Pensador

Tenemos una gran cantidad de influencers gracias a la facilidad de las redes sociales, pero la calidad se ve afectada. Es tarea de todos autoeducarnos. Todos influimos en alguien, así que si abrimos la boca para decir algo, debería ser con el criterio de un pensador. Un pensador que no necesita doctorados: su mente utiliza la lógica, busca contradicciones, busca diferentes puntos de vista, se pregunta qué pensarían los grandes pensadores —pero sobre todo utiliza un marco de principios y valores—.

Un pensador no es quien tiene las respuestas correctas: es quien hace las preguntas incómodas. Incluyendo las que van dirigidas a sí mismo. Se pregunta: ¿cómo puedo estar de acuerdo con quien se queja, se victimiza, acusa a otros, genera división y odio? ¿No son estos signos de que estoy siendo influenciado e intoxicado con basura? Basura del tipo queja, resentimiento, insulto. Y seguramente lo que escucho de los otros es que solo se quejan y culpan a otros —como si quienes me influencian no hicieran exactamente lo mismo—. Eso creo que es lo que hay que identificar como pensador.

No el tipo de pensador que solo asiente lo que escucha y confirma lo que ya cree. Pensar no en el sentido de ver solo la verdad en lo que te dicen —para que te persuadan—, sino también la falsedad o la verdad a medias, la verdad faltante que cambia la perspectiva. Distinguir, pero no para confrontar dividiendo ni para creerte superior o más despierto que otros. Para construir una sociedad de sabiduría hay que empezar por uno mismo.

Coherent

It is hard to be coherent between what one believes, thinks, says, and does.

We can see it in people who say they believe in God and Jesus — and then speak with hatred about their neighbours, wish harm on others, lie, betray their spouses. Those are the visible things, but it could be even worse knowing what they truly think and believe. Humans also seem to have a defence mechanism that tries to justify their actions — and with justification often comes blame and complaint. They may be attached to the ego.

And it is easier to see this in others than in ourselves. If we want to change, we can start by looking at past events. As we become more aware and try to catch ourselves, we can eventually catch it as it is happening — and stop. That is a kind of training. The next step is to catch it just before — to identify it in the thoughts before they become words or acts. In that way we can reduce the times we blame, justify, and complain. This is important for becoming coherent — and I think it is also part of the path of truth, where wisdom is found.

Modelo

El modelo de Estado se está corrompiendo por la maldad a la que ha llevado el individualismo, que eleva la bandera de la libertad de las oligarquías. Una bandera que parece defender la libertad de todos pero que en realidad es la libertad del pez grande de comerse al pez pequeño sin que nadie lo controle. Y creo que esto tiene su raíz en la codicia —y en el retorcido enfoque de que la maldad lleva a la sabiduría—.

Debe servirnos como aprendizaje que si tenemos como objetivo una sociedad de la sabiduría, debe ser también una sociedad de la hermandad y una sociedad ética. ¿Puede adquirirse sabiduría haciendo el mal? Se adquieren conocimientos, puede mejorarse la inteligencia en el sentido de astucia —que es principalmente malicia disfrazada—. Pero eso niega que pueda alcanzarse sabiduría, o conseguirse resultados desde la bondad y la empatía. Y por eso llegan a decir que la empatía es uno de los mayores males.

La maldad es el camino fácil para alcanzar una aparente sabiduría. Pero como en tantos campos, el camino lento es el que consigue algo verdadero. La sabiduría debe llevarnos a vivir desde una perspectiva de amor —y la maldad no puede llevarnos a ella, porque la maldad carece de amor—.

Guardia

Hay que estar en guardia. Estar en guardia es lo que hace que una especie siga sobreviviendo: cuidarse de depredadores, de ataques de otras tribus, de otros países.

Hay que estar en guardia para prevenir. Y eso ha llevado al mantenimiento preventivo o programado en la gestión de activos —así se reduce la reactividad, el estar, como se dice, apagando fuegos—. En la matriz de Urgente e Importante de Eisenhower, aplicada a la gestión de tareas, se dice que hay que evitar las tareas urgentes. Se debe planificar: pueden ser importantes, pero con planificación dejan de ser urgentes. El tener más tareas reactivas que planificadas se considera una mala gestión —pues no se ha sabido prever ni planificar acorde—.

Puede ser que al inicio de un proyecto o emprendimiento totalmente nuevo e innovador haya que improvisar; pero según se madura, se van creando procesos y estructura. Esto puede verse como burocracia, pero es necesario. Como en tantas cosas, hay que evitar los extremos. Imaginad una línea. En un extremo, el caos puro —improvisación sin estructura—. En el otro, la parálisis burocrática —estructura sin acción—. La gestión inteligente vive en el espacio entre ambos, y mantenerse ahí requiere, precisamente, estar en guardia.

March

When the system only allows you to change your leaders every four years — because the mechanisms for change before that point are out of the hands of the people, or difficult enough to prevent any real change — what is left is people marching in the streets.

Some use violence; others do not, but can be infected by false protesters infiltrated to discredit the march through violence and blame it on the real protesters.

Some people even wear protective equipment and organise themselves as if for a battle, to resist.

Marches are the last resort for people to make their frustration heard. And that should make us think: the system needs to improve. We do not use computers the same way as last century — there are improvements — and that is what the political system needs too.

We need to create better ways to identify people’s frustrations and needs, in order to serve them — not silence or ignore them. Until then, marches will continue, and need to be protected. They also need smart goals.

Fist

In many cultures we are taught not to get into fights or resort to using our fists. Children, in their exploration of the world and its boundaries, use their hands — and may use their fists. There are those who say one way to teach is to let them feel the consequences: if they hit, let them get hit back, so they understand what it feels like — a controlled way of learning. Similarly, if they want to play with fire, just let them touch it briefly; they cry, they learn, and they do not do it again.

Others argue that a better option is to reason with them — or, in the case of toddlers who cannot yet reason like adults, not to laugh and give the wrong feedback, to stop them physically, and even to use a time-out: taking them to another place to associate bad behaviour with being removed from the social environment. It isolates the behaviour, not the child.

Either way, children and adults need to be prepared to deal with different situations and understand that there are different approaches and cultures, and that adapting to context is essential. Discipline only works when the environment enforces it. Remove the environment, add power, and what remains is the unchecked behaviour the discipline was meant to prevent. Because if a child was taught that bad behaviour leads to isolation—but as an adult they are in a position of power where no one stops them, and they are cheered on by their yes-men—then those who were taught to reciprocate, to give back what they receive, might become the only ones who stop them, because they will eventually bite back at those assholes.

Rotten

Something rotten is like a cancer — it rots things around it. If someone has something wrong with their body, there may be many causes, and the solution may require different approaches. Similarly, if someone holds ideas that intoxicate their logic, it can rot their thinking across different contexts.

There is some truth to the idea that in a group of friends, a rotten apple can spoil the others. And that can certainly happen with teenagers who want to belong to a group. But being an adult is not immunity. I think it is more about a developed mind that knows itself well enough — Nietzsche's Übermensch, perhaps — a mind that cannot be rotted by lower ones. There are different levels of villains and heroes, just as there are different levels of rotten apples and developed immunity.

How can we develop immunity? I am thinking — theory and practice both matter here. We need a frame with principles and values — such as the Golden Rule — but more importantly, as experiential beings, we need experience. Some people think that being evil makes them wiser because it gives them more experience — but that is a bit like saying someone needs a religion to behave well. There may be correlation, but not causation.