The system works when you do.
What is an application?
Ask one programmer and you’ll get one definition.
Put programmers, engineers, and managers in a room. Now ask for a definition.
What do you get instead? Discord.
Such was my charge long ago, to define an application. We were implementing change management processes within an IT service management framework for the public sector entity at which I work. Having agreed on a framework, we were defining a process. In order to define a process for an application, however, we needed to define application itself.
How to you get different people to agree on a thing? One way is to present options, narrow choices through selection, and present new options. Repeat unto the singular.
In such ways can one craft a definition.
In my case, I did it with Post-It Notes. We had defined service, database, and server, but not application, and had been at it for 2 months. Absent a market mechanism, meetings in the public sector can drag on, but I digress.
So at our next meeting I gave out Post-It Notes to everyone and said, “Write down 5 things you think of when you think application.”
I collected the Post-It Notes. I put them all on a white board. I grouped like with like. I had people vote on which words stayed and which were discarded. Finally, I had people vote on word order.
We had defined an application. Now we could move forward.
How was this definition achieved?
Conversation.
Yes, it took a while to define application but that’s because we were creating a definition. Definitions matter, and people recognize that.
Indeed, definitions are what people fight over the most everywhere.
What is the correct level at which the US Federal Reserve should set interest rates?
Is it the “Land of Israel” or “Land of Palestine?”
What is a “Woman?”
In economics, international relations, and biology, definitions matter more than anything else.
In my work example, if we had not arrived at a definition of application, our ability to do some of the most basic tasks associated with IT service management would have been impeded.
Definitions matter, and to achieve an agreed-upon definition one needs discourse, or conversation. I have made this point before with respect to one’s identity or narrative.1 One’s identity is, after all, a type of definition.
This means that if there is no agreement on a definition then either the parties are irreconcilable or there is not enough discourse.
Now, extrapolate to our current political condition here in the United States. Many people would observe our current chaos and decry The System.
Irreconcilable differences? Perhaps; truly there are irreconcilable differences, but not all the time everywhere. I believe thinking so indulges narcissism. No one’s ideas are so special, usually.
No, I suspect we have most of our political discord because we are not talking enough with each other. When there is disagreement, nothing changes. The system waits for people to agree before enabling change. This is the system working as designed.
Here in the US, our system is defined by The Constitution.2
There are several principles upon which the US Constitution is founded. One is Rule of Law; Federalism and Individual Rights are others. The principle with primacy here, however, is Separations of Powers.3 Here we bend the knee to Baron de Montesquieu, who felt that different parts of a government should have the power to check the others. Power should be disbursed, and its concentration is not to be trusted.
As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”4
This is why we have Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches to our government. One branch makes laws, another administers, and another interprets.
What this means is that if there is great disagreement at the national level, the real action in these United States takes place at the state level. Assuming the same paralysis does not exist at the state level, then we would have 50 different scenarios in which to “game” various political outcomes. As cream rises to the top, so too would those political outcomes with the most consensus engender the most attention. I have said all this before, too.5
This is obviously the bias of an optimist. But what if there is also disagreement at the state level?
What if no one can agree on anything?
Well, then, nothing gets done.
The system waits for people to agree before enabling change.
Is this really so bad? That depends. After all, the great Liberal Truth is that sometimes things need to change. However, the great Conservative Truth is that things are done for a reason. If things are working, irrespective of how good or bad they work, they are still, in fact, working. Things may not work well. That is everyone’s problem. Things may not work the way you want. That is your problem. Changing things can make things a lot worse. Tradition has reason for being tradition.
Conservative vs. Liberal Truth? Discourse determines which takes pre-eminence. If there is no discourse the default, or safe, position is the Conservative one, to leave well enough alone.
I believe I just channeled Edmund Burke.6
Our previous example was specific to the United States. However, I believe what is true about discourse in the United States is generally true across cultures, because people are the same everywhere. With discourse one can reach consensus, and achieve shared definitions that reflect shared beliefs and values.
If there are no shared definitions, one needs to have discourse.
If there is no discourse, then perhaps one needs to improve one’s conversation skills:7
In the above interview, David Brooks outlines how people can be better conversationalists. In the process, we become better citizens.
Most people engage in paradigmatic thinking, and make arguments. An alternative is to engage in narrative thinking, and tell or solicit stories.8
If we want get to know other people, stories are better than arguments.
As Brooks outlines, the best way to get a story out of people, and learn about what they think, is to be an illuminator, not a diminisher.9
An illuminator engages another person, asking questions about that person. Asking people about themselves makes them come alive, and makes them happy. I’ve discovered the easiest way to make a person happy is to say his or her name. As a cashier at the Willy Street Co-op, I can confirm that saying someone’s name puts a smile on most customers’ faces.
A diminisher makes other people feel unseen and invisible, indeed dismissed. My name example works both ways; get someone’s name wrong, and a frown appears. A diminisher broadcasts themselves, and not engaging others, learns nothing. Ignorance and stereotype can result.
What happens when you illuminate someone is that you catch a measure of the emotions they feel about things. Emotions assign values to things, and so when you illuminate another you learn not only what they value, but how much.10 The same occurs when someone illuminates you.
But illuminating someone also makes them like you and think you’re smart. When you ask a person about themselves, you are asking them about their favorite topic. They will like you and think you’re smart for being smart enough to ask them about themselves, just as you like someone because they were smart enough to ask you about you.
If things go right, then people ask each other about each other and a virtuous cycle commences.
All of this is happening at 2 levels of conversation. One is the “nominal” topic about which you are conversing, and the other is the “under-conversation” or flow of emotion both of you feel during the exchange.11 Does the interaction convey a sense of safety, or threat?
An illuminator will convey safety, a diminisher a more fraught sentiment.
We build friendships with those who illuminate, and enmity with those who diminish.
Recall once again our current political climate. Are we collectively acting like illuminators or diminishers? We know the answer, of course. The problem is the vicious cycle. As we diminish those with whom we politically disagree, they become even lesser in our eyes. A sense of another’s unique “sacredness” as a person is lost, as they become less than us due to our earned ignorance, and hence dismissible. Our online world can make all of this worse.12
We did earn that ignorance. We worked hard for it by being argumentative diminishers.
But there is the virtuous cycle as well, one where we are story-telling illuminators.
That would be a change for us, and lead to political change.
This is difficult. Real change comes from within. People say they want change, but actually hate it, because changing the system means changing themselves. How much is resistance to change a measure of personal shame?
If we want to mend our current political strife, we need to take responsibility for engaging with others with whom we disagree and ask them about themselves, what they believe, and why. They will, in time, return the favor, and we’ll all like each other a little more. That’s Game Theory 101.13
Choose politicians that are illuminators, too. Here in the US, politicians like Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are diminishers, they have that in common. They do not talk with those with whom they disagree; why would they willingly decrease their oxytocin levels by lessening in-group bonding?14
On that score alone Trump and “AOC” are dismissible, not as people lesser than us, but as possessors of ideas not worthy of our time. We know their ideas are not worthy of our time because they haven’t been tempered by challenge. How do they know if they’re right or wrong if their ideas haven’t been challenged, only celebrated in an echo chamber of one’s own design?
These politicians lack illumination. So remember, don’t be a jerk, and don’t vote for one. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.15 We have the politicians we deserve.
This is how we change, if we choose to. If you want to define application, create discourse between IT personnel. If you want to create political change, create discourse between citizens.
Be an illuminator with all people, especially those with whom you disagree.
Its better to know a name than to call a name.
The system works when you do.
P.S. If you’re in the United States…Happy Thanksgiving!
What am I thankful for? The System.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.