LinkedIn E-mail RSS
Home Caught Thinking No such thing as an open mind?

No such thing as an open mind?

Imposed change is almost reflexively viewed with suspicion, frequently alarm . Yet curiously even desirable change is difficult and often therefore unpleasant also, although stagnation has a bad air about itself as well. So we settle for a middle ground, what has been delicately described as “the collusion of mediocrity,” change lite. Let’s not be naive, change is not always good for you.

Our lives are a web of powerful ambivalences. This is largely inevitable, given the risks in moving off  the familiar centre. Yet we must somehow learn to live with the countervailing forces that pull is in so many directions at once. We know this in our guts, but can’t afford to be preoccupied by the fog of surrounding unknowns nor mesmerized by their dangerous attractions. We construct imaginary fictions to save us from fretting. Eventually, with the help of others and our preferred comforts, these fictions stand in for the elusive painful reality we are too stretched out to stay with. The ambivalences gradually blend together to form what we feel might actually be happening and voila: a personal ideology coalesces.

After this tipping point is reached, the dominoes fall swiftly. To keep the strain of the myriad unknowns at bay we simply maintain the facade of the ideology. Check out the Johari window to get a glimpse of all the things we just don’t or can’t linger over. Ideological maintenance becomes a top priority to save scarce energy. We find solace in the familiar, the shared, the comfortable. However, a gap soon appears. Lots of things don’t fit the collusion of mediocrity: Things like other people’s ideologies or  the ugly unvarnished orneriness of the day to day. Jonathan Haidt describes what happens backing it with references to properly controlled studies in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion. Whenever something novel that conforms to nothing recognizable in our value system presents itself, we do not analyze or test it for properties, but instead look for a place on our ideological continuum to put it, then afterwards rationalize the decision.

This approach made sense in  environments where most of the dangers were immediate and reaction time was at a premium. Better to assume the movement in the grass is a tiger or that unfamiliar tribesman an enemy if we want to pass on our genes. At some level, we know better today. Life is complicated and most situations definitely do not lend themselves to impulsive responses. Nevertheless, the old sequence prevails. The see, frame, react, rationalize mechanism wants to show up whenever we go on alert.

So here’s the paradox. The emergency for most of us most of the time is that there is no emergency. Our motivation system whether direct or mediated by the myths that reinforce our values needs to be artificially prodded, but that leads to some really stupid errors like excessive destructive competition, incredible waste and distraction from everything that would give long term meaning to our time on earth. Is it any wonder we need to learn how to think strategically? Is it any wonder we could use a coach when we don’t?

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
4 Comments  comments 

4 Responses

  1. WOW! Your thoughts and writing style are very impressive. My favorite sentence is “Whenever something novel that conforms to nothing recognizable in our value system presents itself, we do not analyze or test it for properties, but instead look for a place on our ideological continuum to put it, then afterwards rationalize the decision.”

    Recently we moved to a new community where the thinking is much more conservative than mine. I meet people I admire and respect, but don’t agree with their politics. It’s been an interesting journey in my own mind to question my own beliefs as I try to understand how and why people come to such different conclusions. In the end, I fall prey to my own justification and more fully entrenched in my beliefs.

    I will ponder that statement more and get back to you at a later date.

    Thank you.

  2. The paradox is we allow ourselves to be distracted by what’s going on in lives of others with little consideration to what really matters in our own. So often it’s all about I want, I need, I can’t live without…until a crisis hits and we’re faced with more of the who and not the what we want. Food for thought, thank you for your well written thought provoking words!

  3. Donald,

    Your article hit home with me today since I’ve been in a state of change for two years. Much of it was imposed from the outside, and even what I’ve chosen is a struggle to forge. During this time, coaches have made a big difference for me to get off stuck, prioritize, and get moving.

  4. This reminds me of the principles put forth by Don Ruiz in the Four Agreements when he emphasizes that our reality, and those of others is no more than an aggregate of our perceptions, based on past experiences, and our own unique perceptions of those past experiences. So, what is reality? Perhaps not yours, or my views, but something in between…the moral of the story? Don’t take anything personally, and don’t assume that your perceptions of any given situation are the right ones until you give it a thorough analysis!

    Ang 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − = 3