Discussion: View Thread

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

What's Universally Human?

  • 1.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-20-2008 10:30

    Dear Gary and Colleagues,

     

    This is very interesting.  Why haven't we met before?  I've long since asserted that we should pay more attention to how we are universally alike and individually different and less attention to our global region, national, national region, city, neighborhood and family differences.  While I might disagree with your use of the term "truths" (I worry about the reification of opinions or factoids), I love, love, love the attempt to identify things that are universally human and then to focus on those things instead of how our differences keep us apart.  There's a huge paradox here in the world-how do we respect our ethnic roots while respecting more the "truth" that we are all part of the same race and interconnected community now? 

     

    Gary's depiction of men and women remind me of Korabik's piece on the androgyny of leadership, of Sherry Tepper's wonderful novel "The Gate to Women's Country" and Pressfield's "Gates of Fire."  I once had my 2nd year elective on leadership read all three.  Gates of Fire is 300-ish BC and Gate to Women's Country is 600 years in the future, so the question becomes could we change all of this conditioning that little boys and girls get over the passage of 3,000 years and after nuclear holocaust? 

     

    And by chance this morning I read an article in the Atlantic about Joey's Village in New York, a place where there are squads of men watching citizens, mostly women, to ensure that they don't do evil things like show their hair or legs in public.  It seems from a distance to be very Taliban-esque, but alive and thriving in the good old US of A.  

     

    So I go back to my original assertion (actually Csikszentmihalyi's and Ed Schein's and Peter Senge's) that in order to change we need to bring underlying VABEs (values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations about the way the world is or should be-memes in some sense) up for discussion and re-examination.  If we cannot do that, the world is in trouble on the sustainability and domestic or global tranquility fronts.  I'm reminded of the rat studies-overpopulations of rats begin to eat each other.  In the seminar last week with Peter Senge, I asked him, too late into the discussion, what role religion played in the fight for sustainability.  It caught him a bit off guard, (can you say religion in a business school?) but he recovered quickly and gave a very reasoned response.  There are religions I noted and he agreed that believe that there is enough and to spare in the world for all of God's children and any attempt to control birth or population is an attempt to thwart his plan.  The evidence just doesn't seem to support that view. 

     

    So the big issue becomes for management educators, I think, how do we learn to in a respectful way invite students and EE participants to review their deeply held VABEs?  Anything short of that, I fear, is paint on the surface and not likely to make a big difference.  That's what I strive to do in all my classes.  As you might expect, some resist, some don't get it, and some are, like wow, that's the best discussion I've ever been in.  And to George's point earlier, it doesn't have to be preaching.  It's inviting a deeper acknowledgment of who I am and how that affects everyone.

     

    And finally, Gary's lists bring to mind the issue of genes as well as memes.  My overall sense of the emerging neuroscience and evolutionary psychology work is that our genes (which we keep uncovering daily) have more impact on us that we used to think.  I have four kids-one is a paranoid schizophrenic, one has ADHD, one has ADD and dyslexia, and one has (yes, diagnosed) OCD, BPD, agoraphobia, and severe social anxiety.  The impact of brain chemistry in my view really outweighs the conditioning and nurturing that we as parents can give.  When I ask in class, how many of you know someone with ADD?  Almost every hand in the room goes up.  Yet NONE of that ever came up in my doctoral or subsequent professional training.  John Ratey's book, "Shadow Syndromes" was a real eye opener.  Clearly these issues are also universally human and cut across global region, national, national region, city, neighborhood and family boundaries.

     

    Wow.  I agree with the lady who commented earlier-this is most fun I've had in a collective professional group in a long time.  Gary, I'm looking to read more of your stuff now.

     

    Cheers,

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
    Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 4:38 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: thinking a lot about the global financial crisis

     

    Myrtle,

     

    I've taken this out of the listserv.

     

    Thanks for your comment on my concerns about humanity.  You reminded me that I firmly believe that women should be in charge of civilization.  Conditioning is different.  Indeed, I responded as a male about the way males behave.

     

    Your comment led me to attempt a balance.  I over state the flaws of men, and probably overstated the strengths of women.

     

            MALE                                                                 FEMALE

    Warrior nature                                                    Peacemaker nature

    Urge to procreate                                               Urge to thrive

    Greed                                                                 Generosity (within limits)

    Male dominance                                                 Family

    Tribalism, racism, nationalism                            Community

    Self-centered, short-sighted prioritizations        Sustainability

    Self righteousness                                              Negotiation

     

    I've attached the larger document.  Your comments would be welcome.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary

     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

    the Business of Innovation™

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bell, Myrtle P
    Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:37 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: thinking a lot about the global financial crisis

    Hi All:


    I see my post went to the entire division, fortunately, or unfortunately! These thoughts are indeed quite interesting and provocative, if appropriately developed, potentially suitable for submissions to the Essays, Dialogues and Interviews section of AMLE. Keep us in mind.

     

    An additional thought that I had in response to one post--not below--about our evolutionary tendencies is that I don't believe for a minute that everyone has them. I think greed, racism, nationalism, and some other descriptors are not at all natural, nor held by everyone. It's unfortunate that so many people with so much power exhibited them, and that we're all paying the price, as Jim suggests, in one way or another.

     

    I think these thoughts bear further exploration.

     

    Best,

    Myrtle

     

    Myrtle P. Bell, Ph.D.

    Associate Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Professional Insights Editor, Equal Opportunities International

    University of Texas at Arlington

    Box 19467

    Arlington TX 76019-0467

    Ph:  817 272-3857

    E-mail: mpbell@uta.edu

     

    Each of us must find our work and do it.  Audre Lorde, in Sister Outsider.

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Bell, Myrtle P
    Sent: Thu 10/16/2008 4:41 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: thinking a lot about the global financial crisis

    Hi Jim:

    Your thoughts on this topic are very, very interesting. Should you have the energy to develop them into an AMLE essay submission that would be great. As you know from your service on the AMLE editorial board, essays are strongly argued, provocative original commentaries or critiques. I think your ideas below are quite provocative and potentially very helpful as we wrangle through this mess.

    Best regards,
    Myrtle

    Myrtle P. Bell, Ph.D.
    Associate Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education
    Professional Insights Editor, Equal Opportunities International
    University of Texas at Arlington
    Box 19467
    Arlington TX 76019-0467
    Ph:  817 272-3857
    E-mail: mpbell@uta.edu
    http://management.uta.edu/Dr.Bell/main.htm <https://owa.uta.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://management.uta.edu/Dr.Bell/main.htm>

    Each of us must find our work and do it.  Audre Lorde, in Sister Outsider.

    ________________________________

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Clawson, Jim
    Sent: Wed 10/15/2008 7:56 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: thinking a lot about the global financial crisis



    Dear Colleagues,



    I love this debate, and yes, good questions, Chris.  Obviously, they are complex and difficult questions.  I think we teach too much at what I will call Level Two, conscious thought, and not enough at Level Three, values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations about the way the world is or should be.  I worry that if we did that though, the discussions in classrooms and faculty meetings would heat up exponentially-so we stay away from it.  For example, Peter Senge visited our school yesterday and we had a delightful day long set of discussions about systems theory, nested systems, sustainability and the implications for management education.  During the discussions, by chance, I had a side conversation with a colleague who seemed to be saying that all was well.  I asked out of the blue if he was a pre-determinist.  Of course, he said.  It's all already been decided and our job is just to walk along the pre-determined path.  I was flabbergasted.  If PhDs in social science are teaching ethics and finance and sustainability with an underlying foundational set of beliefs that all is in god's hands (whichever one you believe in), planned for, and safe, and we should not worry, how can we encourage students to rethink their theory of business?



    Another colleague (ethics) argued recently that our theory of business is broken-that success should NOT be maximizing short term profits-that real business is when we deliver real goods and services to real people at the end of a value chain and in the process respect and value all of the relevant stakeholders including employees, vendors, customers, and local citizens as WELL as shareholders.  Anyone who answers "what's the purpose of business?" with, "You dummy, to make money!" is leaving school with a "broken theory" of what a business is in mind.  And yet many if not MOST of us in multiple disciplines perpetuate this thought under the rubric of "all of that's included in the share price" and "free market capitalism". 



    Paul Lawrence and Nitin Nohria's book Driven suggests that homo sapiens are hard-wired with a desire to have a little more, no matter how much they have.  It seems to me that if that's the case, we need to teach systems that hold that instinctive drive in check and provide for a long term survivability.  But most people don't look at the long run.  I remember being taught in my MBA program, by the economics professor, "if there's no short run, there's no long run."  Ouch.  Didn't Herb Simon win a Nobel Prize for the concept of "satisficing" instead of "maximizing?"  (Yes.)  Where's the theory of satisficing today?



    I believe we need to emphasize in greater numbers in our global business schools and management programs that the quality of life, individually or socially, is NOT represented by the numbers, by the amounts one has accumulated.  And secondly, that a totally free market, or any unregulated sub-market (like CDS or CDO swaps or ...) is a formula for disaster and implosion.  No organization can grow forever.  Senge reported that the average life span of Fortune 500 firms is just 34 years-HALF the human life span.  And that we need to realize that nature does not work for industry, industry is contained in and subsumed by nature.  Predators who over-feed their range, die off.  Even in the financial markets.  WHAT did we THINK would happen when we repealed Glass-Steagal in 1999?  Have people changed that much?  Not. 



    Those who argue that "the smaller the government the better" don't realize that we all are paying the "penalty tax" when the unregulated human greed house of cards caves in.  And I'm NOT a socialist.  The taxes I'm "paying" now on my retirement are MUCH higher than if we'd paid some people to oversee the huge unregulated 60 trillion dollar swap casino we have built on top of the global economy.  (By the way, the US economy is only 12-14 trillion depending on the day this week, and we carry a 10 trillion USD debt-a ratio no family would carry.)   I'm not saying government should run everything-I do think that human nature needs to be monitored and monitored carefully.



    So, I believe we need to teach more than how or why.  We need to teach the consequences of the unexamined habitual beliefs that people hold on to dearly and that are irrational, emotionally charged, and collectively destructive.  We should not ALLOW citizens to gamble with other people's mortgages OR with their own retirement funds.  Because if it collapses, as it always has, WE all will have to bear the brunt.  It's MORE than ethical analysis-it's understanding the emotion laden set of conscious, semi-conscious, and sub-conscious beliefs that people hold that keep us in the Paleolithic age while our society rockets forward on unexamined assumptions of growth, wealth, and society killing materialism.  We need to teach the systems dynamics perspective that points out that you/we cannot ignore the consequences of our decisions and "freedoms."  Especially when your freedoms create huge "taxes" for others.



    Isn't this fun?  Until you look at your 401K or the chart of CO2 in the air or the habituality of our species in focusing on the short run. 



       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj



    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
    Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:19 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: thinking a lot about the global financial crisis



    Colleagues,



    You pose marvelous questions Chris.  Love your wording of the problem.

    My perspective on education is jaded. 

    Our schools teach "How?"  Not "Why?"  How to read, how to do algebra, how to solve the wave equation in seven coordinate systems.  How to program software.  How to manage a business.  Not "Why?" in the sense of teaching critical thinking.  Not "Why?" in the sense of understanding the purpose and value of learning.

    Most test questions either evaluate ability to remember or ability to perform a process (knowing how).

    Chris Dedee, a professor in Houston years ago, said that, "The purpose of education is to create conforming citizens."  Not ones who challenge the status quo.

    Employers hire bright graduates to implement existing systems, not to remake the company or the industry. The military wants educated soldiers, but recruits don't question drill sergeants.  Soldiers don't question officers.

    Bennis, said that "Leadership is doing the right things.  Managing is doing things right."  In my language, leaders ask, "Why?" in order to discover the right things to do.  Managers ask, "How?" in order to do things right.  Both are essential; neither is wrong, yet all too often, we forget leadership and settle for managing.

    Do you teach why-ing in your leadership courses?  My own process doesn't... except for two areas.
        Goal setting / strategizing
        Needs analysis for business / product design



    In science, hypotheses challenge dogma, yet the processes taught are all "How?".



    In short, "Why?" is essential, but the vast body of education only teaches "How?".  We aren't taught to challenge the way things are done.  Or even to think about it.



    Best to all,



    Gary



    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

    the Business of Innovation(tm)

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher Pratt
            Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:47 AM
            To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
            Subject: thinking a lot about the global financial crisis

            Probably much like you, I have been thinking a lot about the global financial crisis.  I got my retirement fund report last week.  So when was I planning to retire?

            

            It seems to me that the global financial crisis involves institutions who rather than operate a sustainable system created a house of cards the fall of which we will all likely suffer for years to come.  Instead of hard work financial institutions have operated a gimmick packed shell game they thought they were smart enough to control.  They thought they could borrow money from people who did not have it to lend and lend money to people who could not afford to pay it back.  Experience proved them wrong. 

            

            The wisdom of these actions is questionable from a variety of perspectives.  Certainly the financial experts, regulators, politicians and the news media are busy pointing fingers.  But how do we avoid these situations in the future?

            

            As an educator, it seems a common denominator in all this is the education both those who work in the financial industry and our politicians on both sides of the aisle received at university.  Indeed, one might well question the training of those who run the financial institutions.  These institutions aggressively recruited graduates of the best universities.  Graduates have often been encouraged to believe that the goal is to ensure their bonuses by increasing earnings by these institutions as much as possible regardless of the means.  Alumni working for these institutions have also used their financial contributions to influence their alma mater's policies and practices.

            

            In order to avoid these crises in future we might ask ourselves, how many of our graduates work in these institutions?

            

            What is it that they were taught or not taught?

            

            What is it that they learned or failed to learn?

            

            What lessons do universities, faculty need to learn from this crisis to help future graduates learn not to let this happen again?

            

            What is the role of agencies accrediting universities and academic programs?

            

            What is the role of our teaching, research, and service?

            

            Faculty have the opportunity to apply their scholarly activities to help solve problems that face the larger community beyond the boundaries of campus, to integrate student learning with the scholarship of engagement, to advance the pedagogy, as well as, to investigate issues of interest within and across academic disciplines. 

            

            How might that scholarship better prepare our graduates to ensure that playing with cards is understood as a game and not a way to manage financial institutions?

            

            What do you think?

            

            Cheers,

            Chris

            

            THE WCU College of Business is Economic Transformation.

            

            Dr. Christopher Pratt

            Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

            Professor of Business Administration

            Senior Policy Fellow, Institute for the Economy and the Future

            College of Business Western Carolina University http://www.wcu.edu/2517.asp

            282 Belk Building Cullowhee, NC 28723 cgpratt@wcu.edu

            Office: +828-227-3498  Fax: +828-227-7075              

            Cell: +828-450-5692  BB Mobile: +828-545-7028

            

            THE Western College of Business graduates BUSINESS READY.

            

            Hire BUSINESS READY graduates from THE Western COB.

            



  • 2.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-20-2008 17:58
    Dear Colleagues,
     
    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
     
    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
     
    Cheers,
     
    George Graen
    /jag



    New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!


  • 3.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-20-2008 20:30
    George,
    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.
     
    Gary,
    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    All,
    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.
     
    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.
     
    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.
     
    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.
     
    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Dear Colleagues,
     
    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
     
    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
     
    Cheers,
     
    George Graen
    /jag


  • 4.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 02:31
    Obviously, one can not generalize anything (except having certain organs
    in place) to apply every single individual on this planet.

    I've lived and traveled in several countries ranging from very masculine
    (by Hofstede's dimensions) to very feminine ones. Just having looked
    around, watched kids on the play ground, and now observing my own kids
    and current social circle, have convinced me that there may well be SOME
    truth in Gary's insights. (Dualistic thinking is a problem of us
    westerners - tendency to think in terms of either-or instead of
    both-and, using only (too) few categories/stereotypes instead of many
    that could apply simultaneously.)

    At least for me, who lives in one of the most equal societies (when it
    comes to gender roles), it has been a relief to think that part of the
    answer might be indeed coded into our genes. I've given up some of my
    idealistic expectations about gender similarity and started to think
    more about what is realistic and fair to expect. We all have stereotypes
    and none of us can avoid them (the storage of information in our brain
    is based on categorization). They are actually helpful, but only as a
    first best guesses until we learn more (about the individual/situation)
    and only when we realize their presence/influence in our own thinking.

    But just look around you:
    - who (primarily) takes care of the children in your neighborhood
    - who takes care of running the business (making decisions) vs. paying
    the bills (administrative work) in family businesses
    - who keeps track on comings and goings of the kids, makes sure they get
    where they need to get, in time
    - who keeps kontact with the neighbours and relatives
    - who is (more) willing/enclined to give up high pay and career in
    change for flexible working hours and meaninful work

    I live in a society of equal opportunity (when it comes to gender and
    education) and yet
    - Why is it that most murses are women, but doctors men
    - why is it that most teachers are women, but (relatively more) school
    principals men
    - who is more likely to sit on the coutch and watch TV while the other
    is doing... what (if not sitting there, too)

    I believe both genders have both characteristics (the left and right
    side in Gary's presentation), but at behavioral level, their
    manifestation seems to differ between genders. Women are assertive, too,
    but (in average...) use different means to express it.

    Jim made a good point, too. If our thinking (which guides our action) is
    based on chemistry so is (I assume) the mental part of what we call our
    gender (identity).

    Tiina Jokinen


    George Graen wrote:
    >
    > Dear Colleagues,
    >
    > I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have
    > questions about them. The data from psychology do not support his
    > "universal" differences between males and females, although his
    > differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
    >
    > I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes
    > in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren
    > may well witness the end of days for humans. What is needed are global
    > movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate,
    > unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet. The "greatest
    > generation" created this threat to future generations. All educators
    > must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions. Let
    > us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > George Graen
    > /jag
    >
    >
    >
    > New *MapQuest Local* shows what's happening at your destination. Dining,
    > Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
    > <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211031713x1200669822/aol?redir=http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>
    >


  • 5.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 09:17

    Data from psychology....

     

    I'm not George, but when I saw Gary's model, I instantly thought of this:

     

    Article title

    The Gender Similarities Hypothesis

    Author

    Hyde, J. S.

    Journal title

    AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

    Bibliographic details

    2005, VOL 60; NUMB 6, pages 581-592

     

    Abstract. The differences model, which argues that males and females

    are vastly different psychologically, dominates the

    popular media. Here, the author advances a very different

    view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that

    males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological

    variables. Results from a review of 46 metaanalyses

    support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender

    differences can vary substantially in magnitude at

    different ages and depend on the context in which measurement

    occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences

    carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and

    relationships.

     

     

    I also have doubts about this:

    Global warming is a symptom. Global overpopulation is the problem.

     

    I don't think 6 or 8 or 10 billion Albert Einsteins would be such a bad thing. The people I know who have chosen to address overpopulation by not procreating are exactly the people who should be procreating.

     

    Tom

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 7:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    George,

    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.

     

    Gary,

    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    All,

    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.

     

    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.

     

    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.

     

    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.

     

    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?

     

    cheers,

    Jack Ring

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: George Graen

    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM

    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Dear Colleagues,

     

    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.

     

    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

    /jag



  • 6.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 10:07
    In a message dated 10/21/2008 2:08:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, tiina.jokinen@UWASA.FI writes:
    Obviously, one can not generalize anything (except having certain organs
    in place) to apply every single individual on this planet.

    I've lived and traveled in several countries ranging from very masculine
    (by Hofstede's dimensions) to very feminine ones. Just having looked
    around, watched kids on the play ground, and now observing my own kids
    and current social circle, have convinced me that there may well be SOME
    truth in Gary's insights. (Dualistic thinking is a problem of us
    westerners - tendency to think in terms of either-or instead of
    both-and, using only (too) few categories/stereotypes instead of many
    that could apply simultaneously.)

    At least for me, who lives in one of the most equal societies (when it
    comes to gender roles), it has been a relief to think that part of the
    answer might be indeed coded into our genes. I've given up some of my
    idealistic expectations about gender similarity and started to think
    more about what is realistic and fair to expect. We all have stereotypes
    and none of us can avoid them (the storage of information in our brain
    is based on categorization). They are actually helpful, but only as a
    first best guesses until we learn more (about the individual/situation)
    and only when we realize their presence/influence in our own thinking.

    But just look around you:
    - who (primarily) takes care of the children in your neighborhood
    - who takes care of running the business (making decisions) vs. paying
    the bills (administrative work) in family businesses
    - who keeps track on comings and goings of the kids, makes sure they get
    where they need to get, in time
    - who keeps kontact with the neighbours and relatives
    - who is (more) willing/enclined to give up high pay and career in
    change for flexible working hours and meaninful work

    I live in a society of equal opportunity (when it comes to gender and
    education) and yet
    - Why is it that most murses are women, but doctors men
    - why is it that most teachers are women, but (relatively more) school
    principals men
    - who is more likely to sit on the coutch and watch TV while the other
    is doing... what (if not sitting there, too)

    I believe both genders have both characteristics (the left and right
    side in Gary's presentation), but at behavioral level, their
    manifestation seems to differ between genders. Women are assertive, too,
    but (in average...) use different means to express it.

    Jim made a good point, too. If our thinking (which guides our action) is
    based on chemistry so is (I assume) the mental part of what we call our
    gender (identity).

    Tiina Jokinen


    George Graen wrote:
    >
    > Dear Colleagues,
    > 
    > I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have
    > questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his
    > "universal" differences between males and females, although his
    > differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
    > 
    > I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes
    > in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren
    > may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global
    > movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate,
    > unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest
    > generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators
    > must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let
    > us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > 
    > George Graen
    > /jag
    >
    >
    >
    Tina,
     
    Thank you for the thoughtful response. I recommend a book written by two of my most respected colleagues, Alice Eagly and  Linda Carli, entitled "THROUGH THE LABYRINTH", Harvard U. Press. Subtitled as "The truth about how women become leaders" [ in the US].
     
    Cheers,
     
    George
     



    New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!


  • 7.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 16:10
    Colleagues,
     
    Jack Ring asks me:  how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    1. Not a god... just an alternative to growth as the primary criterion for economic success or failure.
    2. Not yet discovered or at least not enough to be noticed in general media.  We hear about quarterly reports on growth.  Not other criteria.
    3. Not yet defined to my knowledge.  Indeed, I hope economists and others will establish criteria not dependent on ever increasing use of resources.  We can reverse population growth without reversing expansion of resource use.  The key will be productivity that enables shared high quality of life with declining use of natural resources.
    4. I have no idea how to persuade change to alternate criteria of economic health, nor how to measure "quality" of success against those criteria.
    5. I do know that we've over fished, over cultivated, over mined, over built, and over polluted far to much of our only store of natural resources.
     
    As to overpopulation:  We don't get more Einsteins by creating larger generations.  Among the websites on this topic, Ira Plato of NPR chose to talk to Paul Ehrlich.  see http://www.dominantanimal.com/index.php?page_id=285
     
    Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing humanity today... except perhaps for the general resistance of humanity to perceive overpopulation as a threat.
     
    Best,
     
    Gary
     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    George,
    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.
     
    Gary,
    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    All,
    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.
     
    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.
     
    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.
     
    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.
     
    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Dear Colleagues,
     
    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
     
    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
     
    Cheers,
     
    George Graen
    /jag


  • 8.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 16:34
    Thomas,
    Thanks for the response.
    This paper speaks to part a) of my request but doesn't seem to address part b), that is, Dr. Hyde doesn't estimate the likelihood of being wrong. He did properly label the material as 'hypothesis.'
     
    Would you go for "the part of global warming that is man-made is due more to overpopulation than to other human behavior factors?" How about if we consider overpopulation to be not just a belly button count but a metric that includes 'numbers of humans per arable hectare?'
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:17 AM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Data from psychology….

     

    I’m not George, but when I saw Gary’s model, I instantly thought of this:

     

    Article title

    The Gender Similarities Hypothesis

    Author

    Hyde, J. S.

    Journal title

    AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

    Bibliographic details

    2005, VOL 60; NUMB 6, pages 581-592

     

    Abstract. The differences model, which argues that males and females

    are vastly different psychologically, dominates the

    popular media. Here, the author advances a very different

    view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that

    males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological

    variables. Results from a review of 46 metaanalyses

    support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender

    differences can vary substantially in magnitude at

    different ages and depend on the context in which measurement

    occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences

    carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and

    relationships.

     

     

    I also have doubts about this:

    Global warming is a symptom. Global overpopulation is the problem.

     

    I don’t think 6 or 8 or 10 billion Albert Einsteins would be such a bad thing. The people I know who have chosen to address overpopulation by not procreating are exactly the people who should be procreating.

     

    Tom

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 7:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    George,

    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.

     

    Gary,

    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    All,

    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.

     

    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.

     

    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.

     

    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.

     

    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?

     

    cheers,

    Jack Ring

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: George Graen

    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM

    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Dear Colleagues,

     

    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.

     

    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

    /jag



  • 9.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 17:46
    This is so fun. Wow. Maybe we should have an MED blog or something??

    Thanks for writing, Tiina. Are you in, where, Finland? Holland? Sweden?

    So, Tiina says "obviously, one cannot generalize anything that would
    apply to every single" human. A very interesting VABE. I'm thinking of
    Glasser's work (Choice Theory) and his assertion, for starters, that
    every parent worldwide shares the same identical three VABEs with regard
    to their children:

    1. I know what's right for you.
    2. I have a right (or even sacred responsibility) to tell you what's
    right for you.
    3. I have a right (sacred responsibility) to punish you if you don't do
    what's right for you.

    We can also think of humor. Desire to be well thought of. Struggling
    with parental control. And I think the list goes on. Trying to find it
    out is a lot of fun. In my having lived and / or worked in Japan, Hong
    Kong, Australia, Rio, San Jose, Johannesburg, Bangkok, Cairo, Bahrain,
    London, Paris, Berlin, Athens, Istanbul, Toronto, Mexico City,
    Monterrey, etc., I'm struck with how important we make the cultural
    things out to be (and yes they are) and how most of the underlying
    currents of what we value and worry about are universal. Whether I bow
    or shake hands is one thing, showing respect to others is the underlying
    deeper and common issue.

    Then, by chance, again, (how does this happen?) I'm reading on the
    airplane earlier today in Atlantic (what a great magazine) an article
    called "A Boys Life" by Hanna Rosin.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/transgender-children It's about
    young children who "know" at an early age that they are one gender born
    into the wrong body. Fascinating case studies. And I remember asking a
    group of executives in Berlin one day, what do you know for sure? And
    one woman said, gender, of course, it's clear. Ooops. Actually
    something like 3-5% of children are born it seems with with both sets of
    equipment, or an affection for people with the same set of equipment.
    It's actually not clear from looking what their gender is. These
    children are born in the "normal" course of events. How should we treat
    them, as youngsters and then when they grow up? As Tiina suggests
    below, there seems to be a lot that is chemically wired (do we call that
    hard wiring?) and as Rosin points out even if you change the chemical
    inputs (by injecting puberty blockers or the "other" sex hormone),
    something in the brain "knows" what one is "supposed" to be. Rosin
    interviewed and followed around little boys who wanted to be girls and
    little girls who wanted to be boys. They tried everything, and the
    nurture thing didn't turn out so well, despite what their clergy told
    them.

    I wish I could start over again knowing what I "know" now. I used to
    think I had so many things figured out, and every day that goes by, I
    seem know less and less. But the learning new things is ever more
    exciting. I can't wait to get to the next book in my stack. (Murder in
    Amsterdam) And I'm loving this dialogue. I think some colleagues have
    suggested things to read on the gender profile issue. In the meantime, I
    try to be a good "guy" by bringing my wife breakfast in bed
    occasionally, taking her out every week, and telling her in ten
    different ways how cool she is. I'm trying to break the masculine
    stereotype. But then I was raised by a single mom who was quite
    dominant. I'm not sure how I fit into Gary's two columns. And I agree
    with him and you Tiina, there are things that on average distinguish men
    and women. Which I enjoy immensely. I also agree that population is a
    very big issue. For me the underlying issue is how does one get another
    person to be willing to re-examine a deeply held belief that they've had
    since they were young? George Graen suggested this is "in place" by
    twenty-one and that trying to get people to let go of them would be akin
    to preaching or brainwashing. Actually, I think it's the opposite, it's
    trying to unwash the brains.

    I hope this is all not disturbing to list serv members--it's more
    traffic than I've seen in the AOM listservs for a LONG time. And I'm
    enjoying the honesty and depth of this discussion. Thanks again, Chris.


    Cheers,

    Jim
    James G. S. Clawson
    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
    Darden GSB, University of Virginia
    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
    Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
    Web: http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tiina Jokinen
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:31 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Obviously, one can not generalize anything (except having certain organs

    in place) to apply every single individual on this planet.

    I've lived and traveled in several countries ranging from very masculine

    (by Hofstede's dimensions) to very feminine ones. Just having looked
    around, watched kids on the play ground, and now observing my own kids
    and current social circle, have convinced me that there may well be SOME

    truth in Gary's insights. (Dualistic thinking is a problem of us
    westerners - tendency to think in terms of either-or instead of
    both-and, using only (too) few categories/stereotypes instead of many
    that could apply simultaneously.)

    At least for me, who lives in one of the most equal societies (when it
    comes to gender roles), it has been a relief to think that part of the
    answer might be indeed coded into our genes. I've given up some of my
    idealistic expectations about gender similarity and started to think
    more about what is realistic and fair to expect. We all have stereotypes

    and none of us can avoid them (the storage of information in our brain
    is based on categorization). They are actually helpful, but only as a
    first best guesses until we learn more (about the individual/situation)
    and only when we realize their presence/influence in our own thinking.

    But just look around you:
    - who (primarily) takes care of the children in your neighborhood
    - who takes care of running the business (making decisions) vs. paying
    the bills (administrative work) in family businesses
    - who keeps track on comings and goings of the kids, makes sure they get

    where they need to get, in time
    - who keeps kontact with the neighbours and relatives
    - who is (more) willing/enclined to give up high pay and career in
    change for flexible working hours and meaninful work

    I live in a society of equal opportunity (when it comes to gender and
    education) and yet
    - Why is it that most murses are women, but doctors men
    - why is it that most teachers are women, but (relatively more) school
    principals men
    - who is more likely to sit on the coutch and watch TV while the other
    is doing... what (if not sitting there, too)

    I believe both genders have both characteristics (the left and right
    side in Gary's presentation), but at behavioral level, their
    manifestation seems to differ between genders. Women are assertive, too,

    but (in average...) use different means to express it.

    Jim made a good point, too. If our thinking (which guides our action) is

    based on chemistry so is (I assume) the mental part of what we call our
    gender (identity).

    Tiina Jokinen


    George Graen wrote:
    >
    > Dear Colleagues,
    >
    > I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have
    > questions about them. The data from psychology do not support his
    > "universal" differences between males and females, although his
    > differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
    >
    > I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational
    changes
    > in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren

    > may well witness the end of days for humans. What is needed are
    global
    > movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate,
    > unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet. The "greatest
    > generation" created this threat to future generations. All educators
    > must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.
    Let
    > us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > George Graen
    > /jag
    >
    >
    >
    > New *MapQuest Local* shows what's happening at your destination.
    Dining,
    > Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
    >
    <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211031713x1200669822/aol?redir
    =http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002>
    >


  • 10.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 18:03

    I agree with Gary that while sustainability is not a god, it certainly is vital to the future of the human race.  And I loved the last sentence that our greatest problem is not seeing the problem. 
    And some do.  Perhaps more and more.  Erhlich did way back in the day.  The Club of Rome did, too.  And as you may know, Senge reports that at least one community, albeit small, has recognized the limits to growth.  The kingdom of Bhutan has for what 9-10 years now used a different measure (from GDP which all believe must grow), they use Gross National Happiness which includes serious measures like education, divorce rates, disease, health, etc.  I bet virtually all of "western" civilization would pooh-pooh this measure as unrealistic and naïve and dated.  But what a provocative idea.  In the end, it all boils down to how you feel.  If wealth doesn't make you happy and healthy and safe, then......   So Gary, how could one think about getting people to reconsider the premise that they should have as many children as they can?  And that to do otherwise is thwarting (their) God's plan?  This seems like a major obstacle to me.  Is child bearing one of those "unalienable" rights?  What if you have severe birth defects and passed them on to your first child and that cost society hundreds of thousands of dollars to "correct" surgically with modest results and you wanted to have more?  (True story.)   How many people can the earth sustain?  I've heard estimates from 5 billion to 50 billion.  If you think it must not be 5, well, if we continue at this rate how soon before we have nothing left?  

     

    I saw on the plane again this morning a film, "Too Hot to NOT handle."  Some scientists including the former president of Stanford talking about global warming.  US has 5% of the world's population and consumes 25% of the energy.  They also said as Senge did that the only source of energy to the earth is the sun (but we could add mass [gravity] and compression [geothermal] and rotation [wind], too, no?) and that one square of solar cells 100 miles on a side would power the entire US.  That may seem like a lot, but on Google earth, in the middle of the Mohave desert, it's microscopic.  But it is without pollution of any kind.  Hmm.  Just too expensive now. 

     

    Could we, to Chris' earlier point, figure out how to teach self-renewing businesses (if sustainable is now too negatively laden)?  If the average life span of Fortune 500 companies is 35 years (The Living Company, Arie deGeus), then this grow-grow-grow model doesn't seem to be working.  Have there been any journal special editions on the concept (VABE) of necessary continued growth?  Perhaps the human collective mindset is more open now than when Erhlich first published The Population Bomb.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:10 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Colleagues,

     

    Jack Ring asks me:  how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    1. Not a god... just an alternative to growth as the primary criterion for economic success or failure.

    2. Not yet discovered or at least not enough to be noticed in general media.  We hear about quarterly reports on growth.  Not other criteria.

    3. Not yet defined to my knowledge.  Indeed, I hope economists and others will establish criteria not dependent on ever increasing use of resources.  We can reverse population growth without reversing expansion of resource use.  The key will be productivity that enables shared high quality of life with declining use of natural resources.

    4. I have no idea how to persuade change to alternate criteria of economic health, nor how to measure "quality" of success against those criteria.

    5. I do know that we've over fished, over cultivated, over mined, over built, and over polluted far to much of our only store of natural resources.

     

    As to overpopulation:  We don't get more Einsteins by creating larger generations.  Among the websites on this topic, Ira Plato of NPR chose to talk to Paul Ehrlich.  see http://www.dominantanimal.com/index.php?page_id=285

     

    Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing humanity today... except perhaps for the general resistance of humanity to perceive overpopulation as a threat.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary

     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

    the Business of Innovation™

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    George,

    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.

     

    Gary,

    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    All,

    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.

     

    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.

     

    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.

     

    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.

     

    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?

     

    cheers,

    Jack Ring

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: George Graen

    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM

    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Dear Colleagues,

     

    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.

     

    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

    /jag



  • 11.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-21-2008 21:56
    Many people define sustainability not as 'an alternative to growth' but as 'the path that let's us grow as we please with least negative ramifications.' Until we agree on the meaning of sustainability we should be very careful about promoting it as an objective let alone a goal else we evoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.
     
    I suggest Gary does have an idea about how to persuade change.  Earlier he suggested teaching about paradigms and about "Why" instead of just "How." Both of these strike me as the roots of two great experiments.
     
    Meanwhile let's note that VABE's, while useful, omit a two key ingredients, notably, Objective Assessment of the results of prevaling behaviors and Pragmatic Foresight regarding any possible course of action. For example, to focus on (mis)behavior of managers who were simply striving to maximize stakeholder value within the Ponzi scheme created by U.S. Congress (called Fannie May and Freddie Mac) misses a key factor, the culpability of our elected representatives. Once they no longer represent our VABE's no amount of 'management' can overcome the consequences they set in motion.
     
    One definition of insanity is "continuing a behavior that produces unsatisfactory results." which certainly seems to presage the housing meltdown started by Jimmy Carter, accelerated by W.J. Clinton, and nursed by C. Dodd and B. Frank. Sure, all this put several hundred thousand houses in reach of those who otherwise could not have afforded them. How good was the result?
     
    The lesson to be learned is that we should be teaching how to learn.
    The larger HOW not being taught in management schools, especially in Public Administration, is Systems Thinking, Feeling and Doing. This is urgent. It may not be enough but it is the only remedy I can see to offset the  damage that can be wrought by those who graduated from Law schools.
     
    What other remedies are there?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:10 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Colleagues,
     
    Jack Ring asks me:  how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    1. Not a god... just an alternative to growth as the primary criterion for economic success or failure.
    2. Not yet discovered or at least not enough to be noticed in general media.  We hear about quarterly reports on growth.  Not other criteria.
    3. Not yet defined to my knowledge.  Indeed, I hope economists and others will establish criteria not dependent on ever increasing use of resources.  We can reverse population growth without reversing expansion of resource use.  The key will be productivity that enables shared high quality of life with declining use of natural resources.
    4. I have no idea how to persuade change to alternate criteria of economic health, nor how to measure "quality" of success against those criteria.
    5. I do know that we've over fished, over cultivated, over mined, over built, and over polluted far to much of our only store of natural resources.
     
    As to overpopulation:  We don't get more Einsteins by creating larger generations.  Among the websites on this topic, Ira Plato of NPR chose to talk to Paul Ehrlich.  see http://www.dominantanimal.com/index.php?page_id=285
     
    Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing humanity today... except perhaps for the general resistance of humanity to perceive overpopulation as a threat.
     
    Best,
     
    Gary
     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    George,
    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.
     
    Gary,
    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    All,
    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.
     
    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.
     
    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.
     
    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.
     
    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Dear Colleagues,
     
    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
     
    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
     
    Cheers,
     
    George Graen
    /jag


  • 12.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-22-2008 00:55
    Perhaps our greatest problem is our inability to disambiguate a problematic situation sufficiently to discover the underlying problem (usually a multipartite, stochastic, virulent system). Instead we coin a meme then write lots of articles. The therapy is to learn how to cope with complicated systems.
     
    Staring at sustianability won't help.  As Gary says, to his knowledge 'sustainability' is not yet defined . Can you tell us what it looks like? 
     
    The predictions made by the Club of Rome with the systems dynamics tool missed the mark considerably. 

    UCLA Prof. Ichak Adizes' model of Corporate Lifecycles (Prentice Hall, 1988) has proven quite useful.

     
    Meanwhile, the U.S. already pursues our Gross National Happiness. It is called free elections. Probably we would be better off if we spent some energy constructing a Goal Set that represented Net National Happiness then using Bayesian Belief Networks whend balloting. 
     
    Our future will be determined by how well and how fast we learn to learn and to arrive at choices through pragmatic foresight. Bothering about memes such as global warming, sustainability, overpopulation, world hunger and the other UN Millennium Goals simply gives us excuses for bothering about what we know how to do instead of what we should be doing. 
     
    Interestingly, the 3 to 15 age group seems to know all this already. If we can keep our current educational montage from misinforming them things seem to progress pretty well, at least on a micro scale. Whether it will scale up remains to be seen. But as John Gall points out in Systemantics, almost all successful large systems are composed of successful small systems.
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:03 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    I agree with Gary that while sustainability is not a god, it certainly is vital to the future of the human race.  And I loved the last sentence that our greatest problem is not seeing the problem. 
    And some do.  Perhaps more and more.  Erhlich did way back in the day.  The Club of Rome did, too.  And as you may know, Senge reports that at least one community, albeit small, has recognized the limits to growth.  The kingdom of Bhutan has for what 9-10 years now used a different measure (from GDP which all believe must grow), they use Gross National Happiness which includes serious measures like education, divorce rates, disease, health, etc.  I bet virtually all of “western” civilization would pooh-pooh this measure as unrealistic and naïve and dated.  But what a provocative idea.  In the end, it all boils down to how you feel.  If wealth doesn’t make you happy and healthy and safe, then……   So Gary, how could one think about getting people to reconsider the premise that they should have as many children as they can?  And that to do otherwise is thwarting (their) God’s plan?  This seems like a major obstacle to me.  Is child bearing one of those “unalienable” rights?  What if you have severe birth defects and passed them on to your first child and that cost society hundreds of thousands of dollars to “correct” surgically with modest results and you wanted to have more?  (True story.)   How many people can the earth sustain?  I’ve heard estimates from 5 billion to 50 billion.  If you think it must not be 5, well, if we continue at this rate how soon before we have nothing left?  

     

    I saw on the plane again this morning a film, “Too Hot to NOT handle.”  Some scientists including the former president of Stanford talking about global warming.  US has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25% of the energy.  They also said as Senge did that the only source of energy to the earth is the sun (but we could add mass [gravity] and compression [geothermal] and rotation [wind], too, no?) and that one square of solar cells 100 miles on a side would power the entire US.  That may seem like a lot, but on Google earth, in the middle of the Mohave desert, it’s microscopic.  But it is without pollution of any kind.  Hmm.  Just too expensive now. 

     

    Could we, to Chris’ earlier point, figure out how to teach self-renewing businesses (if sustainable is now too negatively laden)?  If the average life span of Fortune 500 companies is 35 years (The Living Company, Arie deGeus), then this grow-grow-grow model doesn’t seem to be working.  Have there been any journal special editions on the concept (VABE) of necessary continued growth?  Perhaps the human collective mindset is more open now than when Erhlich first published The Population Bomb.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:10 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Colleagues,

     

    Jack Ring asks me:  how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    1. Not a god... just an alternative to growth as the primary criterion for economic success or failure.

    2. Not yet discovered or at least not enough to be noticed in general media.  We hear about quarterly reports on growth.  Not other criteria.

    3. Not yet defined to my knowledge.  Indeed, I hope economists and others will establish criteria not dependent on ever increasing use of resources.  We can reverse population growth without reversing expansion of resource use.  The key will be productivity that enables shared high quality of life with declining use of natural resources.

    4. I have no idea how to persuade change to alternate criteria of economic health, nor how to measure "quality" of success against those criteria.

    5. I do know that we've over fished, over cultivated, over mined, over built, and over polluted far to much of our only store of natural resources.

     

    As to overpopulation:  We don't get more Einsteins by creating larger generations.  Among the websites on this topic, Ira Plato of NPR chose to talk to Paul Ehrlich.  see http://www.dominantanimal.com/index.php?page_id=285

     

    Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing humanity today... except perhaps for the general resistance of humanity to perceive overpopulation as a threat.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary

     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

    the Business of Innovation™

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    George,

    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.

     

    Gary,

    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    All,

    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.

     

    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.

     

    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.

     

    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.

     

    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?

     

    cheers,

    Jack Ring

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: George Graen

    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM

    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Dear Colleagues,

     

    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.

     

    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

    /jag



  • 13.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-22-2008 01:35
    The likelihood of being wrong is provided by the inferential statistics in the article.

    And I do believe that all sorts of bad things are happening because of the number of people consuming what we consume given the world's resources. My point about overpopulation is that solutions are being proposed through certain value systems that aren't being explicitly acknowledged. I read the "Dominant Animal" Appendix provided by Gary's link. Many of the solutions revolve around reducing the worldwide birth rate. But overpopulation is also the result of a declining death rate. So one might ask (not me, of course), why are we wasting so much money (resources) developing cures for cancer, AIDS, and malaria? These (naturally-occurring) diseases could cheaply reduce overpopulation by increasing the death rate. Yes, the suffering they produce is not consistent with our values for human well-being, but some countries have legalized assisted suicide clinics where people can pass away painlessly and peacefully. Again, someone might ask (not me, of course), why aren't the experts promoting a higher deathrate through the much wider "availability" of disease and death "management"?

    An equally unsettling idea that I alluded to earlier is this. What if the world was populated by some good people and some bad people. The good people agree to reduce their birth rate and increase their death rate (because they're good people and care about the planet). The bad people don't care about the planet, so they procreate abundantly and develop all sorts of ways to extend life. Over time, the world becomes dominated by the bad people. That's why I don't think overpopulation, per se, is the problem. The bigger threat is overpopulation by the bad people.

    Again, let me emphasize that I'm not promoting suffering. I just think that greater access to birth control, for example, is a solution that ignores competing values/ideas that may be distasteful but just as worthy of consideration.

    Tom

    ________________________________

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Jack Ring
    Sent: Tue 10/21/2008 3:34 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?


    Thomas,
    Thanks for the response.
    This paper speaks to part a) of my request but doesn't seem to address part b), that is, Dr. Hyde doesn't estimate the likelihood of being wrong. He did properly label the material as 'hypothesis.'

    Would you go for "the part of global warming that is man-made is due more to overpopulation than to other human behavior factors?" How about if we consider overpopulation to be not just a belly button count but a metric that includes 'numbers of humans per arable hectare?'
    cheers,
    Jack Ring

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Thomas Timmerman <mailto:TTimmerman@TNTECH.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:17 AM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?


    Data from psychology....



    I'm not George, but when I saw Gary's model, I instantly thought of this:



    Article title

    The Gender Similarities Hypothesis

    Author

    Hyde, J. S.

    Journal title

    AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

    Bibliographic details

    2005, VOL 60; NUMB 6, pages 581-592



    Abstract. The differences model, which argues that males and females

    are vastly different psychologically, dominates the

    popular media. Here, the author advances a very different

    view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that

    males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological

    variables. Results from a review of 46 metaanalyses

    support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender

    differences can vary substantially in magnitude at

    different ages and depend on the context in which measurement

    occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences

    carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and

    relationships.





    I also have doubts about this:

    Global warming is a symptom. Global overpopulation is the problem.



    I don't think 6 or 8 or 10 billion Albert Einsteins would be such a bad thing. The people I know who have chosen to address overpopulation by not procreating are exactly the people who should be procreating.



    Tom



    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 7:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?



    George,

    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.



    Gary,

    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.



    All,

    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.



    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.



    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.



    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on. I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.



    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?



    cheers,

    Jack Ring



    ----- Original Message -----

    From: George Graen <mailto:Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>

    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM

    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?



    Dear Colleagues,



    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them. The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.



    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans. What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet. The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations. All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions. Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.



    Cheers,



    George Graen

    /jag


  • 14.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-22-2008 07:13
    Please put on web.
     
    George



    New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!


  • 15.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-22-2008 08:43
    As an ethics instructor, I have  found this discussion thread interesting.  I recently published a book dealing with ethical and societal implications of nanotechnology, which is the enabling technology of the near and long term future.  What seems to be missing in the education of not only business students, but pretty nearly all students including those in science and engineering, is an appreciation and deep understanding of systems theory and complexity.  We are currently faced with unprecedented levels of pace, complexity and uncertainty.  Top this off with an unqualified and unreasonable faith in science and technology to "fix" whatever problems arise, and it is not terribly hard to see why we seem so stymied in our efforts to think globally and systematically about the challenges of the present and future.  We still teach logic and critical thinking as linear functions rather than forms of pattern recognition.  We emphasize individual rights and individual justice over individual responsibility and social justice, particularly intergenerational justice.  We emphasize individal autonomy and the ability of the few to make decisions for the many rather than the informed consent of communities.  And, we apply a narrowly defined utilitarian cost/benefit analysis largely to the short term rather than a dynamically negotiatied and defined common good based on shared values. 
     
    Biotechnology will very soon challenge the very essence of what it means to be human.  Evolutionary biology now places human symbolism and culture as the driver of our modern evolutionary trajectory.  Our ability to create has exceeded our ability to interpret our creation for quite some time now.  Our greatest technical and cultural achievements are also the source of many of our greatest threats.  Yet, in the face of rapid change and increased complexity, we seem determined to look for simplistic short term answers that demand little in the way of self reflection, self sacrifice or even critical thought.  Yet wisdom demands the ability to see beyond the short term, to recognize deep patterns, to respond to complexity and pace by stopping out and recentering, to perpetually question our motives and intent, and to recognize  oneself with compassion in the eyes of another both in the present and in the future.      We must teach students to be the masters of themselves first before we entrust them to be masters of others.  And to do so means we have to find a way to educate/facilitate the discovery of selfhood and critical analysis, perhaps by letting go of most of the disciplinary silos of science and social science in favor of the integrative contemplation expressed in the humanities and the cultivation of a deep and also integrative understanding of the complex systems in which we operate. 
     
    Deb
     
    Deb Bennett-Woods
    Director, Center for Ethics and Leadership in the Health Professions
    Chair, Department of Health Care Ethics
    Regis University
    3333 Regis Boulevard
    Denver, CO 80221
    303-458-4271
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim [ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU]
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:03 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    I agree with Gary that while sustainability is not a god, it certainly is vital to the future of the human race.  And I loved the last sentence that our greatest problem is not seeing the problem. 
    And some do.  Perhaps more and more.  Erhlich did way back in the day.  The Club of Rome did, too.  And as you may know, Senge reports that at least one community, albeit small, has recognized the limits to growth.  The kingdom of Bhutan has for what 9-10 years now used a different measure (from GDP which all believe must grow), they use Gross National Happiness which includes serious measures like education, divorce rates, disease, health, etc.  I bet virtually all of "western" civilization would pooh-pooh this measure as unrealistic and naïve and dated.  But what a provocative idea.  In the end, it all boils down to how you feel.  If wealth doesn't make you happy and healthy and safe, then......   So Gary, how could one think about getting people to reconsider the premise that they should have as many children as they can?  And that to do otherwise is thwarting (their) God's plan?  This seems like a major obstacle to me.  Is child bearing one of those "unalienable" rights?  What if you have severe birth defects and passed them on to your first child and that cost society hundreds of thousands of dollars to "correct" surgically with modest results and you wanted to have more?  (True story.)   How many people can the earth sustain?  I've heard estimates from 5 billion to 50 billion.  If you think it must not be 5, well, if we continue at this rate how soon before we have nothing left?  

     

    I saw on the plane again this morning a film, "Too Hot to NOT handle."  Some scientists including the former president of Stanford talking about global warming.  US has 5% of the world's population and consumes 25% of the energy.  They also said as Senge did that the only source of energy to the earth is the sun (but we could add mass [gravity] and compression [geothermal] and rotation [wind], too, no?) and that one square of solar cells 100 miles on a side would power the entire US.  That may seem like a lot, but on Google earth, in the middle of the Mohave desert, it's microscopic.  But it is without pollution of any kind.  Hmm.  Just too expensive now. 

     

    Could we, to Chris' earlier point, figure out how to teach self-renewing businesses (if sustainable is now too negatively laden)?  If the average life span of Fortune 500 companies is 35 years (The Living Company, Arie deGeus), then this grow-grow-grow model doesn't seem to be working.  Have there been any journal special editions on the concept (VABE) of necessary continued growth?  Perhaps the human collective mindset is more open now than when Erhlich first published The Population Bomb.

     

       Jim

    James G. S. Clawson

    Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration

    Darden GSB, University of Virginia

    Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906  

    100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903  USA

    Tel:  434 924 7488              Fax:  434 243 7680

    Web:  http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lundquist
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:10 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Colleagues,

     

    Jack Ring asks me:  how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    1. Not a god... just an alternative to growth as the primary criterion for economic success or failure.

    2. Not yet discovered or at least not enough to be noticed in general media.  We hear about quarterly reports on growth.  Not other criteria.

    3. Not yet defined to my knowledge.  Indeed, I hope economists and others will establish criteria not dependent on ever increasing use of resources.  We can reverse population growth without reversing expansion of resource use.  The key will be productivity that enables shared high quality of life with declining use of natural resources.

    4. I have no idea how to persuade change to alternate criteria of economic health, nor how to measure "quality" of success against those criteria.

    5. I do know that we've over fished, over cultivated, over mined, over built, and over polluted far to much of our only store of natural resources.

     

    As to overpopulation:  We don't get more Einsteins by creating larger generations.  Among the websites on this topic, Ira Plato of NPR chose to talk to Paul Ehrlich.  see http://www.dominantanimal.com/index.php?page_id=285

     

    Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing humanity today... except perhaps for the general resistance of humanity to perceive overpopulation as a threat.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary

     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

    the Business of Innovation™

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    George,

    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.

     

    Gary,

    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    All,

    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.

     

    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.

     

    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.

     

    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.

     

    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?

     

    cheers,

    Jack Ring

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: George Graen

    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM

    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Dear Colleagues,

     

    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.

     

    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

    /jag



  • 16.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-22-2008 10:54
    Well since the topic of sustainability has come up and recalling that this discussion started from considering the current financial crisis, I have been wondering if a modest but sustained recession might not be a good thing. We seem to have an impending planetary disaster in the form of global warming that may be ameliorated (although not avoided) by significantly reducing our carbon emissions. Perhaps the harm of a recession will be dramatically outweighed by the benefit in reduced global energy use. Perhaps it may buy us some time to build political will to take action on reducing emissions. Is it possible that the developed world's obsession with consumption (underwritten by debt) has been sufficiently self-defeating to buy the planet some time?
     
    Mark Fenton-O'Creevy
    Professor of Organisational Behaviour
    Open University Business School
    Walton Hall
    Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
    United Kingdom

    e-mail: m.p.fenton-ocreevy@open.ac.uk
    (DL) +44 (0)1908-655804
    Fax: +44 (0)1908-655898



    From: Jack Ring
    Sent: Wed 22/10/2008 02:55
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Many people define sustainability not as 'an alternative to growth' but as 'the path that let's us grow as we please with least negative ramifications.' Until we agree on the meaning of sustainability we should be very careful about promoting it as an objective let alone a goal else we evoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.
     
    I suggest Gary does have an idea about how to persuade change.  Earlier he suggested teaching about paradigms and about "Why" instead of just "How." Both of these strike me as the roots of two great experiments.
     
    Meanwhile let's note that VABE's, while useful, omit a two key ingredients, notably, Objective Assessment of the results of prevaling behaviors and Pragmatic Foresight regarding any possible course of action. For example, to focus on (mis)behavior of managers who were simply striving to maximize stakeholder value within the Ponzi scheme created by U.S. Congress (called Fannie May and Freddie Mac) misses a key factor, the culpability of our elected representatives. Once they no longer represent our VABE's no amount of 'management' can overcome the consequences they set in motion.
     
    One definition of insanity is "continuing a behavior that produces unsatisfactory results." which certainly seems to presage the housing meltdown started by Jimmy Carter, accelerated by W.J. Clinton, and nursed by C. Dodd and B. Frank. Sure, all this put several hundred thousand houses in reach of those who otherwise could not have afforded them. How good was the result?
     
    The lesson to be learned is that we should be teaching how to learn.
    The larger HOW not being taught in management schools, especially in Public Administration, is Systems Thinking, Feeling and Doing. This is urgent. It may not be enough but it is the only remedy I can see to offset the  damage that can be wrought by those who graduated from Law schools.
     
    What other remedies are there?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:10 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Colleagues,
     
    Jack Ring asks me:  how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    1. Not a god... just an alternative to growth as the primary criterion for economic success or failure.
    2. Not yet discovered or at least not enough to be noticed in general media.  We hear about quarterly reports on growth.  Not other criteria.
    3. Not yet defined to my knowledge.  Indeed, I hope economists and others will establish criteria not dependent on ever increasing use of resources.  We can reverse population growth without reversing expansion of resource use.  The key will be productivity that enables shared high quality of life with declining use of natural resources.
    4. I have no idea how to persuade change to alternate criteria of economic health, nor how to measure "quality" of success against those criteria.
    5. I do know that we've over fished, over cultivated, over mined, over built, and over polluted far to much of our only store of natural resources.
     
    As to overpopulation:  We don't get more Einsteins by creating larger generations.  Among the websites on this topic, Ira Plato of NPR chose to talk to Paul Ehrlich.  see http://www.dominantanimal.com/index.php?page_id=285
     
    Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing humanity today... except perhaps for the general resistance of humanity to perceive overpopulation as a threat.
     
    Best,
     
    Gary
     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    George,
    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.
     
    Gary,
    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    All,
    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.
     
    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.
     
    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.
     
    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.
     
    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Dear Colleagues,
     
    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
     
    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
     
    Cheers,
     
    George Graen
    /jag
     

    ---------------------------------
    The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).


  • 17.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-22-2008 10:55
    Jack,
     
    Arable hectares isn't the issue.  It's what we do on them.  E. O. Wilson notes that we can feed 12 billion people if they all eat grain.  (rice, wheat, etc.)  If they all want meat, we can't feed 5 billion.
     
    And some hectares must provide places for people to live and word.  We keep using up arable land for urban sprawl.

    http://www.census.gov/ipc/prod/wp02/wp-02003.pdf

        In 2002, Humanity added 74 million people:  2 1/3 per second, 141 per minute, 200,000 per day, 6.2 million per month.  Every five years, add the population of Western Europe (375 million).

        The rate of population growth peaked around 1970.  In subsequent years, we see a decline in rate of population growth.  That is, growth is slowing, yet growth is still happening.

        The UN predicts a massive surge in growth, especially in central Africa when the malaria problem is solved.  They predict 9 billion by 2050.

     

    Other hectares must provide us energy.  OK... let's assume that energy comes from non-arable hectares.  Well, maybe not.  After all, we grow energy requirements faster than we grow people.  

    http://www3.sympatico.ca/drrennie/spike.html

    Global energy consumption

    1900:  20 quadrillion BTUs (quads) per year for 1.7 billion people

    2000:  400 quadrillion BTUs per year in 2000 for 6.1 billion people

    20 times the energy consumption of 1900 for 3.5 times the population.

    About 67 million BTUs per Human per year.

    2100: Very energy efficient growth of just a factor of 5 implies 2000 quads

    Power plants and transmission lines could easily take up 30% of our land by 2001.

     
    If we don't believe population is a huge problem, we simply aren't paying attention.
     
    Jim Clawson:  "the underlying issue is how does one get another person to be willing to re-examine a deeply held belief that they've had since they were young?"
        I'd say:  How do we get people to reexamine their innate reactions that are deeper than beliefs?  A psychologist once said, "Fish don't know their environment is wet."  Humans don't know that our neural-hormonal (emotional) environment is largely activated by evolutionary conditioning.
     
    Best to all,
     
    Gary
     
    Gary

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:34 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Thomas,
    Thanks for the response.
    This paper speaks to part a) of my request but doesn't seem to address part b), that is, Dr. Hyde doesn't estimate the likelihood of being wrong. He did properly label the material as 'hypothesis.'
     
    Would you go for "the part of global warming that is man-made is due more to overpopulation than to other human behavior factors?" How about if we consider overpopulation to be not just a belly button count but a metric that includes 'numbers of humans per arable hectare?'
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:17 AM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Data from psychology....

     

    I'm not George, but when I saw Gary's model, I instantly thought of this:

     

    Article title

    The Gender Similarities Hypothesis

    Author

    Hyde, J. S.

    Journal title

    AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

    Bibliographic details

    2005, VOL 60; NUMB 6, pages 581-592

     

    Abstract. The differences model, which argues that males and females

    are vastly different psychologically, dominates the

    popular media. Here, the author advances a very different

    view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that

    males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological

    variables. Results from a review of 46 metaanalyses

    support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender

    differences can vary substantially in magnitude at

    different ages and depend on the context in which measurement

    occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences

    carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and

    relationships.

     

     

    I also have doubts about this:

    Global warming is a symptom. Global overpopulation is the problem.

     

    I don't think 6 or 8 or 10 billion Albert Einsteins would be such a bad thing. The people I know who have chosen to address overpopulation by not procreating are exactly the people who should be procreating.

     

    Tom

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 7:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    George,

    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.

     

    Gary,

    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    All,

    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.

     

    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.

     

    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.

     

    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.

     

    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?

     

    cheers,

    Jack Ring

     

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: George Graen

    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM

    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Dear Colleagues,

     

    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.

     

    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen

    /jag



  • 18.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-22-2008 11:08
    Now he's done it!  Jack Ring!!
     
    Teach people how to learn!  In current vernacular... OH MY GOD!
    Teach people how to think? 
        That's subversive. 
            It goes against all popular culture. 
                It totally screws up education.
                   It corrupts mindless adherence to corruption.
                       Bureaucracies worldwide will collapse.
                           It's uncivilized.
     
    You've gone to far Jack.  I hope you have a place to hide.  The thought police will be at your door any minute.
     
    But!  If you need a reference at your trial, I'll stand up for you.  Proudly.
     
    Gary
     
     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:56 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Many people define sustainability not as 'an alternative to growth' but as 'the path that let's us grow as we please with least negative ramifications.' Until we agree on the meaning of sustainability we should be very careful about promoting it as an objective let alone a goal else we evoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.
     
    I suggest Gary does have an idea about how to persuade change.  Earlier he suggested teaching about paradigms and about "Why" instead of just "How." Both of these strike me as the roots of two great experiments.
     
    Meanwhile let's note that VABE's, while useful, omit a two key ingredients, notably, Objective Assessment of the results of prevaling behaviors and Pragmatic Foresight regarding any possible course of action. For example, to focus on (mis)behavior of managers who were simply striving to maximize stakeholder value within the Ponzi scheme created by U.S. Congress (called Fannie May and Freddie Mac) misses a key factor, the culpability of our elected representatives. Once they no longer represent our VABE's no amount of 'management' can overcome the consequences they set in motion.
     
    One definition of insanity is "continuing a behavior that produces unsatisfactory results." which certainly seems to presage the housing meltdown started by Jimmy Carter, accelerated by W.J. Clinton, and nursed by C. Dodd and B. Frank. Sure, all this put several hundred thousand houses in reach of those who otherwise could not have afforded them. How good was the result?
     
    The lesson to be learned is that we should be teaching how to learn.
    The larger HOW not being taught in management schools, especially in Public Administration, is Systems Thinking, Feeling and Doing. This is urgent. It may not be enough but it is the only remedy I can see to offset the  damage that can be wrought by those who graduated from Law schools.
     
    What other remedies are there?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:10 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Colleagues,
     
    Jack Ring asks me:  how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    1. Not a god... just an alternative to growth as the primary criterion for economic success or failure.
    2. Not yet discovered or at least not enough to be noticed in general media.  We hear about quarterly reports on growth.  Not other criteria.
    3. Not yet defined to my knowledge.  Indeed, I hope economists and others will establish criteria not dependent on ever increasing use of resources.  We can reverse population growth without reversing expansion of resource use.  The key will be productivity that enables shared high quality of life with declining use of natural resources.
    4. I have no idea how to persuade change to alternate criteria of economic health, nor how to measure "quality" of success against those criteria.
    5. I do know that we've over fished, over cultivated, over mined, over built, and over polluted far to much of our only store of natural resources.
     
    As to overpopulation:  We don't get more Einsteins by creating larger generations.  Among the websites on this topic, Ira Plato of NPR chose to talk to Paul Ehrlich.  see http://www.dominantanimal.com/index.php?page_id=285
     
    Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing humanity today... except perhaps for the general resistance of humanity to perceive overpopulation as a threat.
     
    Best,
     
    Gary
     

    ...........................................

    Gary Lundquist

    Director@InnoSearchColorado.com

    Colorado Resources for Innovation

    303-840-9929 

    ...........................................

    GaryL@Market-Engineering.com

      Innovation of Business and

      the Business of Innovation™  

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 6:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    George,
    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.
     
    Gary,
    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.
     
    All,
    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.
     
    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.
     
    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.
     
    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.
     
    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?
     
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
     
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Dear Colleagues,
     
    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
     
    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
     
    Cheers,
     
    George Graen
    /jag


  • 19.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-23-2008 15:30
    To Tom and his friends,

    What is universally human.   To live tomorrow better than you live today.

    I understand EO Wilson's numbers 5 billion with meat and 12 billion with grain. If better is the universal  then we are going toward meat not toward grain.  So if we want to be living in a better world, we aught to be expecting the prospects of living  on the earth with fewer and fewer people 

    Since everyone would prefer a Lear jet for their mode of transportation, and each is willing to compete in the market (if not in the war arena) for it, maybe less than 50  million global population is the right number for a just, peaceful and sustainable future.  

    Jack Alpert

    PS. I am not on you list.   I probably have no right to interject this into your conversation.   But I am on much harsher lists.  Today I wrote this for one of those lists.   You may find it of interest. 
    It is below the figure. 

    Jack Alpert
    (C) 913 708 2554
    (O) 913 248 0016

    Who are you pushing off the plate?

    Dear Dilemma observers and Civilization savers, 

     "I pencil" http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/9605read.html mimics the complexity of the human condition. The essay describes the huge number of behaviors coming together to make a pencil. Certainly it is difficult to show that all these people working to make a pencil are dangerous to the human condition. Yet in our world the  level of thinking they are using threatens the viability of our civilization.

    When the collective behaviors of 6.7 billion people increase the total  human load  beyond the global productive capacity, part of that capacity is destroyed. This results in a fall back in total production. This results in a fall back in total human wellbeing. The resulting social conflict consumes more scarce resources producing more conflict -- eventually tipping civilization into a dark age -- maybe a permanent dark age.

    This scenario, which includes a large die off and reduction of living standards, is hard to see and value. The human mind runs on experience and recent experience does not contain such a scenario. E.G. World War II was a black period but we recovered. 

    Certainly the dark age our causal models predict can not be appreciated by the mind that creates values based on experience. There is a disconnect between humankind's behaviors and our future conditions. 

    Anything we (civilization savers) attempt to accomplish must reflect this disconnect. If we don't want the future we expect, we must help people to take different behaviors. That is help people see what we see.  

    For me that means, have them see the importance of  creating behaviors that implement rapid population decline (RPD).

    By what mechanisms do we accomplish this? In order of my preference.

    1) change the quality of the public's view of our scenario. A changed value for the human predicament would result in a change in belief about which behavior leads to which future.

    2) Force individuals to choose RPD behavior, 
    a) using the majority of RPD believers to create administrative control 
    (mutual coercion mutually agreed upon. ) This means creating
    RPD behavior laws, the same way we created speed laws. 
    Implementations could include mandatory involvement of all people in
    contraception (maybe birth control in the water supply or 
    a contraceptive vaccination at birth 
    with a way of allowing births by choice, lottery, and civilization's needs.) 


    3) RPD behavior  autocratically implemented without popular support.

    4) genocide with intent to bring the population down below carrying capacity (continuously driven as per capita consumption raises.

    Of Course we can keep doing what most people are doing - no change in behavior--  hope for the best.

    Does this seem like the skeleton structure of our predicament and our opportunities for an alternative future.


    Jack


    can you in
    On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Thomas Hawk wrote:

    Jack. I am part of a listserve for the Management Education and Development Division of the Academy of Management. Here is a portion of a current discussion thread that touches on issues of interest to you. I will send you another one after this. Tom.

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Gary Lundquist
    Sent: Wed 10/22/2008 10:54 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Jack,
     
    Arable hectares isn't the issue.  It's what we do on them.  E. O. Wilson notes that we can feed 12 billion people if they all eat grain.  (rice, wheat, etc.)  If they all want meat, we can't feed 5 billion.
     
    And some hectares must provide places for people to live and word.  We keep using up arable land for urban sprawl.
        In 2002, Humanity added 74 million people:  2 1/3 per second, 141 per minute, 200,000 per day, 6.2 million per month.  Every five years, add the population of Western Europe (375 million).
        The rate of population growth peaked around 1970.  In subsequent years, we see a decline in rate of population growth.  That is, growth is slowing, yet growth is still happening.
        The UN predicts a massive surge in growth, especially in central Africa when the malaria problem is solved.  They predict 9 billion by 2050.

     

    Other hectares must provide us energy.  OK... let's assume that energy comes from non-arable hectares.  Well, maybe not.  After all, we grow energy requirements faster than we grow people.  
    Global energy consumption
    1900:  20 quadrillion BTUs (quads) per year for 1.7 billion people
    2000:  400 quadrillion BTUs per year in 2000 for 6.1 billion people
    20 times the energy consumption of 1900 for 3.5 times the population.
    About 67 million BTUs per Human per year.
    2100: Very energy efficient growth of just a factor of 5 implies 2000 quads
    Power plants and transmission lines could easily take up 30% of our land by 2001.
     
    If we don't believe population is a huge problem, we simply aren't paying attention.
     
    Jim Clawson:  "the underlying issue is how does one get another person to be willing to re-examine a deeply held belief that they've had since they were young?"
        I'd say:  How do we get people to reexamine their innate reactions that are deeper than beliefs?  A psychologist once said, "Fish don't know their environment is wet."  Humans don't know that our neural-hormonal (emotional) environment is largely activated by evolutionary conditioning.
     
    Best to all,
     
    Gary
     
    Gary
    ...........................................
    Gary Lundquist
    Colorado Resources for Innovation
    303-840-9929 
    ...........................................
      Innovation of Business and
      the Business of Innovation™  
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:34 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Thomas,
    Thanks for the response.
    This paper speaks to part a) of my request but doesn't seem to address part b), that is, Dr. Hyde doesn't estimate the likelihood of being wrong. He did properly label the material as 'hypothesis.'
     
    Would you go for "the part of global warming that is man-made is due more to overpopulation than to other human behavior factors?" How about if we consider overpopulation to be not just a belly button count but a metric that includes 'numbers of humans per arable hectare?'
    cheers,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:17 AM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

    Data from psychology....

     

    I'm not George, but when I saw Gary's model, I instantly thought of this:

     

    Article title
    The Gender Similarities Hypothesis
    Author
    Hyde, J. S.
    Journal title
    AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
    Bibliographic details
    2005, VOL 60; NUMB 6, pages 581-592

     

    Abstract. The differences model, which argues that males and females
    are vastly different psychologically, dominates the
    popular media. Here, the author advances a very different
    view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that
    males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological
    variables. Results from a review of 46 metaanalyses
    support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender
    differences can vary substantially in magnitude at
    different ages and depend on the context in which measurement
    occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences
    carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and
    relationships.

     

     

    I also have doubts about this:
    Global warming is a symptom. Global overpopulation is the problem.

     

    I don't think 6 or 8 or 10 billion Albert Einsteins would be such a bad thing. The people I know who have chosen to address overpopulation by not procreating are exactly the people who should be procreating.

     

    Tom

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 7:30 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    George,
    Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such judgement of fallibility.

     

    Gary,
    Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly discovered God named Sustainability.

     

    All,
    Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are already available.

     

    1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals' hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b) effective corrective action.

     

    2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as our 'reason' to a) and b) above.

     

    Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on.  I suggested that we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.

     

    Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe understanding in others?

     

    cheers,
    Jack Ring

     

    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?

     

    Dear Colleagues,

     

    I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have questions about them.  The data from psychology do not support his "universal" differences between males and females, although his differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.

     

    I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may well witness the end of days for humans.  What is needed are global movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless we and they can save our deteriorating planet.  The "greatest generation" created this threat to future generations.  All educators must teach the folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions.  Let us light some candles, before we need to curse the darkness.

     

    Cheers,

     

    George Graen
    /jag

    Jack Alpert
    (C) 913 708 2554
    (O) 913 248 0016

    Who are you pushing off the plate?





  • 20.  What's Universally Human?

    Posted 10-23-2008 22:02
    Great post, Tom.
    Inferential is in the eye of the beer holder, not the intellect of the
    author.
    Anyway, here, have a cigar. Better yet, a whole carton if non-filter
    cigarettes, a liter of vodka and a 1000cc Ducatti.
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Thomas Timmerman" <TTimmerman@TNTECH.EDU>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:35 PM
    Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?


    > The likelihood of being wrong is provided by the inferential statistics in
    > the article.
    >
    > And I do believe that all sorts of bad things are happening because of the
    > number of people consuming what we consume given the world's resources. My
    > point about overpopulation is that solutions are being proposed through
    > certain value systems that aren't being explicitly acknowledged. I read
    > the "Dominant Animal" Appendix provided by Gary's link. Many of the
    > solutions revolve around reducing the worldwide birth rate. But
    > overpopulation is also the result of a declining death rate. So one might
    > ask (not me, of course), why are we wasting so much money (resources)
    > developing cures for cancer, AIDS, and malaria? These
    > (naturally-occurring) diseases could cheaply reduce overpopulation by
    > increasing the death rate. Yes, the suffering they produce is not
    > consistent with our values for human well-being, but some countries have
    > legalized assisted suicide clinics where people can pass away painlessly
    > and peacefully. Again, someone might ask (not me, of course), why aren't
    > the experts promoting a higher deathrate through the much wider
    > "availability" of disease and death "management"?
    >
    > An equally unsettling idea that I alluded to earlier is this. What if the
    > world was populated by some good people and some bad people. The good
    > people agree to reduce their birth rate and increase their death rate
    > (because they're good people and care about the planet). The bad people
    > don't care about the planet, so they procreate abundantly and develop all
    > sorts of ways to extend life. Over time, the world becomes dominated by
    > the bad people. That's why I don't think overpopulation, per se, is the
    > problem. The bigger threat is overpopulation by the bad people.
    >
    > Again, let me emphasize that I'm not promoting suffering. I just think
    > that greater access to birth control, for example, is a solution that
    > ignores competing values/ideas that may be distasteful but just as worthy
    > of consideration.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    > ________________________________
    >
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Jack
    > Ring
    > Sent: Tue 10/21/2008 3:34 PM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?
    >
    >
    > Thomas,
    > Thanks for the response.
    > This paper speaks to part a) of my request but doesn't seem to address
    > part b), that is, Dr. Hyde doesn't estimate the likelihood of being wrong.
    > He did properly label the material as 'hypothesis.'
    >
    > Would you go for "the part of global warming that is man-made is due more
    > to overpopulation than to other human behavior factors?" How about if we
    > consider overpopulation to be not just a belly button count but a metric
    > that includes 'numbers of humans per arable hectare?'
    > cheers,
    > Jack Ring
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Thomas Timmerman <mailto:TTimmerman@TNTECH.EDU>
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:17 AM
    > Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?
    >
    >
    > Data from psychology....
    >
    >
    >
    > I'm not George, but when I saw Gary's model, I instantly thought of this:
    >
    >
    >
    > Article title
    >
    > The Gender Similarities Hypothesis
    >
    > Author
    >
    > Hyde, J. S.
    >
    > Journal title
    >
    > AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
    >
    > Bibliographic details
    >
    > 2005, VOL 60; NUMB 6, pages 581-592
    >
    >
    >
    > Abstract. The differences model, which argues that males and females
    >
    > are vastly different psychologically, dominates the
    >
    > popular media. Here, the author advances a very different
    >
    > view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that
    >
    > males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological
    >
    > variables. Results from a review of 46 metaanalyses
    >
    > support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender
    >
    > differences can vary substantially in magnitude at
    >
    > different ages and depend on the context in which measurement
    >
    > occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences
    >
    > carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and
    >
    > relationships.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I also have doubts about this:
    >
    > Global warming is a symptom. Global overpopulation is the problem.
    >
    >
    >
    > I don't think 6 or 8 or 10 billion Albert Einsteins would be such a bad
    > thing. The people I know who have chosen to address overpopulation by not
    > procreating are exactly the people who should be procreating.
    >
    >
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Management Education and Development Discussion
    > [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
    > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 7:30 PM
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    > Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?
    >
    >
    >
    > George,
    >
    > Please cite a) any "data from psychology" that shows the fallibility of
    > Gary's model and b) the rationale for the likelihood of error in such
    > judgement of fallibility.
    >
    >
    >
    > Gary,
    >
    > Pls tell us how to measure the presence (or absence) of this newly
    > discovered God named Sustainability.
    >
    >
    >
    > All,
    >
    > Perhaps we need only the intent and will to apply two things that are
    > already available.
    >
    >
    >
    > 1) How about a Standard of Care? Professional Engineers and Nurses publish
    > and abide by SoC. Few others do. Educators don't. Most 'professionals'
    > hide behind statements of Ethics which only address behavior (also called
    > process) rather than results. If we had a SoC for every authority then we
    > could 'close the loop' with a) objective assessment of situation and b)
    > effective corrective action.
    >
    >
    >
    > 2) Bayesian Belief Networks which help us apply our 'intution' as well as
    > our 'reason' to a) and b) above.
    >
    >
    >
    > Caution, War Story: A few years back I was on the Board of Trustees of an
    > enterprise supposedly dedicated to encouraging and facilitating thinking
    > globally and acting locally. We had 15 clear Principles to which everyone
    > agreed as a condition of membership. Whenever a motion was made in a
    > Trustees meeting I noted a lot of 'politicing' going on. I suggested that
    > we simply compare the motion or alternatives to the Principles to see how
    > the motion scored. The majority of Trustees declared this to be unwieldy
    > and unnecessary. The enterprise lasted only two more years.
    >
    >
    >
    > Now if you really want to make the world a better place for those yet to
    > come, how about a Standard of Care for those to profess to educe
    > understanding in others?
    >
    >
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > Jack Ring
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    >
    > From: George Graen <mailto:Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>
    >
    > To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    >
    > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 2:58 PM
    >
    > Subject: Re: What's Universally Human?
    >
    >
    >
    > Dear Colleagues,
    >
    >
    >
    > I typically admire Gary's pragmatic insights, but this time I have
    > questions about them. The data from psychology do not support his
    > "universal" differences between males and females, although his
    > differences may be clear stereotypes within his subculture.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree with Jim that unless we experience dramatic generational changes
    > in VABEs that protect human survival on earth, our great grandchildren may
    > well witness the end of days for humans. What is needed are global
    > movements to educate our future generation on our collective fate, unless
    > we and they can save our deteriorating planet. The "greatest generation"
    > created this threat to future generations. All educators must teach the
    > folly in continuing to deny our destructive actions. Let us light some
    > candles, before we need to curse the darkness.
    >
    >
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    >
    >
    > George Graen
    >
    > /jag
    >