2016 June

The World Is Still Becoming One

Maybe a teaser before the main course?

Look folks…


Graves said SGD is an OPEN system, so at each level of solution, it forms new–more complex–problems.

There is an idea in integral:

That you can reach the boundaries of the whole by applying integral theory.

It even uses terms like “comprehensive.”

There is NO COMPREHENSIVE in infinite, there is only NEXT.

So if you want a name for it to use, call it NEXT THEORY, to keep from falling into these “integral” traps.

Using Wilber’s theory can be helpful, and not forgetting all the theories that constitute it is also helpful, but impractical for most.

I’ve included in my notes before a graphic of the curves of the e5:



Please note that it’s a graph to simulate the slope of the change in each e5 component.

Also note the widening gaps between core (our epigenetic core) which is changing “geologically” and content and context which have now gone “non-linear.”

CONDITIONS will reach non-linear at the point of “singularity” where change no longer is a variable but a constant!

This singularity is coming faster than we are!

ANYONE who pretends to be able to manage in this space is delusional, so playing the ladder game for the largest part of society is ludicrous and will yield more negative than positive results.

This SAME metamistake largely at FS-GREEN that we can give x, y or z and people can be where we are is an illusion!


Here’s why:

People outside of the 1-5% MUST assimilate culture over “generation” because of the mechanics required in crystallizing capability or intelligence if you like.

FLUID INTELLIGENCE is not enough for the 95% to navigate shifting cultural norms in a non-linear fashion.

Therefore ANY ATTEMPT (SGD gets this one best of all, and has support from any STAGE THEORY POSTULATE, you do not skip levels!) to move a person or culture non-linearly without (caveat) 100% structure (loss of freedoms, e.g. prisons) will result in developmental chaos of varying forms, NOT ALL BAD.

The inherent notion in integral theory from Wilber which is largely lost on those that use it, is that all problem space is “bounded” and then the theory is applied because there are no unbounded brains.


All problem space is unbounded, solve one, get two more. It is the illusion that you can bound problems that even has us thinking about being able to solve in a comprehensive (ludicrous!) way.

Ok, so what to do?


“Will this integrated world pull us into more integrated perspectives in order to dance with it, or will we continue to try and dumb it down, so we can continue to dance the two-step?” – Brian



It depends.

As I have taught coaches for almost 3 decades, it depends.

Depends on what?



There is no single path, even the universe itself which is attempting to model the reality of infinity has most likely “multiple occurring incidences” of reality, and in the quantum field, it’s not until we “observe” that we create probabilities.

Our old paradigm of “MASTERING CHANGE” is frankly? BULLSHIT or BS.

It was and is based on the arrogance of an ego-centric form of human life which is designed for survival of desire.

Absent desire?

Non-duality, but none of us are going to live there, and there is no daily bread there in which to live, so let’s honor the field, but not go there!

There is a field and someday we will all go there…but not yet.

Those conclude my comments on non-duality.

I am reminded of my visits to Istanbul and the whirling dervishes….

While I can’t process to be original @F-L-O-W, the answers to how we transition out of BS are enumerated in the book and theory.

If you ask me the fastest way with the least amount of negative impact, it’s to immediately forget integral because it’s good brings with it the illusion of good which is far more dangerous–at this point–than forgetting it.

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE PEOPLE and let them change on their own, their is plenty of change going on, we don’t need to do more.

If you’re going to insist on change then use BRLSCVS. Design change according to their needs, NOT YOURS, NOT BS, and certainly not a composite model where no exemplars exist such as in the beauty of BLANK SLATE!

“People have a right to be who they are.” And “people can’t be until they are.” – Dr. Clare W. Graves

Most of us are looking for what we need to do to change the world!

Yet, the world is you.

Change you first.

If we did that, the world would change.

I want to do another installment to get you from here to there, but I need to leave myself a segue.

In order to live together, we need rules of engagement, because we can’t all live in isolated enclaves although that remains a probability.

These rules of engagement are tricky because they are largely the result of might…in all forms.

If you look at what GRAVES intended at A’N’ — his notation for SGD – GT – Yellow, it was a mirror of man’s individual goal of survival at AN – SGD – AN – Beige, which means to me, a transcendent form of societal survival.

This is now the question and I believe this was misnamed in the process of translation and should not be referred to as integral (FS-GREEN) because based on my diatribe above, INTEGRAL is not the best way to survive as a society, it is to DISINTEGRATE what FS-GREEN has tried to see together with BS in the lead.

DISINTEGRATION is a natural process, recognizing the limitations of innateness.

Values of integration will always be preferred by some but they are not “right action” for anyone other than FS-GREEN Aspirants.

Anymore than materialism, bureaucracy, emperialism, tribalism, or survivalism are “right action” for all.

It’s not WRONG, as FS-GREEN would make it so in PC, for me not to like, want to live with, or work with someone “different” than me. If it is, then my freedom of choice–guaranteed by that same FS-GREEN stipulation is not RIGHT!

I want to leave a hanging chad here…


2017 June


Haven’t read that and the way he seems to write would require some context experience with him but I believe we “may” be talking about similar things.

I believe that each cValueSystem or in my notation cVS rather than SD’s vMeme (similar conotation, with the STARK difference of where the generator emerges), adheres to an ISIS (until they ruined the name socially;)–Integrated Strategic Intention System.

ISIS has 9 components.

Each cVS has one because the assumptions and beliefs about how the world works (worldview) is emergent from vision, values, principles = IDENTIFY and strategic objective, KSFs, goals, and standards = INTENTION and a PURPOSE = statement of IDENTITY and INTENTION.

I wrote a book and before it got published in 2000, I started a rewrite I haven’t finished. The book was a 6 year labor into the structure of meaning and how I came across SPIRAL DYNAMICS in 96 and published my SMILE: Successful Mechanics In Leadership Development where right performance met RightACTION after some Eastern stuff appeared;)

I searched all the leadership literature using Covey’s idea for his phd to search the wisdom literature for 7 habits and my search of leadership yielded ISIS after a decade, then in 2000, Reiss published who am I and I had the pieces then that would influence a lot of what I have done since along with 10,000 hours of coaching, which was motivated by Brian Tracy not Gladwell who is credited with the idea;)

Fortunately, I have so many successful failures that I’m not falling victim to Argyris Teaching Smart People to Learn Caveat;)

“The much-vaunted need to make our “value premises” explicit is irrelevant in this context. Thinkers with identical moral values and social preferences must nevertheless reach opposing conclusions if their intial senses of reality and causation– their visions– are different.”

He’s merely stating an interesting fact and making a case for genetic guidance!!

Although few would see it that way! I don’t know what else he wrote or if he sees it that way, but there is no other influence for “your vision” to arise from as it’s stated in the quote.

Moral = culture and social is our ingroup but not genetic per se.

We all are going to be hard wired with a cVS and if you have Reiss KSEs, you will know that Reiss showed that he derived core motives from valuing–the same idea that seems implicit in the quote.

The algorithms that emerge about ISIS or his idea of VISION, is what, at the core, matters.

“To say that a prefernce for “free speech’ rights over “property rights” is simply a “value premise” is to deny that it rests on particular beliefs as to facts or causation and to make it simply an opaque preference, like that of plums over tangerines.”

My guess is that he is pointing out that what we believe at the core is generating our vision of how things should be and he seems to be making a case that values are not the ultimate generator as I am but the algorithms that generate.

What we value in four TIME DIMENSIONS: past, now, near and far (this is language used with my ISIS model, is not only malleable but fluid because of the nature of need in time.


I’ll go along with most of what everyone is doing or saying as long as it doesn’t interfere with my getting what I need.
So plum, tangerine, not a big deal, but if what you are saying you value interferes with my need to live like I want them it’s not just a matter of valuing it’s a much deeper issue that is connected to that process.

Since I didn’t read his stuff or the wiki, I’m purely speculating here but my sense of his idea is…when it gets down the core, what you see in the world today is not just values differences but differences in the way we should be, do, have, become and contribute, so that’s what all the conflict is about.

Btw, did anyone catch ARRIVAL, the movie?

I skimmed it while multitasking yesterday and I want to watch it again after some time because it’s a great depiction of what happens when you can’t understand what people or aliens mean.

I thought it encapsulated our present global situation and I hope our ending is as happy as the movie was;)

I’m sure I didn’t answer your questions;)


2020 June


What most don’t know is it’s easily discernible because of the oddity that emerges in conceptual space.

Graves noted that there was a “significant difference” in conceptual space (my words) between BO-PURPLE and CP-RED…

Which is why I shifted the chords he thought recurring as octaves in music.

When that is done in ValuDYNAMICS you get first tier lining up with social motives (McClelland) and the AN-BEIGE TO GT-YELLOW recursion switches to CP-RED to GT-YELLOW; an alternate reality difference.

Any core attractor can hybridise and meme generated by stripping out and off parts of the meme…

Which gets you Faux Green from ANY core basin which we have now BUT…

With the caveat I noted, faux greeen from purple is easily discerned as non-sensical much as you would see faux orange or faux blue.

Michael Moore’s film notes how faux green from ER-ORANGE works but as Jim noted—abd we have discussed—faux green emergent from DQ-BLUE is a whole other cat.

As in BO-P; DQ-B are cool and sacrifice of self systems and this are an easier hybrid to make which hides in the cool, communal, sacrifice of self continuum.

However, as there is a lot of faux green from purple in developing countries, it’s easily recognised as it appears non-sensual…

Fall in love, eating tuna and save the planet…as a real example (paraphrased).

There are a lot of faux purple emerging out of faux green pretending to be turquoise…

I wrote up a piece on that but never published it.

Gary where did we put that piece?

FS-GREEN contains the majority of the “spiritual” wave and coincides nicely with the post conventional leaning of what the SCT-community refers to now as

(Old- )


The reason for mentioning this is to give you bread crumbs;)

How many of the people you see posting stuff are self-questioning?

FS-GREEN in the area of ego complexity has reached a stage of where the inquiry into self is occurring, often fuelled by SELF-DOUBT, which is motivated by ACCEPTANCE…ironically…and the social motive of AFFILIATION…which also fits very well.

So why am I always picking on and pointing out FS-GREEN?

It’s not FS-GREEN that’s the issue per se, but paradoxically, it has—one would expect—been co-opted and is being canabalized by its shadow dynamics which—all of which—is easily available to the masses which makes it so easy to feel—as it emerges from feeling.

Bevause FS-GREEN is peaking, the optimism number of memes in that basin are available for hybridisation and because the “rationale” is through values, and NOT LOGIC, it is on steroids right now as anyone, anywhere who has any kind of believe about their “beef” is ON—remember Independence Day movie when the mother ship got within range, everything automatically turned on?

Remember the conceptual space is much larger in FS-GREEN and therefore the surface area for memetic attraction is huge across a very large spectrum and so you get every basin including everything from BO-P to GT-Y generating hybrids in a VUCA environment.

Also like to point out that conditions are WAY out of control with connectivity producing millions of experts now all talking amongst themselves and all of the rest of the connected world.

Anyone who subconsciously doesn’t understand where their “beef” is is now fair game and one thing you want to note—there is a reason why people protest and lose the cloak of reason as protesting is good, Affiliative—Anonymous—and no one usually gets into trouble!

It’s not ok to go to baseball game but it’s ok to protest!

There is your FS-GREEN logic.

Sorry for the long answer, I’m still affected by my lost answer to Jim and all that is leaking out;)


2015 November

Interesting view from Berlin by Swiss Member of Parliament?

2015 September

Making Sense from No Sense

September 7, 2015 – Making Sense from No Sense

The piece below was sent from Brian.

You may want to read it first then back to my comments.

I agree almost in general with the author, especially this quote:

“Contemporary finance” and EM just don’t mix.”

I do not agree with his statements about “printing money” or monetary inflation.

Those were explained in different terms by Armstrong I posted in the last days noting differences between “inflation and liquidity.”

The bottom-line is NOT WHETHER THE PAST IS UNWINDING, but how fast–that’s the key, really.

I’ve pointed this out for years if you have been reading me for that long…I’ve parroted and tried to make sense by showing everyone the rock candy mountain model I discovered a few years ago that really no one of any following has explained like I did in my short video:

The problem with most prognostication is “timing in the short-term” because that’s the thinking that is dominant and people want guidance now, not in general over time.

I’m afraid I can’t do much better than show you trends because the ONLY THING THATS TRUE, is the market and you don’t know what or who is right until the market tells you and that hasn’t happened yet;)

What caused me to write was the quote above:

“Contemporary finance” and EM just don’t mix.”

[EM stands for Emerging Market.]

I felt that everyone could benefit from a lesson straight from “ValuDYNANICS”.*

The reason that contemporary finance doesn’t work in EM is the lack of appropriate values density.

EM are busily acquiring density (quantity) and frequency (quality) from the meme scape.

Contemporary Finance (CF) is built on a system of trust which emerged out of density and frequency “levels” at DQ-BLUE.

CF as noted by the contributing author occurs contemporarily–assuming a values parallel–in ER-ORANGE.

EM have values density and frequency in AN-beige, BO-PURPLE and CP-Red, (note the use of capitalization to denote exiting, nodal and entering systems depicted by their density and frequency).

Here’s the bottom-line just in case you’ve hung around this long:

Each level of values has its own finance needs, density and frequency. IF YOU PRETEND that you can mix and match them under load, you are going to get what you got, VUCA: volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambuguity.

Now there are 1000 ways to explain what’s happening around the world but it’s quite simple.

You have mismatched scaffolding with inappropriate cues, support and scaffolding for the density and frequency of the underlying level of values…and when you put LOAD on the scaffolding: the tension, weight and volume of transactions created by load will reduce the successful transaction load to the level of density and frequency that can hold the load.

IF you built your systems through inappropriate density and frequency and failed to understand the amount of cues, support and scaffolding required under load, then you get CRUSHING results.


*ValuDYNANICS is part of LeaderWARE(tm) and is available for study online.

From my friend Bob Swan who is an economist and sends good stuff. I liked this, even though I only understood about half of it.

Too often it’s as if I’m analyzing an altogether different world than conventional analysts. My strong preference is to be viewed as an adept and determined analyst, as opposed to some wacko extremist. I have always tried to distinguish my analysis from the “lunatic fringe.”

It’s my overarching thesis that the world is in the waning days of a historic multi-decade experiment in unfettered finance. As I have posited over the years, international finance has for too long been effectively operating without constraints on either the quantity or the quality of Credit issued. From the perspective of unsound finance on a globalized basis, this period has been unique. History, however, is replete with isolated episodes of booms fueled by bouts of unsound money and Credit – monetary fiascos inevitably ending in disaster. I see discomforting confirmation that the current historic global monetary fiasco’s disaster phase is now unfolding. It is within this context that readers should view recent market instability.

It’s been 25 years of analyzing U.S. finance and the great U.S. Credit Bubble. When it comes to sustaining the Credit boom, at this point we’ve seen the most extraordinary measures along with about every trick in the book. When the banking system was left severely impaired from late-eighties excess, the Greenspan Fed surreptitiously nurtured non-bank Credit expansion. There was the unprecedented GSE boom, recklessly fomented by explicit and implied Washington backing. We’ve witnessed unprecedented growth in “Wall Street finance” – securitizations and sophisticated financial instruments and vehicles. There was the explosion in hedge funds and leveraged speculation. And, of course, there’s the tangled derivatives world that ballooned to an unfathomable hundreds of Trillions. Our central bank has championed it all.

Importantly, the promotion of “market-based” finance dictated a subtle yet profound change in policymaking. A functioning New Age financial structure required that the Federal Reserve backstop the securities markets. And especially in a derivatives marketplace dominated by “dynamic hedging” (i.e. buying or selling securities to hedge market “insurance” written), the Fed was compelled to guarantee “liquid and continuous” markets. This changed just about everything.

Contemporary finance is viable only so long as players can operate in highly liquid securities markets where price adjustments remain relatively contained. This is not the natural state of how markets function. The bullish premise of readily insurable/hedgeable market risks rests upon those having written protection being able to effectively off-load risk onto markets that trade freely without large price gaps/dislocations. And, sure enough, perceptions of liquid and continuous markets do create their own reality (Soros’ reflexivity). Sudden fear of market illiquidity and dislocation leads to financial crashes.

U.S. policymaking and finance changed profoundly after the “tech” Bubble collapse. Larger market intrusions and bailouts gave way to Federal Reserve talk of “helicopter money” and the “government printing press” necessary to fight the scourge of deflation. Mortgage finance proved a powerful expedient. In hindsight, 2002 was the fateful origin of both the historic mortgage finance Bubble along with “do whatever it takes” central banking. The global policy response to the 2008 Bubble collapse unleashed Contemporary Finance’s Bubble Dynamics throughout the world – China and EM in particular.

There are myriad serious issues associated with New Age finance and policymaking going global. The bullish consensus view holds that China and EM adoption of Western finance has been integral to these economies’ natural and beneficial advancement. Having evolved to the point of active participants in “globalization,” literally several billion individuals have the opportunity to prosper from and promote global free-market Capitalism. Such superficial analysis disregards this Credit and market cycles’ momentous developments.

The analysis is exceptionally complex – and has been so for a while now. The confluence of sophisticated finance, esoteric leverage, the highly speculative nature of market activity and the prominent role of government market manipulation has created an extremely convoluted backdrop. Still, a root cause of current troubles can be boiled down to a more manageable issue: “Contemporary finance” and EM just don’t mix. Seductively, the two appeared almost wonderfully compatible – but that ended with the boom phase. For starters, the notion of “liquid and continuous” markets is pure fantasy when it comes to “developing” economies and financial systems. As always, “money” gushes in and rushes out of EM. Submerged in destabilizing finance, EM financial, economic and political systems become, as always, overwhelmed and dysfunctional. And as always is the case, the greater the boom the more destabilizing the bust.

In general, reckless “money” printing has over years produced a massive pool of destabilizing global speculative finance. Simplistically, egregious monetary inflation (along with zero return on savings) ensured that there was way too much “money” chasing too few risk assets. Every successful trade attracted too much company. Successful strategies spurred a proliferation of copycats and massive inflows. Strong markets were flooded with finance. Perceived robust economies were overrun. Popular regions were completely inundated. To be sure, the post-crisis “Global Reflation Trade” amounted to history’s greatest international flow of speculative finance. Dreadfully, now comes The Unwind.

From individual trades, to themes to strategic asset-class and regional market allocations, speculative “hot money” flows have reversed course. Global deleveraging and de-risking has commenced. The fallacy of “liquid and continuous” markets is being exposed. Faith that global central bankers have things under control has begun to wane. And for the vast majority in the markets it remains business as usual. Another buying opportunity.

Whether on the basis of an individual trade or a popular theme, boom-time success ensured that contemporary (trend-following and performance-chasing) market dynamics spurred speculative excess and associated structural impairment. They also ensured latent Crowded Trade fragilities (notably illiquid and discontinuous “risk off” markets).

Crowded Trade Dynamics ensure that a rush for the exits has folks getting trampled. Previous relationships break down and time-tested strategies flail. “Genius” fails. When the Crowd decides it wants out, the market turns bereft of buyers willing and able to take the other side of the trade. And the longer the previous success of a trade, theme or strategy the larger The Crowd – and the more destabilizing The Unwind. Previous performance and track records will offer little predictive value. Models (i.e. “risk parity” and VAR!) will now work to deceive and confound.

Today, a Crowd of “money” is rushing to exit EM. The Crowd seeks to vacate a faltering Chinese Bubble. “Money” wants out of Crowded global leveraged “carry trades.” In summary, the global government finance Bubble has been pierced with profound consequences. Of course there will be aggressive policy responses. I just fear we’ve reached The Unwind phase where throwing more liquidity at the problem only exacerbates instability. Sure, the ECB and BOJ could increase QE – in the process only further stoking king dollar at the expense of faltering energy, commodities, EM and China. And the Fed could restart it program of buying U.S. securities. Bolstering U.S. markets could also come at the expense of faltering Bubbles around the globe.

It has been amazing to witness the expansion of Credit default swap (CDS) markets to all crevices of international finance. To see China’s “shadow banking” assets balloon to $5 Trillion has been nothing short of astonishing. Then there is the explosion of largely unregulated Credit insurance throughout Chinese debt markets – and EM generally. I find it incredible that Brazil’s central bank would write $100 billion of currency swaps (offering buyers protection against devaluation). Throughout it all, there’s been an overriding certitude that policymakers will retain control. Unwavering faith in concerted QE infinity, as necessary. The fallacy of liquid and continuous markets persisted so much longer than I ever imagined.

I feel I have a decent understanding of how the Fed and global central bankers reflated the system after the 2008 collapse of the mortgage finance Bubble. The Federal Reserve collapsed interest-rates to zero, while expanding its holdings (Fed Credit) about $1 Trillion. Importantly, the Fed was able to incite a mortgage refinance boom, where hundreds of billions of suspect “private-label” mortgages were transformed into (money-like) GSE-backed securities (becoming suitable for Fed purchase). The Fed backstopped the securities broker/dealer industry, the big banks and money funds. Washington backed Fannie, Freddie and the FHLB, along with major derivative players such as AIG. The Fed injected unprecedented amounts of liquidity into securities markets, more than content to devalue the dollar. Importantly, with the benefit of international reserve currency status and debt denominated almost exclusively in dollars, U.S. currency devaluation appeared relatively painless.

These days I really struggle envisaging how global policymakers reflate after the multi-dimensional collapse of the global government finance Bubble. We’re already witness to China’s deepening struggles. Stimulus over the past year worked primarily to inflate a destabilizing stock market Bubble that has gone bust. They (again) were forced to backtrack from currency devaluation. Acute fragilities associated both with massive financial outflows and enormous amounts of foreign currency-denominated debt were too intense. Markets are skeptical of Chinese official signals that the renminbi will be held stable against the dollar. Market players instead seem to be interpreting China’s efforts to stabilize their currency as actually raising the probability for future abrupt policy measures (significant devaluation and capital controls) or perhaps a highly destabilizing uncontrolled breakdown in the peg to the U.S. dollar.

And as China this week imposed onerous conditions on some currency derivative trading/hedging, it’s now clear that Chinese officials support contemporary market-based finance only when it assists their chosen policy course. How long will Chinese officials tolerate spending international reserves to allow “money” to exit China at top dollar?

September 3 – Financial Times (Henny Sender and Robin Wigglesworth): “Lee Cooperman, the founder of Omega Advisors, has joined the growing chorus of investors blaming last week’s stock market sell-off — and his own poor performance in August — on esoteric but increasingly influential trading strategies pioneered by hedge funds like Bridgewater. In a letter to investors…, Mr Cooperman and his partner Steven Einhorn said fundamental factors such as China’s ructions and uncertainty over the US interest rate outlook ‘cannot fully explain the magnitude and velocity of the decline in equity markets last month’… ‘These technical factors can push the market away from fundamentals,’ Marko Kolanovic, a senior JPMorgan strategist, noted in a widely circulated report last week. ‘The obvious risk is if these technical flows outsize fundamental buyers. In the current environment of low liquidity, they may cause a market crash such as the one we saw on [August 24]. These investors are selling equities and will negatively impact the market over coming days and weeks.’”

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement “technical factors can push the market away from fundamentals.” Indeed, that’s been the case now for going on seven years. A confluence of unprecedented monetary inflation, interest-rate manipulation, government deficits and leveraged speculation inflated a historic divergence between securities markets Bubbles and underlying fundamentals. The global Bubble is now faltering. Risk aversion is taking hold. De-leveraging is accelerating.

The yen jumped 2.2% this week. Japanese stocks were hit for 7%. The Brazilian real sank 7.3%. The South African rand dropped 4.2%. The Turkish lira dropped another 2.9% and the Russian ruble sank 5.0%. China sovereign CDS surged, pulling Asian CDS higher throughout. The Hang Seng China H-Financials Index sank another 7.4% this week, having now declined 39% from June highs. From my vantage point, market action points to serious unfolding financial dislocation in China. It also would appear that a large swath of the leveraged speculating community is facing some real difficulty.

After a rough trading session and an ominous week for global markets, I was struck by Friday evening headlines. From the Wall Street Journal: “An Investor’s Field Guild to Bottom Fishing;” “Global CEOs See Emerging Markets As Rich With Opportunity.” From CNBC: “Spike in Volatility Creates ‘Traders Paradise.” And from the Financial Times: “Wall Street Waiting for Those Buy Signals;” “Time to Buy EM Stocks, History Suggests;” “Why I’m Adding Emerging Markets Exposure Despite China Wobble;” “G20 Defies Gloom to Forecast Rise in Growth.”

There still seems little recognition of the seriousness of the unfolding global market dislocation. It’s destined to be a wrenching bear market – at best.

2015 May

Article–Making Sense of Meaning Making Literature

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”


FYI….for those who are doing work in this area or relates to your work or academic curiosity.



Mike’s response



2015 March

Progress and Poverty

When you study emergence…your only choice is through a rear view mirror–where things are “closer than they appear!”

Henry George

Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry in the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth… The Remedy



2015 January

Library of Professional Coaching

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”



Thought the first article related to some of the things we have talked about—our thinking process

and brain science.

You can share it with the group if you think it would be helpful.



Library of Professional Coaching

Why Transformative Coaching Takes Guts

Posted: 23 Jan 2015 09:33 AM PST


Most trained coaches know how to be supportive, encouraging and nonjudgmental. These approaches are useful but often not enough to create a new awareness. Coaching starts by building trust and rapport, but as the conversation goes deeper you might need to generate a bit of discomfort to create a breakthrough in thinking.

What happens when you challenge someone’s thinking?

In order to define who we are and make sense of the world around us, our brains develop constructs and rules that we strongly protect without much thought. In Who’s in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain (Ecco, 2011), neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga says we get stuck in our automatic thought-processing and fool ourselves into thinking we are right. When someone asks us why we did something, we immediately come up with an answer even if the response doesn’t make complete sense. We instantly concoct a brilliant reason for procrastinating on a task, for prioritizing reading email over a project deadline or for making life decisions based on how we will feel in the future when, in truth, we can never be sure how the circumstances will impact us emotionally.

To disturb this automatic processing, you reflect holes in your client’s logic and ask questions that reveal the fears, needs and desires keeping the constructs in place. NeuroBusiness Group founder and CEO Srinivasan S. Pillay, M.D. writes that this coaching approach is the only way to stop the automatic processing. Reflection and questions crack the force field that protects your client’s sense of reality, enabling her to explore, examine and change strongly held beliefs and behavior.

The reaction to bringing these things to light will register somewhere between slight discomfort and an emotional outpour. Momentary confusion and abrupt realizations trigger emotional reactions. The truth can hurt or at least surprise you before it sets you free.

Therefore, negative emotions can be a good sign. When your client realizes she has blocked a truth that was in her face the entire time, she may feel mortified, angry or sad. She is finally confronting her rationalizations and seeing her blind spots. For a moment, her brain does not know what to think. As Nessa Victoria Bryce writes in the July/August 2014 issue of Scientific American Mind, this pause in certainty as the brain rushes to reinterpret information is necessary for a clearer and broader understanding of the situation to emerge. In researching how coaching works in the brain for The Discomfort Zone, I found this moment of uncertainty is necessary for behavioral learning to occur. Only with this new awareness will your client willfully commit to behaving in a different way.

Know your WHY

Posted: 23 Jan 2015 07:57 AM PST

Why Know Your WHY?

Knowing Your WHY strengthens corporate culture, employee engagement and deepens connections with ideal clients, customers and investors

Discussions abound on how to fortify employee engagement. Awareness of the critical need to place employees and team members “in the right seats on the bus” has been heightened. Companies strive to create not only external raving fans, but impassioned, raving employees as well. Given recent trends and statistics, it is no surprise that organizations are placing a concerted effort on beefing up engagement.

Gallup states in their most recent State of the Workplace report that 70% of all employees are indifferent or actively disengaged, and that each “actively disengaged” employees costs an employer an average $25,000 per year. SHRM, (Society for Human Resources Management), estimates that bad hires cost up to five times their annual salary. Forbes cites an average annual turnover rate of 33%, with nine out of ten people leaving because of attitude.

Concern with these statistics is well founded.  Again according to Gallup, it literally pays, in a big way, to be in the top 25% of “Engaged Companies.” Those that achieve this top quartile realize:  37% less turnover, 48% fewer safety incidents, 41% fewer product defects, 21% higher productivity, and my favorite: 22% higher profitability. Whether a given business or organizational leader is paternal and nurturing, or, conversely, dispassionate and bottom-line oriented, these numbers should be motivation enough. Leaders need to source, bring to their organizations, and institutionalize sure-fire ways to increase engagement.

Recently, I have been introduced to, and have become a huge proponent of, a novel approach to increasing both internal and external engagement. The “Know Your WHY” movement that is making great headway and producing consistently positive results as it spreads across the country and the globe. The secret sauce is that it is based on the way each individual in a business, organization, or team is hardwired.


Mike’s response

I had mixed emotions about this…

to whom is the judgment left?

and how is the judgment formed, from what perspective?

I do believe that coaches should at times challenge thinking…

however, all this transformational coaching stuff is rare, because people don’t transform, they learn, grow and develop, i’m much more interested in scaffolding that process, instead of transformational work…


2015 January

Narrow Thinking Signals…

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”


You want to see a sign of narrow thinking?

Obama made a remark directed at Putin (indirectly)…

I told you before, Putin is NOT stupid, and the Russians are NOT someone to mess around with, but just like the incredible GAFFE by Obama on his “I won both of mine…” he has now thrust us into another cold war, only this time, it’s not going to be funny…

Putin will MAKE OBAMA PAY for those remarks, mark my words.

Instead of Obama modeling the solution, remaining empathetic and offering a fig leaf, he threw down a gauntlet and will now UNDO everything that has been achieved since the wall came down.

The LEGACY of Obama will be smeared with foreign policy gaffes, and I believe what will erupt will be WWIII, and we’ve seen the spark now.

YOU NEVER< NEVER put a bear in the corner, the only thing they know to do if fight.

We have single-handedly declared war on Russia through the leadership of sanctions which caused they economy to crumble.

THE ONLY THING that brought us out of a depression was a WAR…

Do you think that is an isolated circumstance?

Or is WAR FOOTING a tool that can be used to resolve depression?

If so, we are in trouble because RUSSIA IS IN DEPRESSION, and the oil “business” has helped trigger the problems.

I expect the ARCTIC to be a battleground as well as eastern Europe, all fought by proxy…
Top News

War Is Exploding Anew in Ukraine; Rebels Vow More


Evidence is increasing that Russian troops and Russian equipment have been pouring into eastern Ukraine again

What choice do they have?

And who narrowed the choice?

Through lack of experience (a foreign policy team that doesn’t know what it’s doing) and OBAMA’s ego position.

You wanted interesting?

You got it!


Mike’s response”

Here’s the quote:

Second, we are demonstrating the power of American strength and diplomacy. We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small by opposing Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.
Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were reinforcing our presence with the frontline states, Mr. Putin’s aggression, it was suggested, was a masterful display of strategy and strength. That’s what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.
That’s how America leads: not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.


THIS WAS A BAD MOVE, and shows lack of empathy for the Russian people in general, about 10 million or so are Russians on the USA, or more.

In developmental coaching, I call this modeling the problem, here’s why:

When someone models their “reasoning”…contained within that are the problems of the next or more complex levels…

So I call it modeling the problem which can be solved at a different level…

In this case, Obama and our country is making a huge error that will come back to haunt us all and the world…

it’s just a matter of time…

If Obama thinks Putin is not “so masterful” then the WORST thing he could have done…is embarrass him in front of 37.1 million watching the speech and the billion they will affect…

SUPER STRATEGIC ERROR…that shows Obama’s ego position…

2015 January

Red Beach

When I landed…in Tacloban,

The executive jet that was blown off the runway which trued to takeoff about the pope…

Was still sitting there in the mud on the side of the runway…