Our Programming Doesn't Allow Unified Action

Stop trying to convince everybody to do the same!

When disaster strikes, some are programmed to run, some to freeze, and some to fight.

Sometimes those who fought would save the day, sometimes those that ran would survive, and sometimes those that froze weren’t found or deemed too weak to kill.

When a fire breaks out, those that run may live, those that saved goods may be better equipped to deal with the aftermath, those that seek to extinguish the fire may end it, or stop it long enough for others to save their skin. Many people may adjust tactics given their estimate of the situation, yet one’s programming always comes first and is dominant.

When humanity was young, this worked well. Whatever the disaster, the diversity of reactions made sure some would survive. Nature doesn’t know what will happen. Anything may happen. So nature helped us prepare for the ‘what might happen’, but it can’t know what that is, until it happens. Now many have found ways to predict or even measure a ‘what will happen, when this or that occurs’. Leaders always seek ways to sell it to their people. And they want to convince everybody to have a unified reaction. This goes against our programming, even when the prediction is wise, which can be flawed as well.?

When a war happens, some will fight to save themselves, others will fight for others. Some will enforce unity so we may stand together. Some will flee to live. Some will make a profit on black markets or through smuggling people. Some will enforce the law, some will break the law to make things work in hard times. Who is to say who chose the most wise? What if this diversity of reactions is the most wise? What if we accepted our natural diversity of reactions more? What if the full diversity of reactions was the best reaction for all?

Leaders desire everyone to have the same reaction to ‘their solution’. Trying to push one single program onto all, is against how we were built. Some always want to protect the ‘old ways’, some always want to ‘improve things’ the way they see fit. Some always look to their own benefit in whatever ruling they make or receive. Some always want to better the lives of others, and may forget themselves.

In small groups in nature this diversity helps people to be a living tribe that can handle most crises and if things get terrible always some will survive. In a huge organisation it tends to become one side pushing their programming onto others. What program wins may shift. The consequences may change. Yet, to think one programming may save all, is against (our) nature. It's what lives in the middle of all voices that is where we'll head together, each in our own way. Thus start listening to the middle, where the campfire burns.

And of course some will love this advice, others hate it, others try to steer it, and someone else will carry the fire wood as support, and won't be asked to think along, because..

Comment of the sage: “If this is true, then I cannot give one all defining wisdom.”

Comment of the fool: “Welcome to my world. You do you. I do us.”

Personal Anecdote, on how we might approach this differently: Beyond Clear Rules

When I was a student, I always came on time in my education. Many others rarely. Starting with group work was therefore always slow. Angry words didn’t help much. Still, slowly things improved as people learned to be on time. Then one day I was late, really late. With shame and in anticipation of some hard words I entered the classroom and got.. an applause. What I had to learn was to relax a little.

We each have a very different learning path. Loud people need to learn to listen more, and shy people to speak up more. In great education, or organisations, we see and value these different paths for different people.

*) This is Post #1 from a book I'm writing called 'the Fool Rules'. It defines the idiotic rules we follow, the stories we tell ourselves and what a wise fool might do to break through stifling patterns.