Go ahead and fall asleep in math class...

There's a scene from the 1997 movie Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon's character ("Will Hunting"), a genius working as a janitor at MIT, solves a difficult math problem that was left by one of the math professors on a dry erase board as a challenge to his graduate students.  Will solves the problem anonymously, and when no one "fesses up" to having solved it, the professor leaves an even more difficult problem to solve.  He later catches Will working on the problem, and the rest of the movie focuses on how Will goes on to greater things.

Matt Damon and Ben Affleck wrote the screenplay to the movie (and won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay that year at the 70th Academy Awards), and the real life mathematician George Dantzig apparently served as inspiration for the scene discussed above (see also the video clip here).  Dantzig was an American mathematician who made significant contributions during his lifetime to industrial engineering, operations research, computer science, statistics, and a sub-branch of mathematics known as linear programming.  Apparently, when Dantzig was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, his professor Jerzy Neyman posted two problems on the blackboard at the beginning of his class in 1939.  Dantzig arrived late and assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) that the problems were the homework assignment for the day.  Dantzig thought that the problems "seemed to be a little harder than usual" and handed in completed solutions for both a few days later.  Six weeks later, Professor Neyman told Dantzig that the "homework problems" were actually two of the most famous unsolved problems in statistics.  They submitted one of the problems for publication.  Dantzig recalled much later in a 1986 interview, "A year later, when I began to worry about a thesis topic, Neyman just shrugged and told me to wrap the two problems in a binder and he would accept them as my thesis."

Over the years, the story has been further embellished and has become an urban legend.  I recently saw a social media post telling a very similar story, though in this case, it's about a student at Columbia University who fell asleep during mathematics class.  As the story goes, when the student woke up at the end of class, he noticed the lecturer had written two problems on the whiteboard.  He thought that these were homework assignments, so he copied them down and went back to his dormitory.  He spent hours in the library researching the problems and trying to solve them both.  Eventually, he was able to solve one of the problems, even though it was very challenging.  It was only after asking if his professor was ever going to collect the homework assignment that he found out that they were two famous unsolved problems.  Together, the student and professor submitted four papers based upon the solution to one of the problems, and they are still displayed at the university today as evidence that we shouldn't listen to people who say that something is impossible and that we shouldn't be afraid to fail.  The story is further supposed to illustrate the power of positive thinking.

I am reminded of Audrey Hepburn's famous quote, "Nothing is impossible, the word itself says I'm possible."  Or Nelson Mandela, who said, "It always seems impossible until it's done."  Or Mary McLeod Bethune, who said, "Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible."  Or dare I add (much to my mathematics teacher wife's chagrin), "Go ahead and fall asleep in math class...you never know what may come out of it."

Hope is not a strategy...or is it?

One of my mentors used to tell me that "Hope is not a strategy."  The line always made logical sense to me, and it has stuck with me for years.  What I am starting to appreciate, however, is that he wasn't completely correct.  Hope can be a strategy.  Let me explain.

What my mentor was really referring to was the simple fact that "not having a strategy" wasn't a strategy.  In other words, we shouldn't just go through our personal and professional lives without a plan.  We shouldn't just "hope for the best" and see how everything plays out.

As I've mentioned several times in the last couple of months, I've been paying a lot more attention recently to the Harvard Business School professor Arthur C. Brooks, who studies happiness and how it applies to leadership.  His tagline says it all, "Blending cutting-edge research in behavioral science and neuroscience with philosophy and wisdom traditions, Dr. Arthur Brooks teaches people from all walks of life how to live a better, happier life."  I've been reading his articles (and a book he recently co-authored with Oprah Winfrey, Build the Life You Want) and listening to his podcasts.  One of the things he emphasizes is that hope and optimism are two different things.  It's even the subject of one of his articles in The Atlantic magazine, "The Difference Between Hope and Optimism".    Dr. Brooks emphasizes that hope is active, while optimism is more passive.  "Hope" involves personal agency - not only are we going to take an optimistic viewpoint, but also we are going to do the necessary things to make things better.  Optimism is a vision, while hope is a strategy.

Jamil Zaki, professor of psychology at Stanford University, wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review entitled "The Strategic Power of Hope".  He says that we are evolutionarily wired to be pessimistic.  Early humans had to anticipate all of the bad things that could happen to them - if they didn't, they could end up as lunch for some ancient predator.  Dr. Zaki suggests that even organizations are hard-wired to focus on what could go wrong - it's even one of the foundational principles of so-called High Reliability Organizations ("Preoccupation with Failure").

Dr. Zaki also says that there are important differences between optimism and hope.  He explains, "Optimists tend to be happy but complacent, waiting patiently for a bright tomorrow.  Hopeful people, on the other hand, believe that things might turn out well - but they also believe that in that context of uncertainty, actions matter.  Being hopeful doesn't just involve imaging positive outcomes...it also involves willpower (a desire to bring about hoped for outcomes) and waypower (the charting of a clear path to achieve them)."

Similarly, Deborah Mills-Scofield, a strategy and innovation consultant, wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review entitled "Hope is a strategy (well, sort of)".  She would respond to my mentor's comment ("Hope is not a strategy") by saying, "It isn't, especially when based on illusion, delusion, fiction, or false assumptions."  She defines hope as "the belief that something is possible and probable" but again she emphasizes that hope is action-oriented, while optimism is not.

So how can we leverage hope as a strategy?  Dr. Brooks suggests that we take three important steps:

1. Imagine a better future, and detail what makes it so.

2. Envision yourself taking action.

3. Act.

Dr. Zaki adds that leaders need to find ways to empower the individuals on their teams, writing, "Hope blooms only when people feel agency over their future. That's something that you can help them with - for example, by delegating important tasks and loosening the managerial reins."  He also suggests that we celebrate progress, writing, "Focusing people on their wins, and how they have managed to take control of their work lives, makes them more likely to feel agency in the future."

Dr. Zaki ends his article by stating, "There will be storms ahead, but it's the hopeful leaders who can best chart a course through them. If you anchor their strategies in hope - not naïve optimism but a deliberate belief in shared goals and action - you can steer your organization toward growth, connection, and creativity. Hope doesn't just imagine a better future; it helps you build one." 

The Glass Cage

During my morning commute the other day, I heard a news update on a recent study that showed that our increasing reliance on artificial intelligence is making us all less intelligent.  It's not the first time I've heard that claim.  For example, I've been reading several articles and books by the writer Nicholas Carr, including a book called The Glass Cage, in which Carr explores how automation and technology have significantly changed how we work.  Carr argues that while automation has certainly improved efficiency, it has also diminished our skills, creativity, and sense of agency.  He uses the metaphor of a "glass cage" to suggest that rather than truly enhancing our potential, technology and automation place significant limitations on our growth and freedom.

Carr starts the book by talking about the Luddites, a term now used to describe anyone who is resistant to new technology, though they were originally a group of 19th century British weavers and textile workers who staged a revolution, of sorts, against the increasing use of mechanized looms during the Industrial Revolution.  The term Luddite came from their patron, one Ned Ludd (who likely never existed) who supposedly smashed two stocking frames (a mechanized knitting machine) and whose name was often used as a pseudonym in threatening letters that weavers and textile workers sent to textile mill owners and government officials.  What's important to realize, however, is that the Luddites weren't necessarily against technology per se, but rather they were against what technology could potentially mean for their prospects at employment, which would then necessarily impact their livelihoods and their families.  Carr's brief discussion of the Luddites seems poignant, given all of the concerns about the potential impact of automation and technology on people's livelihoods today.

I want to go back to the suggestion that technology is making us less intelligent.  Carr mentions the following short passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations: 

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." 

Here, Smith was referencing the potential adverse impact of the division of labor and specialization of work (think: assembly lines on the factory floor), but I like the comparison to what is potentially happening today with automation.  The American writer and philosopher Matthew Crawford suggests in his book, Shop Class as Soulcraft, "To really know shoelaces, you have to tie shoes."  He explains further that, "If thinking is bound up with action, then the task of getting an adequate grasp on the world, intellectually, depends on our doing stuff in it."  In other words, when we do less work because machines are doing that work for us, something is lost - knowledge and skills.  The science and technology historian George Dyson asked, "What if the cost of machines that think is people don't?"  

While all of these points are certainly concerning, what is discussed less frequently is the implication that automation and artificial intelligence is making our systems less safe.  The human factors psychologist Raja Parasuraman, who studied automation and human performance prior to his death in 2015, referenced the significant impact of technology on the number of commercial airline accidents over the last several decades.  Of course, there have been other interventions that have helped to decrease aviation accidents as well (e.g., crew resource management), but there is no question that technological advances, particularly in the realm of automation, have also had an impact.  Parasuraman argues that there is more at play here, stating "The overall decline in the number of plane crashes masks the recent arrival of a spectacularly new type of accident."  Carr explains, "When onboard computer systems fail to work as intended or other unexpected problems arise during a flight, pilots are forced to take manual control of the plane.  Thrust abruptly into a new rare role, they too often make mistakes."  There are other examples of so-called automation-induced errors outside of commercial aviation (see for example the grounding of the cruise ship Royal Majesty).  To a similar extent, these automation-induced errors have been observed in the health care industry (see a systematic review published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association).

I don't want to be called a Luddite (I don't think Nicholas Carr does either).  However, what's clear to me (and should be clear to all of us) is that there are likely some adverse and unintended consequences to both automation and artificial intelligence.  We cannot simply ignore the problems that will come with all of the potential benefits of technology, especially when there are so many examples in just about every industry.  The Glass Cage is a great and an important read, and it's an even better metaphor for what we are seeing with the interface between technology and human performance today.

The Five Pillars of Happiness

I first learned about the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung after listening to the 1983 rock album Synchronicity by The Police.  I wrote about Jung and his concept of "synchronicity" in a previous post a few years ago.  Jung was an associate of the equally famous (perhaps more so) Austrian neurologist, Sigmund Freud. Believe it or not, you probably know more about Jung than you know about Freud.  Have you ever used the term complex (e.g., guilt complex), to describe how you or someone else is feeling?  Jung was the first to describe and use that term.  Would you describe yourself as an extrovert or an introvert?  Again, Jung coined those terms too.  What he is less commonly known for and what I want to focus on today is what he called the five pillars of happiness (see Gretchen Rubin's article in Forbes and Arthur Brooks' article in The Atlantic).  

Jung wrote, "Happiness is such a remarkable reality that there is nobody who does not long for it.  And yet there is not a single objective criterion which would prove beyond all doubt that this condition necessarily exists."  Let's not misunderstand his point here - Jung wasn't saying that happiness as an emotional construct doesn't exist, but rather that happiness likely exists along a continuum of emotions.  More importantly, happiness as a positive emotion exists along one continuum, while unhappiness as a negative emotion exists along a completely separate one (see my post, "Are you happy?" for more on this point).  With this in mind, Jung said, "Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better to take things as they come along with patience and equanimity."

Towards the end of his life, Jung shared his own personal strategy for achieving happiness in life, based upon five key pillars:

1. Good physical and mental health:  There have been a number of studies that consistently show that both physical and mental fitness are clearly linked with happiness.  For example, the longest currently running study of happiness - the Harvard Study of Adult Development - showed that four of the most important predictors of a senior citizen's wellbeing are not smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation (or not at all), maintaining a healthy body weight, and exercising regularly.  Arthur C. Brooks, one of the most important authorities on the science of happiness, would argue that good health practices don't necessarily increase one's level of happiness per se, but instead they lower one's level of unhappiness.  I've certainly found that to be the case - there's nothing better after a stressful day at work than a good, hard workout!  And as I reflect back on my own life, the times that I've experienced the most happiness were when I felt like I was in the best healthy shape.

2.  Good personal and intimate relations, such as those of marriage, family, friendships: Again, I am impressed by the number of studies that provide convincing evidence that fostering and maintaining close personal relationships through marriage, family, and friendships is one of the most important drivers of happiness.  Again, the Harvard Study of Adult Development provides important evidence on this point.  Robert Waldinger, who has led the study for over two decades, states, "The surprising finding is that our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health.  Taking care of your body is important, but tending to your relationships is a form of self-care too. That, I think, is the revelation."  Relationships matter even more than one's heredity (see the article "Good genes are nice, but joy is better" in the Harvard Gazette or Waldinger's TED talk "What makes a good life" for more).  The psychiatrist George Vaillant led the study from 1972 until 2004.  He said, "When the study began, nobody cared about empathy or attachment.  But the key to healthy aging is relationships, relationships, relationships."

3.  Seeing beauty in art and in nature: I have to confess that of all Jung's five pillars, this is the one that most surprised me.  Jung believed that cultivating an appreciation for the beauty in the world was just as important to happiness as physical and mental health and personal relationships.  While both art and nature can be beautiful, nature's beauty is inherent and exists independently of our perception.  The beauty of art, on the other hand, results from human creation and reflect the artist's creativity, emotions, and personal concept of what is meant by beauty.  Artistic beauty is more subjective and open to interpretation.  Natural beauty is more objective.  Regardless, an appreciation for both is a key driver of happiness.  Whether you are the individual creating the art or merely observing and appreciating someone else's creation, the aesthetic experience will help improve our overall degree of happiness.  In regards to nature's beauty, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright said, "Study nature, love nature, stay close to nature. It will never fail you.  In regards to artistic beauty, the philosopher Thomas Merton said, "Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time."

4.  A reasonable standard of living and satisfactory work: Arthur C. Brooks again emphasizes that steady and satisfactory work (to use Jung's term) that brings an income conducive to an acceptable standard of living likely decreases unhappiness more than it increases the degree of happiness.  However, when work crosses the threshold from being merely satisfactory to become meaningful, there will be an impact on happiness AND unhappiness.  Brooks defines meaningful work as work that yields both earned success, which he defines as a sense of accomplishing something valuable and work that involves service to others.  Importantly, as I've previously discussed in several posts in the past (see "Money can't buy me love, but can it buy me happiness?", "The mathematics of happiness", and "Money, love, and happiness"), the relationship between money and happiness is not as straightforward as one would believe.  The current research suggests that there is indeed a positive association between subjective wellbeing (i.e. happiness) and income, though that relationship peaks at a certain level of income (which depends on the particular study).  In other words, above a certain income threshold, more money isn't necessarily going to make you happier.  The key point is that individuals have an income sufficient for maintaining an "acceptable" standard of living, which Brooks defines as "having the money to pay for experiences with loved ones, to free up time to spend on meaningful activities, and to support good causes."

5.  A philosophical or religious outlook that fosters resilience: I've talked about the need to focus on physical, mental, and spiritual health in the past (see "The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life").  While Jung was a devout Christian, what he defined as a "religious outlook" didn't have to be any specific religious faith.  Actually, it didn't even have to be religious in nature at all.  As Brooks suggests, "everyone should have some sense of transcendent belief or higher purpose", whether religious or purely philosophical in nature.  Brooks further notes, "Religious belief has been noted as strongly predictive of finding meaning in life, and spirituality is positively correlated with better mental health...Secular philosophies can provide this benefit as well."

In The Atlantic article, Brooks states that Jung's five pillars stand up very well alongside modern research findings.  He summarized these findings with the following seven points on how we can best live our best, happiest life:

1. Do not fall prey to seeking pure happiness - instead, seek lifelong progress towards happierness (a word coined by Oprah Winfrey, who co-authored the book, Build the Life You Want with Brooks).

2. Manage as best you can the main sources of misery in your life by attending to your physical and mental health, maintaining employment, and ensuring an adequate income.

3. If you're earning enough to take care of your principal needs, remember that happiness at work comes from not chasing higher income but from pursuing a sense of accomplishment and service to others.

4.  Cultivate deep relationships through marriage, family, and real friendships.  Remember that happiness is love.

5.  If you have discretionary income left over, use it to invest in your relationships with family and friends.

6.  Spend time in nature, surround yourself with beauty that uplifts you, and consume the art and music that nourish your spirit.

7.  Find a path of transcendence - one that explains the big picture in life and helps you comprehend suffering and the purpose of your existence.

I will leave this post with one final quote from Carl Jung, whose five key pillars we discussed.  In regards to our journey towards happierness, he said, "Perhaps this sounds very simple, but simple things are always the most difficult. In actual life it requires the greatest discipline to be simple, and the acceptance of oneself is the essence of the moral problem and the epitome of a whole outlook upon life."

Gen Z and Middle Managers

I came across an interesting article ("Gen Z has turned against taking middle management roles") in the online version of the Financial Times earlier this week (a related article appeared in Forbes magazine).  The article is based upon an unpublished study conducted by the talent solutions firm Robert Walters, which is available on their website.  The firm surveyed more than 2,000 white-collar workers, 800 of whom were Gen Zers (generally defined as individuals born between 1997 and 2012).  They found that over half of Gen-Z professionals don't want to take on a middle management role in their career.  Nearly three-fourths of the Gen-Z professionals stated that they would choose an individual route to career progression and promotion over managing others.

When asked about the reasons for their reluctance (even refusal) to accept a middle management role, Gen-Z professionals stated that these roles were too high stress with too little reward.  They've observed the trend towards flatter, less hierarchical organizational structures (and 30% of them think that's the correct approach compared to only 14% who still believe the traditional hierarchical structure is the right one), and coupled with the high rates of burnout in this group, likely feel that these careers are just not worth the effort and stress. 

Lucy Bisset, Director of Robert Walters North, suggested that "Gen-Z are known for their entrepreneurial mindset - preferring to bring their 'whole self' to projects and spend time cultivating their own brand and approach, rather than spending time managing others."  Bisset also suggests that "More senior professionals have usually committed years to one company, working their way through more traditional levels of management and as such have developed a greater respect for mid-level managers.  Younger professionals, having entered the workforce in a largely remote or hybrid capacity with a huge focus on digital capabilities are less inclined towards complete company loyalty."

My concern is that this reluctance to move into middle management roles will only further stress the individuals who are currently working in middle management.  As the pipeline of middle managers dries up, there will be fewer individuals managing larger teams of employees.  As I mentioned in a previous post ("Layers upon layers of managers managing other managers..."), "...at a time when employee engagement seems to be at an all-time low across the board, do we really want to do something that could decrease the amount of time that employees spend with their direct supervisor?" (at least one person commented on this point).   

Bisset goes on to say that "It's clear that middle management remains a lynchpin of any organization, and to keep these roles filled employers need to innovate their strategies to make them more attractive - from providing more autonomy, to regular workload assessments and clear upskilling opportunities."  She further suggests that "Embracing an 'unbossed culture' could be key in transforming the role from just being seen as an 'unnecessary layer' of management to a 'facilitator' who empowers their team to take their own initiative."  Whether we continue to flatten the hierarchy and remove excess layers of management or embrace an 'unbossed culture' as Bisset suggests, it's clear that organizations will need to double-down on High Reliability Organization principles and develop "Networks of Competence".

The first step is to clearly state the problem...

A fictional television news anchor named Will McAvoy (played by the actor Jeff Daniels) was asked the question, "Can you say why America is the greatest country in the world?"  His response, shown in the video clip from the premier episode of the HBO television series, The Newsroom, which aired on June 24, 2012, may surprise you.  McAvoy replied, "America is not the greatest country in the world."

It's worth reviewing his speech in more detail.  McAvoy cites a list of statistical rankings in which the United States of America (U.S.A.) falls far behind its peers, stating at the outset that "there is absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world."  He then goes on to say that the U.S.A. ranks first in only three categories - the number of incarcerated citizens per capita, the number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending ("where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies").

I decided to do my own fact checking, as (1) you can never completely believe what is said on a fictional television show ("Trust, but verify") and (2) the show aired more than a decade ago and perhaps a lot has changed since then.  Here is where the U.S.A. ranks on several of the key statistics mentioned (and a few others):

Overall

2024 U.S. News and World Report "Best Countries" Ranking: #3 (actually the highest we've ever ranked since the survey was first launched in 2016)

Economic

2024 Gross Domestic Product (Nominal), according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF): #1

2024 GDP Per Capita (Nominal), according to the IMF: #6

2024 GDP Per Capita, based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), according to the IMF: #8

2021 Median Income Per Capita (Nominal), according to the OECD: #1

2022 Income Inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient), according to the World Bank: #61

2024 Index of Economic Freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation: #25

2024 World Competitiveness Index: #12

2024 Global Innovation Index: #3 

Education

2024 World's Best Education System, according to the World Top 20 Project Network: #31

2024 Math Scores on Program for International Assessment (PISA), OECD countries only: #28

2024 Science Scores Program for International Assessment (PISA), OECD countries only: #12

Health Care

2024 Infant Mortality (World Population Review): #57

2020 Maternal Mortality, according to the World Health Organization: #55

2024 Life Expectancy at Birth: #48

Public Policy

2024 Human Freedom Index, according to the Cato Institute: #17

2023 Global State of Democracy (International IDEA): #46

2023 Democracy Index, according to the World Population Review: #29

2024 Corruption Index, according to the World Population Review: #24

Standard of Living

2020 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Better Life Index: #10

2024 Human Development Index, according to the United Nations: #20

2024 World Happiness Report: #23

I should emphasize that not all of these rankings include every country (for example, the OECD rankings only include the 38 member countries of the OECD).  In other words, the nominal rankings are probably not as important, as the major point that I am trying to make is that on just about every possible measure, America ranks below many of our peers.  As Will McAvoy says, "America is not the greatest country in the world", at least by these particular measures.

I actually couldn't find a ranking for the number of adult citizens who believe in angels, though the polls I did find showed that the majority of Americans do, in fact, believe in angels.  In addition, as of 2024, El Salvador (not the U.S.A.) ranks first in the number of incarcerated citizens per capita (America ranks sixth).  McAvoy was right on one point - the U.S. far outspends all of our peer nations on military defense (see my next paragraph).

The Wall Street Journal reported that America does rank first among peer nations in the following metrics: Alcohol and drug use burden, Opioid death rate, Drug death rate, Health expenditures per capita, Total number of guns, Guns owned per capita, Bankruptcy filings, and Defense expenditures.  America also ranks first among peer nations when it comes to the number of millionaires, the number of billionaires, the number of Nobel Prize winners, the number of valuable companies, the number of movies made, the number of clinical trials, the number of top universities, and the number of astronauts.  

So, what can we conclude from all of this?  First, the first step to finding a solution is to clearly state the problem.  I fully believe that there is no one single measure to define a country's "greatness" (similar to the fact that there is no one single measure to define an organization's "greatness").  "Greatness" remains incredibly difficult - maybe even impossible - to define.  I’m not sure that any country has or even could rank first in all of the measures listed above, and even then I’m not sure we could 100% say that that country is "great."  As I've stated in the past, "greatness" is likely best measured, if at all, using a portfolio of different measures, each with the appropriate validity and reliability.    

Second, there hasn't been a recent decline or even a precipitous one with regards to all of the measures I mentioned above.  For example, when I started medical school over 35 years ago, we were already talking about the fact that the U.S.A. spends more on health care than any other nation, yet we do poorly on almost all health outcome measures compared to these same nations.  The simple truth is that America has been struggling with performance on many of these measures for quite a long time.

Third, and I apologize for getting just a little political here, government is not completely to blame for the poor performance (relative to other countries) on these measures.  However, it's also important to recognize that government isn't the only solution for improving performance on these measures either.  America's lack of "greatness" cannot be blamed on any one political party.  Neither should we expect that any one political party can fix all of our problems without partnering with the other.  

Towards the end of the video clip, Will McAvoy pauses for a second after going off on a tirade about how "America is not the greatest country in the world."  He says:

We sure used to be.  We stood up for what was right.  We fought for moral reasons, we passed and struck down laws for moral reasons.  We waged wars on poverty, not poor people.  We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest.  We built great things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy.  We reached for the stars, and we acted like men.  We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior.  We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy.  And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered. The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one - America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.

McAvoy looks back at the moderator and asks, "Enough?"  It's a great video clip, and one that I wished more of our political leaders would watch.  We do have problems, and we can't solve them unless we first recognize that we have a problem, clearly state it, and work together towards a solution.  "Together" is probably the most important word here... 

Ubuntu

I suspect that many of you are familiar with the quotation from the 17th century French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum, translated as I think, therefore I am.  It's one of the fundamental tenets - a core principle, if you will - in the Western philosophy tradition.  In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes tells us that everything we assume to be true can be doubted.  If that is indeed true, then all of our thoughts and beliefs can be doubted.  He goes on to explain, "I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed...So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."

The philosophy of Ubuntu was developed by the Bantu and Xhosa people of Southern Africa and popularized by Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.  While Descartes (and most of the Western philosophical tradition) suggests that the individual is the source of all knowledge, Ubuntu would suggest that the source of knowledge is the community.  Rather than cogito ergo sum, Ubuntu would state, umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, meaning a person is a person through other persons.  The word ubuntu itself is translated as I am because we are.  

The blogger Maup van de Kerkhof describes the central idea of the Ubuntu philosophy as "a thorough recognition of the interconnectedness of human beings while acknowledging the inherent worth of every individual."  In the Ubuntu tradition, "All persons have something to offer, and not one expertise in life should prevail over the other."

It's a beautiful concept, and one that I believe that we need to pay more attention to in today's society.  In my last post ("The Loneliness Epidemic"), I talked about U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy's advisory released last year entitled "The Healing Effects of Social Connection" and the need to foster social connections.  As Dr. Murthy concludes his second term as U.S. Surgeon General, he released "My Parting Prescription for America" which weaves together his personal and professional observations on what is perhaps most ailing society today - the erosion of our sense of community.  It's a quick read, and I think I agree with just about every point that Dr. Murthy made.

Dr. Murthy argues (convincingly so in my opinion) that there are three core pillars to building a sense of community - relationships, service, and purpose.  He goes on to describe how these "three drivers of fulfillment" have been shown to significantly influence health outcomes, including premature mortality, heart disease, depression, and anxiety.  He mentions the philosophy of Ubuntu, which emphasizes our interdependence as well as the responsibility that we all have to one another as human beings.

Consistent with some of my recent posts, Dr. Murthy provides a list of the key drivers for the erosion of our sense of community in today's society.  First, we have become a much more mobile society.  Both my wife and I lived in the same house during our entire childhood.  Our own children have been less fortunate, in that we have moved around from city to city as I have pursued different professional opportunities.  Our own family's experience is the norm today.  

Second, as highlighted in my recent post "Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid...", technology (and social media, in particular) have actually made us less connected.  Dr. Murthy writes, "Social media has turbocharged a culture of constant comparison that too often undermines our self-worth and makes us feel dissatisfied with our lives...friends have been replaced with followers and confidantes with contacts, with profound consequences for the depth and quality of our relationships."  I would also argue that social media has further polarized our society in such a way that we've lost the ability to have civil discourse with those individuals who don't share our opinions and beliefs.  Dr. Murthy writes, "Outrage now drives online conversations and much of the news we encounter, fueled by an outrage industrial complex that profits from maximizing engagement despite the human cost.  Ultimately, it's hard to connect with each other when we can't talk to each other."

Third, as highlighted by the social scientist Robert Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, the decline in the number of civic organizations such as recreational leagues, youth groups, faith institutions, neighborhood associations, and service organizations has helped accelerate the erosion of our sense of community.  Dr. Murthy writes that "underneath these trends, the pendulum of self-reliance has swung so far to one end that needing others is seen as a sign of weakness, leading to a vicious cycle of stress, isolation, and more stress."

Dr. Murthy calls the loss of community "one of the defining challenges of our time" and suggests that we need a "fundamental shift in how we build and prioritize community."  He goes on to suggest that we should avoid what he calls the "triad of success" (wealth, fame, power) and instead focus on the "triad of fulfillment" (relationships, service, and purpose).  He goes on to say that when these three elements are combined with the core virtue of love, they create an ecosystem for meaning and belonging.  

Fostering relationships requires us to ask the question, "With whom can I connect more deeply?"  The kinds of relationships that Dr. Murthy is talking about here is not just simply those connections with our family, close friends, neighbors, and co-workers.  We need to be courageous enough to build relationships with people who may differ in background and beliefs, but yet who still form an important part of our community.  

Becoming more involved in service requires us to ask the question, "What can I do to help others?"  While service is directed towards the benefit of others, studies have shown that there are profound benefits to those who serve!  There are known benefits to our physical, mental, and spiritual health, but Dr. Murthy also suggests that "service reminds us we have value we bring to the world."  He suggests that we should at least commit to one act of kindness every day.  

Defining our purpose requires us to ask the question, "What gives my life meaning?"  Dr. Murthy defines purpose as the feeling of having an overarching life aim that guides and prioritizes our decisions and actions.  He writes, "It's not 'what' we do.  It's 'why' we do it."  Our purpose lays the foundation for our goals and achievements.  

Lastly, Dr. Murthy suggests that building a sense of community requires love, which he calls that "commanding force with the power to build, strengthen, and heal."  Love can't just be reserved for our family and close friends or even those who share our beliefs and life experiences.  We also have to extend our love to those people with whom we disagree.  Mother Teresa observed that "the most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved."  Love is what ties us all together.  It is only through love that we can re-build our sense of community.

Dr. Murthy's parting words are poignant.  He says, "Let us never forget that good people with hearts full of love can change the world."  Let us all remember the spirit of Ubuntu - I am because we are.