2024: Asking the Right Questions
How one word changes everything
Back in 2020, I had an interesting idea drop in to my consciousness. It came in the form of 4 questions:
- Is it ever true?
- Has it ever been true?
- Could it ever be true?
- Should it ever be true?
The context of these questions was that each person was ‘born into’ one of those questions, describing their lens on the world, ranging from Material (is it ever true) to Ethical (should it ever be true).
It took four years, but last week I became aware that a key word was dropped from the original questions. The word is EVER. The importance of this word to all the conversations since then is literally the difference between questions rooted in judgement (yes/no) and questions that offer unlimited potential (is it possible).
Recognizing this was rather mind blowing. How could the word ‘ever’ have slipped out of the message so easily? Well, it happens all the time.
We get entranced by our own words, seeking validation of their brightness and, by extension, *our* own brightness, blinding ourselves to the subtle change of the meaning of the message.
By deleting the word EVER, the complexity of the story is lost. It becomes another story that doesn’t ring true for people because it presents a simple road to success (just do this!), when the truth is more complex (consider this…and this…and this…etc).
I wrote an article in May 2021, mapping these questions to the OODA Loop:
The OODA loop is the cycle observe–orient–decide–act, developed by military strategist and United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd. Boyd applied the concept to the combat operations process, often at the operational level during military campaigns. It is now also often applied to understand commercial operations and learning processes. The approach explains how agility can overcome raw power in dealing with human opponents. It is especially applicable to cyber security and cyberwarfare. ~ The OODA Loop ~ Creating the Lexicon of Future: O is for OODA
Upgrading the visual in the article adding the word EVER, adds backs the authentic complexity of the original questions. This complexity is a key element of sustainability…just as it is in nature:
Using the biomimicry framework, we have a much greater likelihood of developing and sustaining a community that not only reflects our core values, but also has greater resiliency in the face of a rapidly changing world. ~ Biomimicry vs Biomockery
For example, let’s examine the phrase “survival of the fittest”
Question 1: Is it ever true?
What’s more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word “fittest” seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.~ Evolution myths: ‘Survival of the fittest’ justifies ‘everyone for themselves’
Question 2: Has it ever been true?
What we see in the wild is not every animal for itself. Cooperation is an incredibly successful survival strategy. Indeed it has been the basis of all the most dramatic steps in the history of life. Complex cells evolved from cooperating simple cells. Multicellular organisms are made up of cooperating complex cells. Superorganisms such as bee or ant colonies consist of cooperating individuals. ~ Evolution myths: ‘Survival of the fittest’ justifies ‘everyone for themselves’
Question 3: Could it ever be true?
When cooperation breaks down, the results can be disastrous. When cells in our bodies turn rogue, for instance, the result is cancer. So elaborate mechanisms have evolved to maintain cooperation and suppress selfishness, such as cellular “surveillance” programmes that trigger cell suicide if they start to turn cancerous. ~ Evolution myths: ‘Survival of the fittest’ justifies ‘everyone for themselves’
Question 4: Should it ever be true?
Looked at from this point of view, the concept of the survival of the fittest could be used to justify socialism rather than laissez-faire capitalism. Then again, the success of social insects could be used to argue for totalitarianism.
Which illustrates another point: it is nonsense to appeal to the “survival of the fittest” to justify any economic or political ideology, especially on the basis that it is “natural” ~ Evolution myths: ‘Survival of the fittest’ justifies ‘everyone for themselves’
Rewriting this message has been cathartic. It feels good to set the story straight and get the authentic message back on track.
It’s time to do the work.
