Escape your box-life !

[Hankaroundtheworld]

Nice documentary from Dutch Television showing Ricardo Semler's vision, which I think comes close to the challenge of ERE, how to escape our "box" that we all created together. The box on individual, tribal, organizational and society-wide level, that almost forces us, controls us.

90% is in English language (so wait a few sec's at start, the Dutch language will disappear into English)

See: http://www.npo.nl/vpro-tegenlicht/08-02 ... ON_1232874

[stand@desk]

Some great quotes out of that documentary..

"The immeasurable things in life make it worth living."

"The only thing we have that the machines do not have is intuition." (although this may likely be debatable)

"Without mystery, intuition and surprise there would be no need to live."

"We really don't want to know all of the answers. That is a fundamental element of life."

Thanks for sharing!!

Made me realize ho much I love boxes within my own life but I make them work for me, I don't blindly work for them. And I think I am more aware of boxes than most. Life is about having the right balance of predictability and unpredictability. This fellow seems very INTJ.

[jennypenny]

I liked "Realizing that our freedom is probably already available to us inside the box." It reminded me of the common objection to ERE that it's impossible unless you inherit money or have a high-paying job or no kids, etc. I liked that he emphasized learning to think more effectively inside the box.

[Chad]

Some initial reactions from the video:

- Wow! That's a nice house.
- Initially suggests the "human tribe" needs to accept change, but then complains he can't get his kids interested in paper books, as they read on the iPad. Why does the form factor matter?
- Makes a good point about tribal size and how we don't really interact outside of groups of roughly 10. Though, I think he is a little too dismissive of proximity.
- The freedom being available "inside the box" is one of his better thoughts.
- "Too much intelligence together can never be wise." I don't agree with him. Goals and culture within this group would appear to be more influential in how the group operates than the intelligence. If intelligent people don't develop wisdom who does? He condems intelligence a little too much. It doesn't guarantee wisdom, but it makes it more likely.
- He is a little too anti-organization for my mind. I don't disagree it needs to be blown up now and then. Just that all organization isn't bad, which he seems to suggest.
- "Nothing important has happened since Microsoft." Seems rather not wise.

[Hankaroundtheworld]

I think what he meant by "too much intelligence" is that if you want to create "wisdom", you should have a balance in the team that reflects reality, while if you only bring super intelligent people together, they might do a lot of smart things, but not necessarily create the wisdom that the world needs ... just my 2cents of understanding on that point

[Chad]

I think what he meant by "too much intelligence" is that if you want to create "wisdom", you should have a balance in the team that reflects reality, while if you only bring super intelligent people together, they might do a lot of smart things, but not necessarily create the wisdom that the world needs ... just my 2cents of understanding on that point

I agree, that is what he is trying to get across. What I don't agree with him on is the variable needed to create wisdom. Having lesser intelligence doesn't seem to be a good way to balance the team/organization. Why would someone add slow people to their 100 meter relay team just to match "reality?" Having high intelligence from differing cultures, backgrounds, education levels, etc. seems to be a better way to achieve balance and wisdom. I do agree that focusing only on one type/one feeder of intelligence can cause issues. Wall Street is a prime example. Their feeder system is basically the Ivy League. This means the majority of intelligence they are getting has a very similar background/culture and, if not, it's made similar by the similar schools. This creates group think, blindspots, and over reinforces the one type of culture.

[steveo73]

I'm watching this now and I find him really the opposite of what I consider an ERE lifestyle. It was interesting but to me it seemed excessive. All that stuff especially the wine.

[George the original one]

His lifestyle is restrained compared to most CEO excesses. Read his bio in Wikipedia and you'll get a better idea of where he's coming from. Now compare that to the point about Apple HQ.

[Chad]

I don't think Hank is suggesting this guy is living ERE, but that his thought process could be considered ERE.

[theanimal]

First off, thanks for sharing Hank! I really enjoyed that.

I think what he meant by "too much intelligence" is that if you want to create "wisdom", you should have a balance in the team that reflects reality, while if you only bring super intelligent people together, they might do a lot of smart things, but not necessarily create the wisdom that the world needs ... just my 2cents of understanding on that point

I agree, that is what he is trying to get across. What I don't agree with him on is the variable needed to create wisdom. Having lesser intelligence doesn't seem to be a good way to balance the team/organization. Why would someone add slow people to their 100 meter relay team just to match "reality?" Having high intelligence from differing cultures, backgrounds, education levels, etc. seems to be a better way to achieve balance and wisdom. I do agree that focusing only on one type/one feeder of intelligence can cause issues. Wall Street is a prime example. Their feeder system is basically the Ivy League. This means the majority of intelligence they are getting has a very similar background/culture and, if not, it's made similar by the similar schools. This creates group think, blindspots, and over reinforces the one type of culture.

@Chad- Wouldn't you say that having only intelligent people creates group think, blindspots and over reinforces the one type of culture? Leaving out intelligence, but accounting for all the other variables still distorts the balance.

Edit: I also don't think the 100 meter relay is a fair comparison. The slowest member of the relay team has no benefit to the team, they physically can't go faster. In a group, the average or below-average intelligence could still provide insight. They won't have the most or necessarily the best ideas, but they can still contribute.

Look at the Gilette example. I'm sure that Gilette has a variety of people with above average intelligence. Yet, it took them hundreds of millions of dollars and a lot of time to come up with the idea to add one frickin' blade! I don't know much about what happened, but its very possible that their intelligence may have played a part in handicapping them because they looked for a more complex solution.

[Chad]

@theanimal

I don't. Intelligence is the wrong variable to change in my mind. Less intelligence doesn't help, but different experiences, different upbringing, different education, different Myers Briggs type, etc. might help.

I do agree with him that intelligence doesn't guarantee wisdom, but I would think intelligence is more likely to turn into wisdom.

I agree that the 100 meter isn't a great example. A better example would be the 3rd or 4th string player on a football team. They are never going to see the field. They have value by providing a good look for the starters in practice, but the better athlete they are the better look they can give. I don't see how less intelligence would be helpful. Just like less athletic ability wouldn't be helpful for the team even if the 4th string player has no chance of ever playing.

The Gillette example was doomed by the company's culture, not intelligence. I'm sure numerous people in those teams thought the amount of resources was being used was complete idiocy. What they probably needed was a few people who didn't give a damn if they got fired.

[stand@desk]

I see this man as struggling to accept the world and he has created his own little world to deal with it. Very INTJ and not necessarily ERE. I have found that all INTJs are not default ERE types. INTJs realize that their world and time are finite so they like to indulge themselves a little (some more than others) but mainly they like to hold back a large portion for their security and investment.

When it comes to formulating a great team, Yes intelligence is important, but if you have too many "Stars" on a development project or a sports team, it's like having too many ENTJs in a room, they work better when they have support and others they can utilize, not competing against and backstabbing each other. The battle of dominance regarding who is in control will be of primary concern and the project is of secondary concern. ENTJs could not be CEOs if it weren't for all the other personality types in the organization which do the heavy lifting and support for them. This is true for good sports teams too. Good sports teams have a good supporting cast that helps the stars do their best. Put a superstar on the 4th line of a hockey team and if he is used to or expects to be on the 1st line, he'll probably start acting out or self-sabotage or be resentful of those around him etc. As soon as you remove the distraction of who will dominate, and a few of the stars can get back in stride, the team starts to perform again, successfully.

[jacob]

Too much intelligence (or any kind of talent) sometimes leads to inadequate development in other areas that a less intelligent person would develop to compensate, e.g. discipline, organization, education. For example, the forums of many high IQ societies display a certain level of crackpottery in their discussions; a strong tendency towards the idea that because of their exceptional intelligence they can derive everything from first principles without needing to put any effort into it.

[Chad]

No doubt. There are always exceptions, as nothing is perfect.

But, if you have a 100 vastly different problems to solve are you really picking the team with stupid people?

[Hankaroundtheworld]

@chad : it all depends on the problem that needs to be solved. Some people might not necessarily be considered "stupid", but might not be seen as super-intelligent either, however they could be skilled in a different way (like @Jacob was explaining, more disciplined, more driven, better in organizing, etc..), so in a balanced team, you combine super-intelligent people with people with different developed skills.

Anyway, the video was meant to be inspirational (like going to a Church for Atheists ), to hear something good in-between all the negative news in the media. I basically like to watch these "Tegenlicht" documentaries of VPRO in the Netherlands (which are accessible on the site NPO.nl, search on "Tegenlicht"). VPRO is the best public broadcast company in the Netherlands, and many of their Documentaries are in English (with some Dutch language in-between).

[theanimal]

I'm currently reading The Last American Man and came across this passage(pages 18-19). Very fitting. Maybe Semler has read about Eustace?

Eustace Conway speaking at a summer camp:

I live in nature, where everything is connected, circular. The seasons are circular. The planet is circular, and so is its passage around the sun. The course of water over the earth is circular, coming down from the sky and circulating through the world to spread life and then evaporating up again. I live in a circular teepee and I build my fire in a circle, and when my loved ones visit me, we sit in a circle and talk. The life cycles of plants and animals are circular. I live outside where I can see this. The ancient people understood that our world is a circle, but we modern people have lost sight of that. I don't live inside buildings, because buildings are dead places where nothing grows, where water doesn't flow, and where life stops. I don't want to live in a dead place. People say that I don't live in the real world, but it's modern Americans who live in a fake world, because they've stepped outside the natural circle of life.

I saw the circle of life most clearly when I was riding my horse across America and I came across the body of a coyote that had recently died. The animal was mummified from the desert heat, but all around it, in a lush circle, was a small band of fresh green grass. The earth was borrowing the nutrients from the animal and regenerating itself This wasn't about death, I realized' this was about eternal life. I took the teeth from that coyote and made myself this necklace right here, which always circles my neck, so I'd never forget that lesson.

Do people live in circles today? No. They live in boxes. They wake up every morning in the box of their bedroom because a box next to them started making beeping noises to tell them it was time to get up. They eat their breakfast out of a box and then they throw that box away into another box. Then they leave the box where they live and get into a box with wheels and drive to work, which is just another big box broken up into lots of little cubicle boxes where a bunch of people spend their days sitting and staring at the computer boxes in front of them. When the day is over, everyone gets into the box with wheels again and goes home to their house boxes and spends the evening staring at the television boxes for entertainment. They get their music from a box, they get their food from a box, they keep their clothing in a box, they live their lives in a box! Does that sound like anybody you know?

...

Break out of the box! You don't have to live like this because people tell you it's the only way. You're not handcuffed to your culture! This is not the way humanity lived for thousands and thousands of years, and it is not the only way you can live today.