More

Browse all tags

Hope and Fear
The two big electoral shocks in western democracy this year [2016], the British vote to leave the EU and the American presidential election, have a few things in common. One of the biggest is the analysis of the unexpected support for candidates or causes that, just a year ago, you’d never have thought stood a chance. In both cases, a story has come out about voters wanting to send a message to the establishment. They’re unhappy with the way their country is now and they want to take back control, to make it great again. These platitudes are meaningless on their own, but they won votes. And the question I’ve been struggling with is, why?
The reason I found both results to be such a shock is the fear and the hatred of others that became such a big talking point. It was wrapped up in concern for infrastructure that was struggling to cope, or concern over terrorist attacks, but when one leading light stands in front of a poster that was eerily similar to Nazi propaganda and another talks about a blanket ban on all members of one of the world’s biggest religions (not to mention being endorsed by neo-nazis and the KKK), it’s hard to avoid the feeling that fear of others is a big part of why people voted for these causes.
But it’s not as simple as saying that. Of course it’s not. And most reasoned analysis says something different: that the platitudes were much closer to the truth. People are unhappy with the way things are. Unhappy with being ignored, with feeling like political systems are set up to serve the elite, those already in power, at the expense of everyone else. Everyone else is struggling to make ends meet, they’re deeply unhappy with the way things are, and so it’s natural that they have fear for the future; the present is bad enough and things have only been getting worse over time. If there’s someone to blame for that, someone to blame for making it worse, they’ll take that and support the people who point this out and promise to make it better.
The problem is that the people who promise to make it better are part of that elite. They don’t really want significant change, but this is an easy way to win votes. Point out that people are unhappy, position yourself to be on their side, and say you’re the only person supporting them.
The alternative, that most of us who don’t want to stoke fear and hatred need to recognise, is hope. Again, it’s important to acknowledge that there’s a problem, much like the hate-mongers are saying. Acknowledge that things aren’t working as they are and need to change. But show how it can become better in the system that we have, rather than tearing it down and starting afresh. The current message, which to paraphrase is simply “this is the best we’ve got, and look at how bad it would be if the other side won”, hasn’t worked. There needs to be a new message. One of hope. One of potential. One of a bright future that includes everyone, rather than an us-vs-them battle.
I wrote this 6 years ago; 14/12/2016. An interesting (read: awful) year in politics. I never published it for various reasons, but reading it back now, I think it’s lasted well. And with a few years’ removal I think it’s got an interesting historical context, as much as the politics haven’t really changed today.

If you liked this article, please consider buying me a coffee to support my writing.
1 December 2016
- opinion
Being Critical
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends."
I recently watched Ratatouille, which is a movie about someone having an unexpected talent, but struggling to have that talent be accepted because of where he comes from. Or, on a simpler level, it's about a rat that wants to be a chef.
That quote comes from the story's food critic character, when he has cause for introspection near the end of the film. It's widely quoted, and for good reason: the web makes it very easy to have our opinions heard. And as the quote says, it's fun, for some reason, to both read and write negative criticism. People can write negative blog articles or fire off quick, critical tweets, and have them be received by the target of the criticism and also the wider world with incredible ease.
A big part of being a critic is passing practical judgement. There is also moral judgement, of whether something is right or wrong, or inappropriate, but often the most harmful negative criticism is that something "just won't work" or "isn't worth trying". This is also the hardest criticism to justify, as you're essentially saying that you can predict the future, and that's where I feel this quote comes into its own.
Whenever something new appears, people always want to be the first to say why it will fail. Why it is unworthy of the attention that it is getting. Why the fact that it breaks existing traditions means that it will either crash and burn, or is somehow inappropriate. It's rare to see that encouragement of a new idea of which Anton Ego speaks. For some reason, people are more comfortable with the idea of criticising something and being wrong when it succeeds, than supporting something and being wrong when it fails. Possibly because failure is more common, so it's easier to be right.
That's why, with so many people being so naturally inclined to say something will fail, "the new needs friends." Of course it's important to exercise critical judgement; to study something and understand what makes it weak. But it's also important to understand what makes it strong, and to support it in evolving, in changing or removing its weak points in favour of its strengths. Whether as a stakeholder or as an interested outsider, there's far more value to be had from positive, constructive criticism, and support of new ideas, than to be had from being right if and when something struggles.

If you liked this article, please consider buying me a coffee to support my writing.
3 November 2015
- opinion
Who Are You?
We are defined as people not by what we are obliged to do, but by what we choose to do.
Nobody is entitled to anything. There is no law of nature that says people ought to have anything. Not charity, not honesty, not respect. Not property, nor employment. Certainly not social security, a pension or free healthcare. We chose to make these a part of our society. Even legal obligations like our human rights were constructed from choices that we made. We didn't start off with the society in which we live, we built it ourselves. And we can dismantle it ourselves.
Everything from dropping your spare change in a charity collection to donating a kidney to a complete stranger is a choice that defines who you are.
Choosing to give up your time to volunteer with the Samaritans, or to help pack food parcels, is a choice that defines who you are.
Choosing to freeze public sector pay, while accepting your own substantial pay rise, defines who you are. Choosing to fight against either aspect of that inequity, or to donate your pay increase to charity, defines who you are. Choosing to make cuts to welfare that provides help to the segment of society that needs it most, while also cutting taxes for the segment of society that doesn't have to worry about where the next meal or the next rent payment comes from, defines who you are as a leader of society, and defines who you are as a member of society.
Who are you?

If you liked this article, please consider buying me a coffee to support my writing.
27 July 2015
- opinion
The Value of An Idea
I'm currently reading "Becoming Steve Jobs" by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli. As you'd probably guess from the title, it's a biography of Steve Jobs, although as such it also covers parts of the history of the computing industry in general. I found one part that talks about Microsoft's 1990s and 2000s dominance particularly interesting.
In the early 2000s, Microsoft was by far the biggest player in the computer industry. Almost all personal computers ran Windows, and the industry then was almost entirely personal computers, either laptops or desktops. At CES in 2000, Bill Gates described a clear vision for far more personal, interconnected devices. He was essentially describing the world we live in now, with devices like phones and TVs becoming increasingly computer-like, and cloud services becoming the way to get instant access to your music, photos, email etc. from any of these devices. He could see the industry growing from millions of computers on desks, to billions of computers in pockets and around the home. It was also a vision that he expected to play less of a role in, as in January 2000 he stepped down as the CEO of Microsoft and handed control to Steve Ballmer.
Microsoft had an almost 20/20 vision of the future, as set out by Gates. As the authors of Becoming Steve Jobs put it, "all he and Steve Ballmer had to do was execute the strategy". I'm giving the authors the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that was tongue-in-cheek, because at best, that's an incredibly naÃ¯ve sentence.
If you need an example of how hard it is to turn an idea into reality, and how little value there really is in an idea, as opposed to the execution of an idea, this is it. Microsoft was on top of the world in 2000. It completely owned the computer industry. The company was worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and attracted some of the best talent in the field. And the leaders had exactly the right idea of how the industry would evolve over the next decade. But even with such a seemingly ideal starting point, they couldn't make things happen the way they wanted.
Microsoft is far from gone, but Apple and Google power those billions of devices that Bill Gates foresaw. While they were successfully developing iOS and Android, Microsoft was floundering with various attempts to bring Windows to mobile devices.
Having an idea means nothing on its own. And having all the power and money you could wish for doesn't guarantee success. Being able to turn an idea into reality is much, much harder, but it's also the only thing that matters.

If you liked this article, please consider buying me a coffee to support my writing.
13 July 2015
- opinion
Listen To Your Emotions
I always find these quotes to be a helpful reminder whenever I'm having trouble thinking about a difficult decision.
"Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you." - Roger Ebert
"Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary." - Steve Jobs
When I look back at decisions I've regretted, I've usually gone with my head over my heart. However great or terrible the outcome, it's hard to regret doing something that you really wanted to do.
I can't find a source for the Ebert quote, but it was in his NY Times obituary, which is worth a read anyway. The Jobs quote is from his Commencement address at Stanford University in 2005. It's probably my favourite inspirational speech. Read or watch it here.

If you liked this article, please consider buying me a coffee to support my writing.
16 April 2015
- opinion
You Are Not Your Idea
I've been reading Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull recently, and it's a fascinating book about the history of Pixar and some things that Catmull has learned over the course of running one of the most successful creative companies in the last 20 years. One of the most interesting passages of the book describes how candour (or "candor" if you're American) has become an important part of the company's culture. An extended excerpt was published here online around the time that the book was published.
This part in particular struck a chord with me:
The ﬁlm — not the ﬁlmmaker — is under the microscope. This principle eludes most people, but it is critical: You are not your idea, and if you identify too closely with your ideas, you will take offense when challenged.

If you liked this article, please consider buying me a coffee to support my writing.
21 January 2015
- opinion

Hope and Fear

Being Critical

Who Are You?

The Value of An Idea

Listen To Your Emotions

You Are Not Your Idea