When the only thing that looks the way you wanted it to is your LinkedIn profile

A few days ago, a good friend sent me the ‘Corporate Fuckboi Starter Pack’.  2 years ago, I would’ve checked off just about every god damn box on that list.  I wasn’t big on happy hours or energy drinks, but the rest was close enough.  On the surface, things looked good.  They looked a lot like my LinkedIn profile.

I used to joke around and say that on paper, I was the guy that every girl’s parents hoped they would bring home:  Nice guy, clean cut, university educated, good job, bright future, etc., etc.  The rest was a bit complicated.

I think I grew up with the wrong idea about personal and professional development.  Rather than looking at it like an exploratory exercise or a journey to be enjoyed, I looked at it like a race that I was supposed to win.  I would pick a path based on what those around me respected most.  It rarely had anything to do with who I was, and everything to do with how high of a bar I could set for myself. And I committed myself to getting there faster than anyone else.  In the process, I learned to prioritize income, status, resources, and eventually, making a positive impact in the world.

Part of that competitive effort was building the kind of track record which would allow me to compete at the higher levels.  Enter LinkedIn.  Between my volunteer and professional efforts since 2009, my resume now read Branch Manager, Director, Director, President, Director, Investment Advisor, Vice President, Vice President.  Had I told a younger me that this is what my resume would look like at 32, he would’ve been pumped.  Would he believe me if I told him that it’s all bullshit?

What if I told a younger me that every minute spent manufacturing this impression of who I thought I was supposed to be, was a minute wasted?  Not because it didn’t get me ahead.  But instead, because it held me back.

I often think about what would’ve happened to me had things played out differently at the bank.  I was on pace to earn a 7 figure income by my mid-30s.  I was very good at my job.  My clients were very appreciative of my efforts.  Income, status, making the world a better place for my clients and then having the ability to do a fair bit of philanthropy?  That was the plan… doesn’t sound so bad does it?

But that person isn’t me.  It almost was.  Maybe it still is in a parallel universe.  But it isn’t me now.  My path will be more difficult.  My path will be more interesting.  My path will not be defined by milestones on my LinkedIn resume.  I’ve lost all interest in becoming what other people expect of me.

Trying to become the best version of what others expected of me is what got me here.  That and my competitive drive to do it better than anyone else.  I think the competitive drive is baked into my DNA so my sincerest apologies for everyone who has to deal with that.  But now, it’s time to match that drive with becoming the best version of what I expect from myself.

So what do I expect from myself?  And this is where I can’t help but pull in data from all around me.  What do my friends expect from me?  What about my little sister?  What would my dad expect from me if he was still alive?  What does the world expect from me?  I am fundamentally connected to the universe around me.  When I drop, they ripple.  Those ripples are a reflection of what I am and how I behave, but it’s incredibly hard to reverse engineer that understanding.  And even if I could, would they just reflect the giant question mark that I’ve already hung over my own head?  Or maybe I’m going about it all wrong.  Maybe there’s a different approach…

I’m starting to see these inflection points in my life where things could’ve gone very differently.  I can see an alternate reality in which I’d probably already be married.  I can see an alternate reality in which I was still at the bank.  I can see an alternate reality in which I’m no longer living in the city I grew up in.  And the variables which would’ve led to each were largely out of my control.  So how much control do I really have?

Or maybe it’s not about control.  Maybe it’s about awareness.

Maybe it’s not about choosing a future, and forcing it into reality.  Maybe it’s about understanding where the future is headed, and being aware of your place in all of it.  Maybe it’s about understanding your path more than choosing it.

My LinkedIn profile is an example of someone who thought they knew more than they did and a person who thought they could force a possible future into reality.  That person feels like a dummy.  Moving forward, I’m looking forward to seeing how my LinkedIn resume develops as a reflection of what I find most interesting and engaging.  If I’m fortunate, I’ll find a way to live the rest of my life like that.

Walking Through Life with the Confidence of a Honey Badger

Several years ago, I watched ‘The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger” video.  As entertaining as that video was, it was also the first time I had really seen a Honey Badger in action.  King Cobras, bees, jackals.. The Honey Badger did not give a shit.

Last week, I found out that the skin of a Honey Badger was so durable, that it could withstand a machete, arrows, and spears.  I suppose there can be some real value in having thick skin.  And off my mind went…

I read a book a couple years ago which discussed the concept of not taking anything personally.  The idea is that whatever someone was saying about you or to you, was a reflection of how they were experiencing their reality, more than it was a reflection of you.  If a random stranger yelled a racial slur at you, there’s a good chance that outburst had more to do with them than it did with you.  Even if that random stranger said something flattering, the premise is the same.  The goal is to understand why something is being said, rather than to take what is being said at face value.

I think there’s a lot of wisdom in this approach.  There are times where someone paid me a compliment that I really enjoyed hearing, and instead of understanding why they had paid me a compliment, I accepted it as a true statement.  Later, I would discover that I had been misled, not because the other person was malicious in their intentions, but because I misunderstood their perspective or what they were trying to communicate.  If your priority is to have an accurate understanding of the world, you need to be mindful of the prejudice and bias of how others see the world – even when it’s in your favor.

While I appreciate how this approach has helped keep my ego in check, it’s arguably most effective as a defensive measure.  While I’m not perfect, I do my best to walk through life without fear, anger, or hate.  And I’m getting pretty darn good at it.  How?  I walk through life with the confidence of a Honey Badger.

I wasn’t born with thick skin.  These callouses were earned.  A lot of it was scar tissue.

I entered into adulthood understanding that sensitivity was not always a strength.  Being sensitive worked against me more often that it worked in my favor because a high degree of sensitivity would bypass my ability to think about things rationally – and I would just react.  More often than not, these reactions were extremely counter-productive.  I had to learn to handle things differently.

In my 20s, I learned the value of rational thought.  Emotions and sensitivity became something to control, not something which I would let control me.  Someone could call me the meanest thing they could come up with, and I’d be more likely to end up at a point of compassion than of anger.  I would also have more confidence in my ability to turn that person into a friend than an enemy.  And even if I couldn’t make any progress with that individual, I could move on from the situation knowing that I handled the situation the best I could and that I may have created an opening for someone else down the road.  There was something enlightened about this approach, and yet it left me feeling invincible.

I now walk through life with the confidence of a Honey Badger, knowing that there’s very little that others can do to hurt me.  And it’s changed the way I see the world.  Without fear, there is no hate.  Without hate, there is no anger.  Without fear, hate, or anger, Love is a much more natural state of mind.  Walking through life, ready to love… I can’t help but think this is a far more productive approach than walking through life ready to fear.

Now in my 30s, I’m trying to incorporate a more balanced approach, inclusive of sensitivity and emotions.  These days, I understand sensitivity to be like a dial on an instrument which collects data. If you turn the dial to zero, then you’ll collect no new information and you might as well not have the instrument at all.  If you turn the dial on the instrument to 100, you better have the ability to process all that information accurately.  I suspect that most people have a hard time adjusting that dial themselves.  I’ve seen a lot of men out there who have set that dial as low as possible and go through life too insensitive to notice the emotional nuances of those around them.  I’ve also seen a lot of women out there who have their dial set rather high, and go through life overly sensitive to the actions and words of those around them.  I doubt either is healthy.

A thick skin doesn’t make you insensitive to the world around you.  A thick skin is the difference between someone wanting to hurt you and someone being able to hurt you.  And when you realize that this dynamic exists entirely in your head, as an understanding of how the world works, it really does stand out to me as something special.  Imagine a world, full of people who are never offended, never angry, never fearful.  That world often exists inside my head… but then I venture out into the real world and I’m reminded of how much fear, hate, and despair exists in the world.

I’m not entirely sure how to navigate what comes next…  But I do know how I’ll carry myself in the process.


Power Vs. Strength

When dealing in abstract concepts like these, it can be difficult to have a real conversation without first agreeing on how to define the terms.  I think that a lot of people use power and strength interchangeably, yet I can’t help but think that they differ in very important ways.

Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I was taught that quote by a very influential history teacher in high school and it has continued to echo through my mind since.  I can’t help but be reminded of it when I see people in positions of power put the needs of the few before the needs of the many.  It’s as if there’s something inherently inefficient about power.

When I think of strength, it’s similar to power.  But not quite.  Strength is almost like the potential of power.  Unused power.  A visual of strength does not require a display of aggression.  Perhaps there’s a duality here.  Is power to offense as strength is to defense?

It’s interesting, you could say that someone is both powerful and weak at the same time.  A frail old king is both re(g)ally powerful and physically weak.  Politicians are known for having political power but weak integrity.  Movies are constantly filled with villains who wield vast power, but lack a strength of character.  I’m not sure if I know of any villains who have a great strength of character, but wield little power.  In many cases, is that not the hero?  The unassuming, jacked, strong jaw line with a warm smile kinda hero?

Analyzing this in the abstract is usually a journey down the rabbit hole, but there are some examples that help me clarify what I’m thinking.

Name calling has gotten out of control.  For most of my life, I was taught not to feed into it.  To walk away.  To appreciate that the person doing the name calling is probably doing so because they’re battling their own demons.  It was tough when I was younger but it’s second nature now.  Now, when someone’s hostile towards me, I’m much more likely to view the situation with compassion than anger and I can’t help but think that makes me strong.  Moving through life, invulnerable to the malicious attitudes of others is really something else… I highly recommend it.

Yet I seem to be in the minority.  Rather than seeing it as an issue of personal strength, compassion, and helping someone move beyond their own issues, it’s about power.  The victim being name called is no longer interested in making themselves stronger, they’re interested in becoming more powerful.  This is the era of the victim shaming the bully.

If we could teach everyone the simple philosophy of not taking things personally, the effectiveness of name calling would disappear.  When something is no longer effective, we tend to stop using it.  We become stronger, we become wiser, and we move forward.  Instead, we’re more interested in giving the victims the power to hurt them back.  Laws are being changed for compelled speech.  What does being triggered in this context mean?  What happens when being triggered is an excuse to tap into that power?

I also can’t help but see this dynamic in women’s empowerment.  I remember finding out that I was a feminist back in university because I believed in equality.  It made sense to me that men and women were different but equal.  But I struggle to resonate with parts of modern feminism.  There seems to be this pursuit of equal outcome over equal opportunity.  A denial of inconvenient biology.  A tendency to deal in absolutes instead of nuances.  And what drives it all, seems to be a pursuit of power over the pursuit of equality.

I don’t think it’s that complicated either.  For decades, centuries, or millennia (however you want to look at it), men have been powerful.  They’ve ruled, they’ve warred, they’ve killed, they’ve raped, and they’ve pillaged.  Things are different now.  In an age of equality, women want to be powerful too.  They’re no longer looking for a seat at the table, now they want equal rights to be the asshole boss at the table.  I suppose that is equality, I suppose I’m just a little bummed out that there isn’t a motivation to be better.

I sometimes joke that I feel sorry for Hilary Clinton for having lost the 2016 election.  She could’ve been a role model for feminism.  She lost when she ran against Obama, but had the composure to pick her self up and run again.  Then she went up against one of feminism’s greatest foes, keeping her composure throughout.  Had it not been for Russian interference, she probably would’ve won that presidency.  She couldn’t have been a role-model for feminism, right?  One of the bigger reasons why Hilary lost, was because for many, she was indistinguishable from the Washington establishment.  She literally spent her entire career learning how to play within a corrupt, man’s world to the point where she probably played it better than anyone else – Just in time for the American public to be fed up with it.  I felt bad for women that they missed out on their first female president, but I had hope.

My hope is that the first woman to be elected president, be the jaw-dropping, awe-inspiring, locomotion of intelligence, strength, integrity and all the qualities of a great leader, but without the sacrifice of feminine qualities like compassion, intuition, and ability to nurture.  I want her to be able to set the bar.  Not just for future women, but for future men and politics in general.  I want her to inspire us to look up to women, not to reasons to avoid looking down on them.

In the pursuit of equality, women are looking at men, and trying to draw the line 50/50 through it all.  You don’t want it all.  A lot of it is garbage.  Please don’t take the garbage too.  We’d all be way better off if we could leave it behind, and this is an opportunity to do so.  This power isn’t something you want, it’s something that none of us should want.  We need to let it go.  But we need help.  We need a little leadership.

It’s not power that you want, it’s strength.  It can be tough to tell the difference when you look at the people holding you down and the most obvious difference between you is power.  But they’re not strong.  That’s why your strength makes their power irrelevant.

You can have a world where everyone is strong, but not a world where everyone is powerful.  For someone to be powerful, someone else must be powerless.  Strength however, resides within.  A world in which everyone pursues power is chaos.  A world in which everyone pursues inner-strength is peace.


Alcohol consumption has been increasing steadily for the last 10 years.  Cannabis use is at an all-time high.  Opioids have been declared a national emergency.    Entire sub-cultures of youth and young adults are finding fewer and fewer reasons to leave the house.  It’s like we’re all trying to escape from all this… sucking.

Do well in school.  Work hard.  Be nice to others.  Pretty common advice for most of us growing up.  We were supposed to do well in school so that we could learn the skills necessary to earn a good income.  We were to work hard because the more effort we put in, the greater the reward.  We should be nice to others because it’s important that we all get along.

So what happens when you do well in school but struggle to find a job when you graduate?  And what about those who had to take out student loans?  What happens when you realize that you’re not the one being rewarded for your hard work?  And what happens when you start to feel like the world has genuinely given up on getting along with one another?

You escape.

We all hallucinate our own reality and it is by that mechanism that we can choose to exist in a reality where we don’t feel the weight of these issues.  Some escape to a digital reality, some to an altered state, but the objective is still the same – being there is better than being here.

Why not just step your game up and go take what the world owes you?  Just make sure you out-perform your peers and you’ll get that top 1% lifestyle that you’ve always wanted.  And once you get there, you’ll know that you’ve made it and that you’re truly different than the other 99%.  That’s what a younger me would’ve said.  To the victor go the spoils, so just make sure you win.  Modern-day cannibalism at its finest.

The problem with the ‘try harder’ approach is that it only works in a zero-sum scenario.  If a few people put in more effort while everyone else is doing the same as they were, those who are putting in more effort are likely to receive more rewards.  If everyone puts in more effort, relatively speaking, the effort levels all remain the same.  Effectively, if we all try hard, we all stay exactly where we are.

So being a grown-up is nothing like what we were told.  Effort is no longer the difference between being rich and poor.   Jobs are disappearing to automation at an increasing rate.  The cost of living is climbing faster than income.  Debt has replaced savings.  Home ownership and a family are now an irresponsible financial decision for most.  And when we look to our leaders and our policy makers in the hopes of change, we see one of the most embarrassing breakdowns of governance in the modern age.

We can’t seem to get to where we want to go.  The advice we were given did not hold up.  We’re being told it’s because we’re lazy.  We’re being told that we’re the problem.  It just doesn’t make sense…



But we rise.

Our hope that the human condition will prevail remains in tact.  While you look to divide, we look to connect.  Where you seek control, we seek freedom.  Where you look to horde, we look to share.  Where you look to keep secrets, we look to expose the truth.  While you’ve looked to maintain the status quo, we look to challenge it.  And where you fear the future, we embrace it.

We’re just trying to be patient, waiting for our turn.  We see you trying to drag this out though.  I recommend against it.  It’s not a fight you’ll win.


The Real Cannabis Conversation

As is often the case, I think the the most interesting conversation on the topic is the one we’re not having right now.   I find that as people argue, they become more interested in defending their perspective than understanding another’s and I think that’s a key issue here.  While there are plenty of conversations around how to legalize or how to criminalize, I think the real question is why we should legalize or why we should criminalize.  When we take a proper look at the why behind whether or not we as a people should have legal access to this drug, we have a great opportunity for self-reflection.

I think the first thing we should do define is the term ‘drug’.  When heroin is found in the streets, it’s discussed as a highly illegal and highly dangerous drug.  When morphine is found in a hospital, its discussed as a pain killer and part of the medical process.  Both are obtained from the Opium poppy.  When you remove all the bias, drugs are simply something you put in your body for a desired effect.  That means they’re a tool and tools are remarkably indifferent to how we use them.

So why do we takes drugs then? I think we do it to adjust our state of mind.  Even drugs with no psychotropic effects are still targeting state of mind in a less direct manner.  Consider using an over-the-counter pain killer for a sprained ankle.  The ankle is an injury of the body, but the pain that’s being addressed is a state of mind.  If the mind was unaware of the body’s pain, the painkillers would be unnecessary.  Even if you’re taking drugs to address an illness with no obvious symptoms, you’re taking the drugs to address the concern of a future illness – still looking to resolve a state of mind.  So what if the issue isn’t a physical illness?  What if it’s mental?  What if it’s social?

There’s  a fantastic Sherlock quote… something along the lines of “I’m not an addict, I’m a user.  I look to alleviate boredom and occasionally stimulate my thought process.”  It’s interesting because if you say that it’s something you use to limit boredom, it’s relatable but if someone says they’re using it as a coping mechanism, it’s a bigger issue.  What if it’s a mechanism used to cope with boredom?  What I’m trying to demonstrate is that we’re really just scratching the surface of what drugs are and why we use them.  All we know is that we put them in our bodies to get us closer to the state of mind that we want to be in.  There’s a tremendous amount of research to do there, and I think the answers we arrive at will speak volumes on the human condition.

So let’s bring this back to cannabis.  Why do I take it?  Primarily for sleep, to escape my thoughts, and to alleviate boredom.  I recognize that the closer my life gets to where I want it to be, the less I want to escape from my reality and the less weed I look to consume.  That’s my personal experiment at the moment, if I’m where I want to be mentally, then will I still look to change my state of mind?

A great question to ask when discussing marijuana is addiction.  Most people would suggest that marijuana isn’t addictive because it lacks certain chemical properties that create a physiological dependency like some other drugs.  While that may be true to an extent, I’d suggest that marijuana can be addictive simply because of it’s effects.  I’ve had weeks where sobriety was the enemy and it was hard not to think I was staring addiction in the face.  That said, if you dropped me off in a location with no access to marijuana, I’d have a few sleepless nights and then carry on.  It’s easy to think of hard drugs when you think addiction but in reality, many addictions exist purely in the mind.  I think that with sufficient research, one may find that a chemical dependency and addiction are two different things, one is one of the body while the other is of the mind.  If that’s the case, marijuana addiction is possible and likely very real.  We owe it to ourselves to be honest about this and bring this element into the conversation

It’s not often that a drug makes the journey from being an illegal psychotropic to a widely prescribed medicine.  If I were to take this all at face value, cannabis is a miracle plant capable of treating all kinds of illnesses.  While I think that’s a possibility, I’m more interested in seeing the research than jumping on the hype train.  I also think that the medical properties of the plant would be discussed less if legalized recreational access was available.  In the current market, most users have acquired a medical license from a lax medical professional to achieve access for recreational use.  I can’t help but think that if wine were illegal, people would also seek medical licenses with claims that wine extends your lifespan, protects against cancers, improves mental health, and benefits the heart.  They may even be right, but it doesn’t change the fact that they were just looking to unwind with some friends at the end of the week.

So what are the actual medical properties of marijuana?  The real answer is we don’t know.  There’s anecdotal evidence of it successfully treating just about everything from cancer to seizures but the reality is we’ve just started the research.  From what I’ve seen, I suspect there are very real medical properties in the plant but I that we need to understand what they are to a much deeper level before we embrace them to this degree.  For example, I can confirm that it’s the most successful sleep aid I’ve ever used but I must also concede that I never wake up refreshed the way I feel when I sleep without it.  From an introspective standpoint, I think what it does very well is it helps you shift into a more copacetic mindset and it’s that mindset which helps you better deal with things like pain, stress, and anxiety.  Beyond that, I’m looking to learn and making no assumptions.

So what about recreational use?  We’re most of the way there and the momentum doesn’t seem to be letting up.  Every once in a while, some old white guy will say something like ‘I don’t see how making these substances legal will improve anyone’s quality of life.’  I understand that mindset, but I also understand why it’s flawed.  The error is in the assumption that marijuana affects all people equally.  Some of us are easier to get along with when we’re stoned while others are simply far more productive individuals.  There are some people who shouldn’t be using cannabis and that’s OK too.  The solution isn’t restricting access to everyone, the solution is to provide access to everyone and letting us collectively explore the pros and cons.  We’ll make some mistakes and lose some good people along the way, but such is the nature of progress.

Someone might say that it poses too much of a risk but to them I would say that fear makes for poor decision making.  Too often the government treats the general population like a parent treats their children but in reality, the general population is representative of a collective intelligence which is often under utilized.  Look at what happened when we legalized alcohol.  Alcohol abuse has ruined lives while alcohol poisoning has take them.  That doesn’t make alcohol bad, it makes alcohol important.  It makes it important to understand why we drink, and what the real impact is.  Marijuana will be no different.  It’s just another substance, which if anything, is a reflection of ourselves.

I can’t help but think that the majority of those who are opposed to the legalization of marijuana either have a political angle, don’t understand the matter, or are simply afraid.  The solution to each is education.  We all need to know more about what this plant is and what it does, but we’re not going to learn what we want to know by leaving it in the labs because there’s more to it than that.  Marijuana should be legal for the reason that every other drug should be legal.  We shouldn’t be cautious around drugs because they’re bad or illegal, we should indifferent around drugs because we understand that the ethical and practical impact has everything to do with that specific drug and that specific person.  The level of research necessary to truly understand those dynamics requires a decentralized approach to research and fortunately for us, there are plenty of volunteers.

So at the end of the day, who do I think should be smoking cannabis?  Anyone who wants to, on the condition that they understand what they’re doing and why.  We know it’s a plant that gets you stoned and we know it has medical properties.  We need to know a lot more than that.  Part of that process is giving us the chance to explore – and that means legalization.  When it’s all said and done, we’ve tried it their way.. with the whole war on drugs thing… now it’s time to embrace freedom.  The freedom for people to choose how to live their lives.  The freedom for people to choose what medicine they use.  The freedom to choose how to deal with boredom and the freedom to experience the negative realities of poor decision making.  It’s all part of the same evolutionary process… this is how we grow.


My Thoughts on Privilege


A few years ago, a girl I was dating told me to check my privilege.  It was tremendously frustrating for me as I couldn’t understand what she was actually trying to say.  She went on to say that as a good-looking white male, I had all kinds of advantages afforded to me which weren’t available to others.  I reflected on that statement and it still didn’t resonate.  From my perspective, my path had not been easy and both my opportunities and successes were well-earned.  I figured a good place to start would be with a definition we could both agree on.  So we looked it up:


Privilege: A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available to a particular person or group.


That sounded rather general to me.  By that definition, if white privilege existed, then so did black privilege – and every other kind of privilege for that matter.  Tall people are privileged to reach things off high shelves while short people are privileged to not bump their heads on low ceilings.  If privilege is simply referring to the advantages held by some and not others, aren’t we just talking about people in general?  Maybe.

It would be easy for me to say that white privilege doesn’t exist because privilege doesn’t exist.  I would go on to give an example:  Would you rather be a black man being pulled over by the police in Alabama, or would you rather be a white guy getting pulled over by freedom fighters in West Africa?  Then I’d remind us that while we all share a common blueprint, we all vary in our own ways and those variations provide inherent advantages and disadvantages depending on the circumstance.  If circumstance is the variable that determines if we experience an advantage or disadvantage, then does privilege really exist?  Like I said, it would be easy for me to say that white privilege doesn’t exist because privilege doesn’t exist – but I would be wrong.


Everything that I just said is valid to an extent but I think that there’s another layer to what’s going on here that better represents what we’re looking at.  I think if we explore this a little further, we’ll find some clarity

A granted privilege seems to be simply be an advantage given from one person to another.  What I find curious here is that the word granted offers the possibility of earning your advantage.  Consider a student who has good grades in high school and then is ‘granted’ admittance to a top-tier university – we’ll call her Priya. Now consider someone who had average grades, who also made it into that university after their parents made a significant donation – we’ll call him Bryce.  I think most people would blow the whistle and call a privilege foul here on the latter, but what if the Priya was at a top private school with unlimited tutoring funded by her parents?  What if Bryce’s parents grew up in poverty, worked hard, and were simply making a donation to their alma mater?

This is a rather interesting topic for me because in the context of a social conversation, privilege is what I would consider to be a poorly defined topic.  It’s like we know that there’s something wrong but we’re not exactly sure how to articulate it.  As in many other cases in society, we think we’re dealing in issues of fairness but in reality we’re dealing with issues of efficiency.

Let’s revisit the earlier example in a different context.  Let’s say for the sake of simplicity, Priya is unprivileged and Bryce is very privileged.  Both are admitted to a top-tier university and both approach their degree as an independent effort.  Now they’ve both graduated and while Priya continued to work hard and earned good grades, Bryce worked harder and earned better grades.  Now imagine that in 40 years, we’re reflecting on their life’s work and there’s a clear winner – Bryce.

If this were a real world example, what we commonly define as privilege could’ve led to the discrepancy in university grades and the career but that’s the point.  What if it wasn’t?  It’s certainly possible that Bryce did better because he had more resources at his disposal, but what if his circumstances we’re simply better aligned with his own personal strengths?  What if Bryce simply wasn’t motivated in high-school, but once he had the autonomy and challenge that came with a top-tier university, he was motivated to perform?  And what if his personality and degree were directly in line with his career path?  And what if Priya who worked hard and got good grades her entire life had the genetic blueprint for a world class chef, but became an accountant as a result of her academic focus?

In reality, what we’re really upset at is a series of systems which are inefficient at allocating resources and creating value.  The system we have currently is a ‘fair’ entry system predicated on prior academic performance and extra-curricular activities but it’s also the same system that would see Priya become an accountant and see Bryce not gain admission.  It’s largely a level playing field, but perhaps it’s time to prioitize making sure people are suited up for the right sport and playing to their full potential.

With the progress we’ve made in understanding our genealogy and psychology, along with advances in our ability to collect and analyze data… I smell a revolution in how we determine fit.  Imagine everyone being given the freedom to explore their options, while also being given the information to understand what they’re likely to be best at.  Now imagine everyone having access to the same information and how much more efficient we’d all be… at everything.  The goal isn’t to make privilege against the rules, the goal is to have a system in place that makes the use of privilege seem foolish and counter-productive.

If I were to offer up my best definition of privilege, it would be an applied, circumstantial advantage.  When circumstantial advantages are used to further the collective interests (efficient), people seem not to mind.  When circumstantial advantages are used to further self-interests (inefficient), there’s an issue.  Our issue isn’t with having different strengths and weaknesses from one another.  Our issues aren’t even with those who apply their strengths when competing.  Our issue is those who take the short-sighted approach of putting their own interests ahead of collective progress.  Our issue is with those who use their resources to create inefficiencies in the larger system at play.

Fuck the Rules.

Think about the last time you were driving.  How fast were you going?  Was it at or below the posted speed limit?  If you were like me, you were going with the flow of traffic which is usually about 20% over.  Despite a blatant disregard for the law, millions of commuters get to and from work every day without any intervention from law enforcement.  Why?

Natural order supersedes civil law.  People are driven to pursue efficiency and it’s usually achieved through a group effort.  Collectively, we decided that the speed limit was too low and that we could safely operate our vehicles beyond that range.  Since we’ve done it collectively, and have demonstrated its success, law enforcement has conceded this victory and have effectively decided to focus their efforts elsewhere.  I find it curious that the laws have not changed to reflect this, especially considering that cars have become far more agile and much safer since current speed limits were introduced.  Perhaps they’ve assumed that if they increased the limit to what we actually drove, people would simply drive 20% above that and it would be chaos.  Maybe.  Maybe we find that natural balance between speed and risk on our own.

Another perspective, well known by the tinfoil hats, suggests that this is done on purpose as it gives a government direct control over its population anytime it’s deemed to be necessary.  If a cop wanted to pull you over, he could start with the fact that you were probably speeding.  If you were driving the limit while everyone else was speeding, well now he’ll pull you over for acting suspicious.  A well-known lawyer wrote a book about the idea that the average American professional broke several federal laws each day.  This wasn’t because of a lack of morals, ethics, or competency, but because the rules, laws, and regulations were so numerous, broad or vague, that it was nearly impossible to do your job without breaking some set of rules.

While I think government and law enforcement largely recognize the system and understand how to exploit it, I don’t think it was purpose-built nor do I think most governments work with the goal of exploiting their people. If you think about why rules are put in place, it’s usually to retain power or to promote efficiency.  When a king decided that only his bloodline would rule, this helped to protect his power.  When slave owners decided that slaves didn’t have rights, this was to protect their power.  When men decided that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, it was to protect their power.  While it still does happen, I suspect that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to introduce laws for the purpose of retaining power.  If I’m not mistaken, those types of laws rely on a lack of access to information and the internet seems to have undermined that quite nicely.

What about speeding though?  That law doesn’t do much in the way of consolidating power in any direction does it?  Of course not… I don’t think.  That’s a law designed to promote efficiency.  The idea is that we want to maintain a healthy flow of traffic, with as few accidents and injuries as possible.  Not difficult to understand and most would agree that it’ a sensible solution – so why does almost everyone break that limit?  Well as it happens, we’re capable of finding that equilibrium on our own.  Once upon a time, when cars were heavier and couldn’t stop as fast, back when they weren’t loaded up with airbags, back when there weren’t seatbelts, those speed limits may have represented that equilibrium – but we’ve since evolved.

We actually have our own criteria for setting a speed limit.  We want to get from point A to point B in the least amount of time possible, without causing an accident, and without being pulled over by law enforcement.  As it turns out, we’ve identified that this new equilibrium is usually about 20% over the posted limit, and it’s why so many of us get frustrated when we’re being obstructed with someone who is only going the limit or just below.

So rules are good as long as they’re promoting efficiency then right?  No murdering is a good rule because it decreases our population’s mortality rate, time spent thinking about being murdered, and resources spent not getting murdered.  Net result is more people with more time to think about things besides being murdered – makes sense.  Consider this though, if murder wasn’t against the law, would you?  For those that have, was the law an effective deterrent?  For those who it did deter, would they have done it had they known they wouldn’t get caught?  What I’m getting at is that the law isn’t driving our sense of right and wrong, that’s something you find on the inside.

So we have these internal drivers that help us pursue efficiency and internal drivers that help us understand right from wrong.  I think they overlap and when I’ve refined this idea, it’ll certainly be its own blog post.  Until then, follow me on the assumption that our concept of right and wrong is based on our understanding of efficiency.  It’s why speeding doesn’t feel unethical unless you’re creating a dangerous situation for others.

So back to murder.  It’s a concept which is almost universally understood to be unethical or immoral. Why is that?  Well there’s an emotional perspective, an intellectual perspective, and a societal perspective that most of you will already be familiar with, but here’s my perspective from the side of efficiency.  I don’t think murder is inherently right or wrong.  If you were given a chance to assassinate Hitler prior to the holocaust, would you?  Someone who did would likely be considered a hero.  Someone who refused may even be considered to be immoral by the masses.  But what if you were only given an opportunity to kill him prior to him doing any harm?  What if you were given an opportunity to murder Hitler as an infant? Quite the ethical conundrum.

From the perspective of efficiency though, I don’t think it’s that simple.  The most efficient approach would likely be some level of early stage intervention.  I know I’m probably one of the few to suggest this, but imagine if Hitler’s passion, intelligence, and charisma were better channeled?  Not only would we have avoided a second world war, Hitler was probably capable of making a very positive contribution given the right circumstances.  All that said, in a universe of infinite possibilities, there are bound to be scenarios where murder is the most efficient option.  Where I’m sitting on this currently, is that while murder can be ethical or the most efficient course of action, it rarely ever is.  How many of us have the wisdom necessary to know which lives are worth keeping and which aren’t. How many of us would you think are entirely incapable of making a positive impact on the world when surrounded by the right people?  I think the answer is barely any and I think those are probably the biggest reasons why this exists as a social rule, regardless of law.

Finally, the fun part.  I was trying to come up with a law that was already in place, which embodied efficiency.  I couldn’t.  Then the lightbulb went off.  I suspect efficiency is like an exponential curve, meaning that you can always become more efficient, but in most cases you can never become completely efficient.  Effectively, there’s *always* room for improvement.  The purpose of a rule, is to dictate behaviour.  That rule may dictate how to behave in a highly efficient manner today, but what happens when our behaviour evolves beyond that construct?

The more rules we take away, the more we’re allowed to be ourselves.  The more we’re allowed to be ourselves, the better we can understand our maximum utility and the value of others.  The better we understand each other and ourselves, the better we are at working together towards a common goal.  The better we work together towards a common goal, the more efficient we all become.

Best laws ever ‘put’ in place? Allowing people to govern themselves.  Allowing slaves to be people.  Allowing women to be equal.  When you remove laws and regulations, allowing us to be what we should be, amazing things happen.