[FoRK] Where 60 is the New 40

Stephen Williams sdw at lig.net
Sat Apr 7 17:49:07 PDT 2012

On 4/6/12 10:55 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2012, at 10:29 AM, geege schuman wrote:
>> First off, I didn't realize I was living in a "post-crisis" world, but I
>> think this guy makes some much-needed sense.  Or at least a well-supported
>> case.
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/peak-intel-how-so-called-strategic-intelligence-actually-makes-us-dumber/255413/

I've just started watching "House of Lies", which is conveniently available in on-demand from the beginning.  Funny, smart, 
smart-ass, and instructive look at management consulting, i.e. applied strategic intelligence consulting.  It's close enough to 
what I have sometimes done to be interesting, plus it is unconventionally and irreverently sexy.

While it reveals pervasive cynicism and manipulation of marks, it also shows hard work and creativity that sometimes provides 
It is Madmen + Boston Legal for management consulting.

> Summary of a year's worth of news from the article:
> "Our future is now being planned by people who seem to put their emotional comfort ahead of making decisions based on real -- and often uncomfortable -- information."

This is clearly too true in many cases.  And it applies in various ways both in business and politics.
This might be the essence of what really good business decision makers avoid vs. everyone else.  Steve Jobs vs. Leo Apotheker or 
Stephen Elop (assuming he wasn't an explicit shill, which I think is a weak assumption).

In politics, everyone maybe thinks this applies to the "other", although the very nature of conservatism is to bravely and/or 
foolishly favor the status quo (or a romanticized earlier quo) at all costs while progressivism seeks to bravely and/or 
foolishly change to improve things.  It is assumed that progressives are acting reckless of the facts because of some imputed 
unnatural emotional comfort.  The fact is, change of any kind has unintended consequences.  Even designing changes that rely on 
conservative principles exposes you to unexplored territory.  And, in many cases, even inaction is a choice with consequences in 
the face of an ever-changing world.

Any time you reason and decide in a myopic, handicapped fashion, for whatever ideological or insecure or taste-based reasons, 
you will at the very least be uncompetitive and inefficient.  And you'll likely eventually meet with disaster.

Another genetics-tendencies article:

Comment links to an article I hadn't seen circa the last general election:


> --
> J. Andrew Rogers
> Twitter: @jandrewrogers

More information about the FoRK mailing list