currently the wealthiest and most powerful. Why? I would say because by submitting a large part of control to the people, they will feel more thankful. This, in turn, creates loyalty which is another form of submission. As the saying goes, ‘You scratch my back, I scratch yours.’ Like any healthy relationship, there must be give and take. Anyone who’s had a controlling partner will know the amount of trauma and stress that comes with such a person.

But the relationships aren’t always that clear. Take the current Brexit goings-on here in the UK. The government performed an act of submission by allowing the people to vote on whether to stay in or leave the EU because there was enough demand for it. The people voted to leave and, for the last three years, the UK government, from what can be seen, has not successfully submitted itself to the will of its people. Instead, it looks like it’s trying to dominate the people by not delivering what was voted for. The result? Chaos. The UK government is falling over itself partly due to too many small agendas. Whilst we will probably never know what they are, we have a good idea that most people who enter politics now rarely do so with the good of the people at heart. Why bother with that when there’s money, power, influence and a level of non-accountability to be gained?

Brexit is a great example of the submission practice or, rather, lack of it. The general unwillingness of the electorate to see through what was voted for is the government effectively telling its people their vote doesn’t matter. And yet, their attempts to dominate proceedings are failing as well because they’re showing the world that the fifth most powerful government in the world cannot act as one cohesive unit regardless of personal feelings.

I could meander into the current US administration but I think I’ll leave that for another post.

Perhaps, the most egregious example of dominance is Hitler. His hatred of ‘imperfection’ led him to want to dominate the world and eradicate any and all people that didn’t fall under his view of perfection. If you didn’t fit his model for the ‘Arian Race’ you were hunted and killed.

In fact, the Second World War was perhaps the last major effort of one group making a concerted effort to force all others into their way of thinking and living.

I say that because it was the last effort of intentionally trying to dominate the world. Nowadays, things are quieter. More subtle. More sinister. Terrorism had a go but the organisations are too small, too poorly organised and not well funded or equipped enough to make a real dent on the Western World – 9/11 aside. They cause upset and panic but, in reality, they’ve had little effect. So little that we don’t really hear about them now.

Fundamentally, submission is the path of least resistance to success. I don’t mean material gains because you don’t need those to feel successful.

Let’s look at this from a more unconventional viewpoint. In the world of BDSM, it’s quite common for a ‘submissive’ to visit a ‘dominant’ to have their bodies used in any way they see fit. But who has the real control? Yes, the dominant is using and abusing the submissive in a variety of ways but who asked for it? Who encourages it? Who says it’s OK? Who has the safeword? The submissive. Hence, in this context, the idea of submission allows that person to get exactly what they want. A person relinquishes control over to the ‘domme’ and, in exchange, they get their wildest fantasies fulfilled. But if they don’t give in then the experience isn’t fun for either party.

To end this section, I want you to think about this. Think about the most successful person you know. They don’t have to be rich or famous. At least not on the world stage. Could be a neighbour, friend, colleague, family member, etc. What did they do to get the car they wanted or the house or the loving family or the fantastic lifestyle or the self-sufficient business?

Work.

They gave themselves over to work. They submitted their skills, talents, knowledge, personality and expertise in exchange for something they wanted and they got it because they kept submitting.

Let’s flip that around and imagine they dominated. They’d most likely not have any of what they wanted because they’re mindset would narrow. They might tell themselves that they’re ‘too good’ for where they are but won’t make the effort to improve. But then, they’d only do that for the ‘right’ people or place. We’ve all met people like that. Those who like to be grander than they are. They have the ideas but not the inclination or conviction. ‘Something’ always gets in the way.

The problem?

That word again. Fear.

They dominate their own minds because they are scared of either success or failure just from the thought of trying. An act of submission takes real courage because you don’t know the outcome. To give yourself over to an idea, a person or a group takes a lot of faith and trust in who or whatever is on the other side.

And if history has taught us anything about tyrants and dictators, it’s that, deep down, they were afraid and so they sought to control.

And history also tells us – it never works.

Communication

A major reason why submission is so scary is lack of communication. Whether it’s lack of will or means, poor communication stops things progressing because communication is how we transact information. How can you give yourself over to something or someone if you’re unsure of their intentions?

Clear and concise exchanges are needed to ensure we’re all of the same understanding and in agreement regardless of the context. If we don’t know what’s going on then how are we going to know what to do?

I’ll take myself as an example. My partner and I do have some communication problems. She tends to miss out important details and I tend to not ask for them thinking she’s given me all I need to know. Last year, we went to a wedding and all she kept saying was things like “When we go to Dumfries…” or “When we’re in Dumfries…”.

So, to my mind, the wedding was in Dumfries. When we set off, I was given a Dumfries postcode so all things pointed to Dumfries. As we got 16 miles out, my satnav kept telling me to turn off the main road. I ignored it as I hadn’t updated it and kept going.

We maybe travelled three or four miles before my girlfriend pointed out we were going the wrong way. My satnav had been correct all along.

I turned round and went back to the nearest junction where my satnav previously told me to turn off the main road. We drove through a few hamlets until we reached the hamlet of Tynron. My satnav showed our destination as being a house at the corner of a junction. After we parked up, met our host and got settled, I remember being a bit annoyed. I had been under the impression that Dumfries was our location when it wasn’t. It was a hamlet in Dumfries and Galloway. The county not the town.

That episode was a fairly minor thing but it’s something that happens all too often in our relationship. Small but important details get missed and it results in something happening that could have easily been avoided. All through not having been clear and articulating exactly what is meant.

I learned my lesson. My girlfriend doesn’t do geography or navigation so, as the driver in the relationship, I get all details ahead of time so I can plan my route. We have less trouble as a result.

And so, communication is a vital element in success. A clear message that can be easily read and understood can make the difference between life and death and clear any unnecessary frustration and stress.

Being as crystal clear as possible will make you more efficient in all areas of life which, in turn, will make you more successful. The ability to articulate in simple terms is highly valued. It makes you easy to understand but also easy to talk to. From my own observations, this is why I believe highly educated and talented people who can ‘talk to the common man’ are more attractive (i.e. more popular) than those who can’t or won’t. By being able to engage in conversation with people at all levels whether they’re a CEO, retired gardener, supermarket assistant or a celebrity, if you can talk to all of them at their respective levels then you will create better connections which may prove useful later on.

Communication is a direct reflection of who a person is at a given point in time. How they do it gives you an indication of their internal workings. Of course, we can’t know exactly how a person thinks (until someone invents brain hacking then we’re in trouble) but their way of communicating gives us an idea.

Conversely, how a person receives and interprets a message also says a lot about the next attribute which you can read about next time.

Artificial Selection Redux

by

0

Last week’s post was supposed to be about the mechanisms that we, Man, have created and how they are being utilised when it comes to picking the best members of our species to climb up the proverbial ladder.

The reason why I’m doing this unintended follow-on is that I don’t think last week’s instalment did a good job of getting my point across.

To be clear, these are my thoughts and opinions based on observations and identifying patterns from those observations. I’ll be using some examples throughout.

Referring to the last post, I do believe there are a number of mechanisms at play, whether by design or circumstance, which are there to only allow certain people through the echelons of society. I’m going to be discussing these in the context of a workplace environment. I’ll start with the big one:

Money.

Money is an artificial resource that we created to make trading easier. Rather than exchanging stone, metal, wood, etc for, say, fabrics, gunpowder and alcohol, we created a system that allowed for these things to be represented in a way that makes a trade far easier. Instead of hauling several tons of material only for a trade to fail, it’s a damned sight easier for two people to meet somewhere with their respective notes and coins to discuss terms. Once an agreement is made, the materials are exchanged at a later date.

Money also allowed for intangible qualities to be priced. Labour, skill, talent and knowledge could all be paid for without the need for a person to have to move large amounts of precious goods. Or, indeed, destroy They’d hand over their note from the benefactor and the proprietor would bill them accordingly.

The result of this ease of use has proven invaluable over the centuries. Nowadays, we carry all our money in a wallet or on an app. Financial transactions can be completed in seconds compared to weeks or months centuries ago.

So, what’s the reason for money being here?

It’s a resource and resources are judged as a means of power and influence. It’s one reason why there’s a rich list published every year and there are stock exchanges. They all measure the value, represented by money, of an individual or company. That value determines the influence they have over people, economies, governments and countries. How else could Apple or Facebook be able to snub the British and American governments? They have so much more money than they do. That fact alone is enough for them to absolve themselves of any accountability they may have.

It’s a scary and sobering thought that companies can be so big they can dismiss the very organisation that governs them. Apple makes consumer technology – phones, tablets, desktops, earphones, etc and yet…and yet, they are now more powerful than the U.S. government.

On the other end of the scale, not having a lot of money is also a measure. It’s a measure that you may not be a responsible person regardless of how much or how little you earn. How you use that money will help determine your value in society and with family, friendships and romantic relationships. Too frugal and you’ll be seen as paranoid or a cheapskate. Too generous and people will start to think all manner of things especially if your income stream/s don’t back up your lifestyle.

When I was working at the headquarters of a major UK bank, (which I’ll call ‘Retail Bank HQ’ herein) there was one person who joined our team that had people questioning (not always literally but their faces said everything) how this person was able to afford their lifestyle.

Picture this: late-twenties male wearing at least £500 worth of suit, shirt, tie and shoes to work. Every. Day. Drives an Audi S7 (on lease) with a spec that brought its market value to around £70k. Pays an expensive subscription for a gym which he, allegedly, went to every day yet still had a gut.

Last time I spoke to him, he was bragging about how he spends £800 a month on fuel and that he wants to buy a Bugatti Veyron. A previous conversation I had with him revealed that his ‘uncle’ gave him an old Triumph motorbike which, once he’d sorted it, would fetch him £10k.

Now, all that talk would be fine if he was a £300 plus per day contractor or earning upwards of £80k on a salary. Everything except the Veyron, that is.

But he wasn’t. This guy was on £35k. People knew roughly what he was on and I found out exactly. When I did, I had a lot of questions as, no doubt, did many others. Is there a family trust fund? Is he racking up heaps of debt? Does he have a legitimate/illegitimate business on the side? Senior managers weren’t behaving anywhere like that and they would have the means by which to do so, if they chose.

His reason was always that he got a ‘good deal’. If that was true then he was taking all the ‘good ‘deals’ he could could get. In a big, open-plan office, it won’t get you many friends.

It didn’t.

At a team Christmas lunch, we were presented with another ‘good deal’. Incidentally, my colleague got our manager as his Secret Santa. Now, the budget was £10 as it really just a bit of fun. But this guy got our manager a watch that was easily over £100!

“I used a lot of vouchers.” was his defence. What didn’t help was that, rather than hand it back, my manager accepted it. From that point on, in secret, my colleague was officially dubbed a ‘brown-noser’.

Something that may, just may, have allowed such brazen behaviour to slide would be if we was actually good at his job.

He wasn’t. He was pretty terrible.

In the end, he left the team because he ‘didn’t enjoy it’ but he made the wild assumption that he was well liked in the department.

His farewell?

He had booked a venue for the entire department, which was fifty-plus people. He didn’t send out an e-mail to everyone to see how many people would turn up then book the venue. He just booked it.

How many turned up?

None.

Did he learn a lesson? No. To give some perspective, the Christmas lunch was 2014, he left the team in 2015 and the last conversation I had with him took place in October 2018.

I heard he’s started a car leasing business. I wish him well.

Now, taking advantage of deals is a good way of improving wealth. The middle and upper classes have doing this for generations. How often does the Queen by a new car? Furniture? These classes invest in items that they, ideally, only need to buy once. Property, furniture, land, cars, clothes – if it’s bought, paid for and still works then it’s kept. If they don’t need to spend money, they won’t.

But for those who aren’t as financially savvy, they are prime targets for capitalism. Companies will be stumbling over themselves to get you to buy a new phone every year, lease a car every three years and rent a property instead of buy one.

The end result?

We have people constantly paying for things they don’t need and never able to save for anything important. Holidays are more frequently borrowed on credit card instead of saved for. Brides are not having one but two hen parties now – one at home and one abroad. Speaking of brides, in the UK, the average cost of their weddings is now £30k. On one day? ONE…DAY!

For that, you can buy a very decent second-hand car outright or have yourself a fairly substantial mortgage deposit. Thirty grand for a wedding is absolutely ludicrous!

And the people who will be having these weddings will be the ones who don’t have a clue how to use money. They’ll take a wedding loan (they exist), rack up huge credit card bills and either beg or borrow from parents.

All because they want a ‘perfect’ day?

Grow up. Please. Spending your first few years of married life in debt is not a healthy scenario. If a couple then chose to start a family, the financial burden increases even if both partners are working.

We are living in an ever increasingly materialistic world where people, for some reason, feel they must spend to obtain items because they believe these items equal a good life. Fancy cars, lavish holidays, lush weddings, eating out more often than not, buying new clothes every month. The list goes on.

People are becoming less and less concerned with what money actually means and the result is they are feeding themselves to the capitalist sharks.

As I said at the start, money is a resource and as such, it is also a tool. You don’t need lots to have a good life. You just need to know what to do with it which brings me neatly to my next attribute.

Resourcefulness

Having money as one resource to then buy other resources is one thing. Being able to create a resource from disregarded elements? That’s alchemy.

Take Sir James Dyson. He built his first bagless vacuum cleaner from spare parts from places you wouldn’t associate with domestic cleaning. An industrial sawmill was one such place. He started his quest in 1979. In 1995, his vacuum was the best selling brand in the UK. In 2019, he’s the fifth richest Brit and a long-established household name. But back in the eighties, he was deemed mad and was pushing very near the poverty line. No one else could see what he could see bar his wife but, as an engineer who went to art school, he had the vision and ability to cobble together something that has been the standard for over twenty years.

How he did that involves other qualities I’ll discuss later. Let’s stay on topic.

The ability to make something useful from very little is a reflection of deep knowledge, understanding and imagination. These are very powerful tools particularly in times of crises. If something’s broken and there are no tools to fix it, if you’re the person who can fix it with the equivalent of candlewax, blu-tac, gaffer tape and a shoestring, your value just went up. If you can continue doing it, your value keeps going up. If you can do it under immense pressure and keep your cool you’re practically a master sorcerer. People will be in awe of your abilities. Some will be jealous only because of their disappointment in themselves, mind you, but they’ll be jealous nonetheless.

Assertiveness

Never should be but often is confused with aggression. There are similarities between the two but you should never really have to be aggressive to be assertive. If you do, you’re not very good at it.

Being assertive is knowing what you want, forming a strategy on how you’re going to get what you want, executing that strategy and letting nothing and no one distract you from your target once you’ve locked it in.

That’s it. Many people, however, have a tough time trying to assert themselves at different points in their life. Some people overthink things, some overfeel and some don’t do enough of the previous two. Part of the problem, and it seems to be a growing one, is people struggle to focus.

Earlier this week, I was at a Rob Zombie gig and the man himself had to take a few moments and ask the audience to put their cellphones away!

That should never have to happen.

The ticket was £35 and he was good value but why, oh, why would you pay for a gig, turn up then not watch the act but record it or photograph it instead? That’s another blog but it’s related to my point. I don’t think people really know what to do at gigs anymore. It’s like expressing yourself is an alien concept so best take a video and a few pictures to internalise later.

YOU’RE THERE! The artist is in front of you and you can’t do them the courtesy of expressing your enjoyment? That’s just bizarre and a complete waste of their talent and time. The guy is on tour from the United States and the best you can do is hold a phone up to him? Sod off!

And this behaviour is linked to lack of assertion because if you can’t decide how to express yourself in a live music setting in your own spare time then you’re screwed in all other parts of life.

If you don’t know what to do, say, feel, think or act in a given situation, you’re useless. The statement/question ‘Are you a man or a mouse?’ is very apt for a lot of people and what I mean by that is, in the sense of utility, are you capable or are you not? By ‘Man’, I refer to a person who knows who they are and what they can bring to the table. By ‘mouse’, I refer to someone who hasn’t got a clue but is nice to have around. Like a pet. Harmless but good company. Guard dogs are not pets. They have a job and they know it. My girlfriend’s cat? As lovely as he is, he’s extremely placid and timid. Initially, as a test but now as play-time, whenever I chase him, he runs under the bed. I pretend wrestle with him – he allows it. He shouldn’t allow it. He should be telling me it’s not acceptable and giving me a warning. I’m concerned about how far I’d have to go before he stops tolerating it.

Attractiveness

Being attractive doesn’t just mean how good you look but it’s a major factor. From an evolutionary standpoint attractiveness is an indicator of the quality of genes you carry therefore the more attractive you’re deemed to be, the better your chances of mating.

Attractiveness can be looked like a pyramid. At the bottom, you have the foundation levels of status and health. Physical attraction is often linked to health and serves as a fairly good indicator on whether your genes are strong. Status serves as an indicator of your value within a community. This can be measured by your job, the possessions you have and visual markers.

Your visual markers can be interlinked with health. If you look good, smell good and move strongly then not only are you more likely to look like you take care yourself but you will also project an air of confidence.

Now, confidence is part of status namely your internal status and it’s a representation of two other key factors within that – Skills and your belief system whilst your external status is what others can see i.e, job, possessions, etc.

The thing with confidence is that it’s the result of the other two internal status factors. If you believe you can do something and you go and put the time and effort in, you’ll end up skilled in that activity. Knowing what you’re capable of is what confidence is all about and in so many scenarios, there are very capable people who do not have this confidence.

Why might that be?

Part of the reason comes down to insecure, paranoid and less capable people. These people will be aggressive when protecting their positions in the workplace. They will recognise almost straight away when someone is better than them and they will resort to all manner of nasty tactics to shut that person down.

I can personally attest to this. In my most recent job, we had a new Head of Product Operations join the company. I’ll call him…Dave.

Dave is about twenty years my senior and much more experienced than I am. However, Dave had no real confidence. For such a senior member of staff, he struggled to talk to a room full of junior staff and mid to senior level people. He was nervous. He stumbled over words and he was very quiet. He does not have a physically commanding presence as he’s short and rakish but doesn’t compensate for it in personality. His internal status was poor and so was his external status. He didn’t dress like the head of anything and came to work either by bike (which I don’t believe is a real indicator of status) or by van which wasn’t in the best of conditions.

For sure, given the office had a casual dress code, most people did wear more comfortable clothing. Even in that kind of setup, it’s clear who the senior people are. Their many more years experience shines through. They take the lead, ask the questions, guide the juniors, etc.

Not Dave.

Dave sat at his desk on calls and barely interacted with anyone. He was the complete opposite of the Vice President of Products (I’ll call him…Bob) who was loud, animated, sociable and interested in what people were doing. He was as you might expect a senior staff member to be. Within my first few weeks, I developed a good working relationship with Bob.

As this was a new job for me, I was wary of how I should present myself. I took the train and avoided taking my car (a 2012 crystal blue Jaguar XF) for two reasons: One – the car wasn’t bought for the purpose of commuting but for the enjoyment of driving. Two – I didn’t want to turn up in a car that would easily outshine everything else in the car park regardless of the fact it’s seven years and a diesel and I didn’t pay a lot for it.

I wore my Ted Baker suit (John Lewis clearance sale because I avoid full price at all costs but like to look professional and stylish) for two weeks then resorted to casual clothes. I had to buy a bundle of long sleeve t-shirts to hide my tattoos. In my previous role, there was no issue with my having tattoos but I had established myself there by the time I got them. I was also a contractor so not bound by the same rules as permanent members of staff.

I wanted my new colleagues to feel emotionally attracted to me which is the third level of the pyramid. If I dressed and travelled more like they did, then they would feel more comfortable around me and therefore trust me more. I could speak their language and engage in their conversations so, very quickly, I was made to feel at home. Doubly so when I allowed certain parts of my personality through because people don’t want to see a facade. They’ll know something’s up and stop trusting you which will lead to discomfort all round. But, at the same time, I didn’t reveal absolutely everything about myself in one go either. People need to be able to unravel the layers over time. They like the mystery of unwrapping the intriguing person.

My new role was a permanent contract and I was officially a mid-senior member of staff. Too advanced to be junior but not long enough in the tooth to be full senior. As such, I wanted to conduct myself differently. I’d moved from finance systems role in a bank of 90,000 people worldwide to a business analyst role in a software company of just 300. Part of why I took the job was because I thought I could help this small company grow by bringing some big company thinking.

That was my thought and it was my mistake.

When Dave had a one-to-one (I really do not enjoy corporate speak) with me, he went over his grand plan for the Products team. I showed interest and support in this vision. Even made some suggestions as a means of collaboration.

Initially, this went well.

Another discussion and I was asked for what I wanted to achieve in the company.

I explained that, over the next few years, I’d want to gain knowledge in each industry sector the company operated in. That would allow me to identify common traits in each so we could develop a platform that would speed up development of client products.

Again, this seemed to go well. It didn’t.

In a further meeting with Dave and my Line manger (I’ll call her…Sue), I was told that I’d ‘fail at my job’ for taking on such a task and that it was ‘impossible’. He hadn’t heard this was my plan for over the next few years. I had a job to do right now and that’s what I was doing.

But Dave positioned this like what I was doing was not my job. He wanted Sue to see this. I didn’t stand for it but I couldn’t retaliate how I wanted. It would have seen me out the door faster.

The company flew in a new Product Manager from Canada. His specialism was Oil and Gas and had over twenty years experience. Both my Line Manager and Dave brought me into a meeting with him so we could discuss Product Management since myself, my line manager and Dave were the only members of the Products team. We were a three-piece band needing a drummer since no one had a beat.

Before the meeting, I had brushed up on my product management knowledge since I had some experience at ‘Retail Bank HQ’. Being a quick study, I was able to devise a mental template and mix it with my previous experience in order to learn it better.

In the meeting itself, Dave referred to me as a ‘Product Owner’ which I found odd. Nothing in my CV or past experience suggested that. Even the current role didn’t match that title. I dismissed it as a slip of the tongue.

I should have known better.

As the meeting continued, I found myself talking on terms with the Product Manager. I’ll call him…Jim.

From the outset, you’d think Jim and I had worked together for a number of years. In my head, I thought I was displaying great adaptability, intelligence and confidence in front of Dave and Sue. All three stages of attraction discussed so far were very much on show.

What I thought was a good meeting seemed to be a turning point. From then on, things started to become more difficult.

I remember one Friday afternoon, Dave asked me what I was doing at the weekend. I explained I was going to write some more of my book. He asked what it was about and I gave him the brief. He didn’t look interested like most people would. He didn’t seem to think it was cool. He didn’t talk about his weekend plans.

He looked disgusted. And scared.

Can’t say I’ve had that reaction before. It was subtle but his eyes said everything. That seemed to push him over the edge. At that point, I started looking for a new job.

On the rare occasions I took my car in to work, I made no mention it was mine. I would get in early so no one could see me get out of it and I tried to leave before or after the main the rush in the evening so, hopefully, no one saw me leave in it. It happened a couple of times then I met a couple of fellow car enthusiasts in the office – One who drove a lovely black, mark one Mercedes CLS and another who drove a Honda Civic Type-S. Once we got chatting, I thought I was safe to talk about the Jag.

Nope.

When that got out, the mood from management changed even further. I don’t even think it was intentional on the part of colleagues. Probably said in passing. These guys are developers, after all. They code all day and that’s what they love doing. Social conventions and nuances aren’t considered.

Management, on the other hand, are all about the social aspects. It provides information and information is power.

Another meeting was had. This time with the brand new (note, this company has a lot of people in it who have served for less than a year) Quality Assurance manager. I was being moved from being a Business Analyst to being a Quality Assurance Engineer.

Why?

Namely, because the job I was hired for wasn’t there. Instead of working on what I was supposed to (a Joint Venture Accounting product), I was doing tax calculations on a Subcontractor Management product within the construction industry. It had absolutely nothing to do with Finance, Supply Chain Services or Procurement which were the skills and knowledge that were supposed to be getting utilised.

So, having some experience in this field, I went and worked with the new QA manager to devise the methodology since the QA function hadn’t existed in the company before. I then got to devising test cases and scenarios. Problem was, I had limited system access and wasn’t getting any.

One afternoon, I was working from home developing a swim lane diagram (which was really tedious and underutlising me) and the QA manager asked me to come in and bring my laptop.

I knew what was coming.

I got into the office and a final meeting was had. It was with Dave, Sue and the new QA manager. I’ll call him, Sanjeev. I was being let go ten weeks into a permanent role after five solid years as a contractor. The irony didn’t escape me.

There was mention that they felt they didn’t utilise me as well as they could have and that they were, perhaps, too small for someone like me. They didn’t mention that they speculatively hired. I got no apology.

But there was something else lurking that was never touched.

I don’t think Dave liked me.

In my efforts to show how capable I was and what a benefit I could be to the company, I think I ended up being too attractive. And that threatened Dave. It threatened him to the point where he tried to shut me down and when that didn’t work, he removed access to people I needed. First, the Vice President was impossible to get hold of. Sue would only say ‘good morning’ to me, Dave said nothing and Sanjeev seemed to expect me to do all the work in the new QA function.

But Dave went about correcting spelling errors in the word Subcontractor. Not really something I’d expect a senior figure to be doing.

From this experience, I surmised that the car, the suit, the attitude, being able to get something from practically nothing and also my ability to get on with people saw me looking for a new job. Sounds wrong, doesn’t it?

And that’s where the final part of the attraction pyramid comes in. Logic.

Logic is one of the big differences between us and the animals. It’s what allows us to find out if we are compatible with other human beings. Are our short-term and long-term goals aligned? Do we like the same things? Do we have similar personalities? Essentially, logic allows us to determine if we’re going to get on and it does it pretty quickly.

My logic told me I wasn’t in a good place from the start. This was reinforced by a new start who asked me in their first week – ‘Do you ever feel like you’ve a whoopsie?’

He asked me this because three quarters of the attraction pyramid were in agreement but logic, the head honcho, wasn’t buying it.

For me, I should have listened to my logic from the start. The job didn’t exist so I should have left straightaway or, at least, started looking for a new role straightway.

I didn’t. My stubbornness kicked in and willed me to give it a go and see if I could make it work. But other forces were against me because their logic was saying I didn’t fit despite any positive feelings they had, personally.

They did admit that they were too small for me so that was something.

What I also didn’t do was the play the game and that will be where the next post goes as I’m quite aware this one has gone on for some time.