Just as we're conceived and killed, we divide and conquer.

It's okay. This is a natural part of our evolutionary protection. While physical needs and security is fundamental to our survival, we've also evolved into an innately social species. This means that we draw dotted divisions of Us vs. Them in the most curious of social ethics exhibitions. This is a trait of humanity that we must recognize and embrace to power our own independent collective objectives.  Feeble minded acolytes wish to excise this evolved social protection mechanism of humans. They're oblivious to the meta irony of all that, and the reality of how fundamental social ethics reappear into translucence when quashed.

I'm really not qualified to go into how this came to be or why we became this way through our inbreeding. I can observe how Otherism manifests in moving groups of collective Humans to do great/terrible/whatever things.

Productive humans are active creatures, spiked with a cruel, curious anxiety that keeps us measuring against our peers and foes alike. We scheme and finagle our way to get what we want – whatever it is that we value as individuals (knowledge, money, power, travel, experience, talent, fame, likes and Instagram followers). Most get confused by this evolutionary side effect because they don't always step back and acknowledge another's actions based on a value agnostic of their own bubble. Needless to say – seeing the forest from the trees (I am terrible at analogies but I think I used this one appropriately – or I hope I did).

People place an immense effort into projecting and enforcing their own sacred values. These are an amalgamated product of our environments and experiences, derived from an internalized shitlist of senseless devaluations. Devaluations act as props for our ego's personal insular values (Seme-Values).

Seme-Values

Tommy: "you know my coworker, Ramin? that douchebag who is jealous that my boss comes to me to plan our sprints even though he's a level above me?  he's the guy who only wears ralph lauren branded polo shirts to work and spends half his salary on his Tesla car payment. He backstabbed me at work yesterday let me tell you the story ... [edited]"

I'll spare you Tommy's story to protect you from falling asleep at the droll of other people's work drama.

Awhile back, I invited several of my social caste network's "friends" (including sad backstabbed Tommy) to attend a TedTalk on personal satisfaction through mindfulness – or some kind of personal philosofaux. The speaker walked out on stage, with his popped collar on his tangerine Ralph Lauren polo shirt tucked in neatly to his seven for all mankind jeans. He spoke with a Kiwi accent, which I understood as a free pass for his objectionably popped collar. However, from then on, Tommy grumbled about how much he despised Australia, how he never met one he liked. I noted that the speaker wasn't even Australian, he was from New Zealand. That didn't really matter. Throughout the entire presentation while seated near the rear of the auditorium, Tommy mocked and trolled the speaker under his breath. It was especially difficult for me to understand what mumbojumbo the speaker was talking about as I tried to decipher the speech, his accent, all through Tommy's repetitive grousing.

A few days later Tommy and my social caste network went to a social outing at a local brewery. We talked of some past and future travels and the inevitable white people group conversation topic of "visiting all of Lady Earth's notable continents" came up. Another friend, Billy, recounted that he'd already visited every continent except for Antarctica and Australia – and that he'd visit Antarctica but will never go to Australia because he doesn't like them. Suddenly a Seme-Value derived from Tommy's direct dislike of his backstabbing coworker and his polo shirts, transferred into Billy's Uke-Value, a passive distaste and rejection of Australia.

Uke-Values

Just as devaluations prop our ego, devaluations within our network rub off as Uke-Values. Tommy doesn't like his backstabbing coworker, Ramin. He doesn't like Ralph Lauren polo shirts because it reminds him of Ramin. He kind of doesn't like Australia now because the TedTalk speaker's accent resembled an Australian. Billy doesn't know Tommy's backstabbing coworker, but he picked up on Tommy's distaste of the TedTalk speaker and has discovered his new dislike of Australia.

He'd really done his research too! Billy posited the following rhetorical questions to prove his point on the inferiority of Australia.

• "Can you name one famous Australian literary figure?"
• "What culinary feats has Australia brought to this world aside from Awesome Blossom?"
• "Why is Australia considered a continent when Greenland isn't – and Europe is on the same tectonic plate as Asia – yet the cultural division between Europe and Asia... the flora and fauna ... ??"

Sorry I lost Billy at that point. He was wholeheartedly, categorically against Australia. Remind me to choose my next social caste gathering at the Outback Steakhouse.

Humans have a proclivity for senselessly valuing/devaluing associated tastes/likes/distastes/hates of our social caste networks. At the same time, internal rivalries within our own social caste network can develop into new divisions to be Us as Better than the Others – through incoherent outright mockery – like planning the next gathering of our social caste network at the Outback Steakhouse. Let's watch Billy self destruct at the notion of going there in the first place and not go, or let's watch him take it in stride and bite his tongue, or watch him eat the Awesome Blossom and tell us he's changed his mind about about Australia's culinary contribution to mankind, or have him tell us it's good but it's rightfully not actually Australian food, just a form of American capitalistic appropriation through namesake. Uke Values are the embodiment of a value through someone else, typically a lover or member our social caste network.

My Wife hates the Giants because I am a Dallas Cowboy's fan. She knows I brood when my team loses. She knows I brood when the Giant's win any Sunday against any team. She remembers that time we made love when the Cowboys beat the Giants on Thanksgiving day.

Devaluation within the hierarchy

All of this seems so disturbingly illogical yet familiar – so Maslowian, invisible, incementable. We associate ourselves within social caste networks as a shelter for our own ego. For some of these social caste networks, we operate as leaders or the the upper echelon of the hierarchy within the respective social caste network.  Yet other networks we are the followers. This Order is unspoken, understood within our subconscious.

When I ask him if there is an episode in his long relationship with Heifetz that he particularly remembers, he answers immediately. ‘Yes, although Heifetz taught me a lesson for life almost every day. Heifetz was not only a great music teacher but also a teacher of life. He taught me a hard lesson that I’ll never forget. Before I left him, after five years, I went to his house to bid him farewell. He said: “You promise me two things before you go. The first thing is that you will never dine at Maxim’s in Paris.” I was baffled. “Of course not,” I replied, “but why?” “Because one day, after a concert at Pleyel, I invited a beautiful woman to dine at Maxim’s and, as I was not wearing a bow tie, they did not let me in. So, all my friends are forbidden to go there,” he replied. “Fine, don’t worry. I won’t go there,” I assured him and I kept that promise.

‘Then I asked him what the second thing was. “You will never play with Herbert von Karajan,” was his sharp reply. In this case, I didn’t have to ask the reason. I knew that Heifetz had never gone back to play in Germany and he was very hurt about Karajan’s position during the war. I reassured him that I would do as he asked me. But then, 15 years later, Karajan invited me to play with him in Berlin. I thought that after all those years things had changed, Heifetz had probably reconsidered his position and he would understand how important it was for my career. So I went to play in Berlin. It was, of course, a wonderful experience. A few months later I kept calling Heifetz but could not get through. When I asked his secretary if anything was wrong, she replied: “Yes, of course. You played with Karajan; he will never speak to you again.”

from Tarisio

We identify our Greaterism through Otherism.

Our ego's Greaterism fuels our subconscious drive to find other creatures to identify with through a common trait that ultimately leads to division and Otherism. Still, those within our network help accomplish our ego's goal, while we accommodate reinforcement of others egos in understood quid pro quo fashion.

Our values are holier than others. Bring in the Concept of Er and Est. So many humans have to feel that we are the best at something, if not in the world, at least in our own circles. Or at the least we can settle for better than others, in general or at many things.

This is where it gets complicated to explain but it makes sense in my head. I'm trying to work on communicating more clearly so try to hang on, I beg you. We may categorically consider ourselves better at something than someone we associate with within our network – and we have to explain why to ourselves or insinuate why to others.

We're like, so much better, it's like not even worth the time of day to list out all the reasons why!

I mean, he may be an amazing public speaker, but he's just good at being fake and probably on a cocktail of performance drugs.

She may have a nicer yard than me, but she and her partner hired landscapers to do it and I did mine myself.

He may be an amazing swimmer, but his parents got him in swim class at young age.

She may have gotten into Harvard, but she fabricated a story on her application admission essay and could afford to involve herself leadership roles in so many extracurricular activities, while I had to work at TCBY after school.

He had a successful company, but he's a cog within the White Male Patriarchy (WMPs).

Yeah they that, but they that, so I that because of that.  

Formula:

Person + [acknowledged fact]
but [other understood/inferential fact]
= Dismissal

As a result, the human then adopts values/beliefs that associate more closely within the opposite of the recognized [other understood/inferential fact].

Over time, this leads to the rejection of the social caste network, and the adoption of a new network. This is how people tend to change their beliefs over time. And in time, cement themselves into a lonely ivory tower and nuclear family, devoid of social castes or hollowed friendships.

Read my eyes carefully: I'm better than you!

If only.

That passive aggressive bukkakeru can be confusing to someone unskilled at observing the Follies of Humans. It generally is easier to understand when you trace back their current action to a particular value set that was derived from and experiential episode. Are they actually responsible for how they got here? It depends on how much it benefits me.

With many peers, we can't consider ourselves to be categorically better or worse than them. At least that wouldn't make for a good friendship. I do think we can have peers who we believe have values in something we appreciate or admire, even if it contrasts ours. Too much of that appreciation though, ooobaby it's going to be a rocky or volatile friendship.

And then there are great friends, who we want the best for who you'd take a bullet for (until you get felony charges leveled against you). Those are valuable friendships but if they break and end, the negative space roils. Or mutual confidentiality make that fissure more amicable than imagined.

“Of course the summer night smiles. Three times.”

“But why does it smile, Grandmother?”

“At the follies of human beings, of course. The first smile smiles at the young, who know nothing. The second, at the fools who know too little ... And the third at the old who know too much– like me.”

In such a complex way, we actually value the values of theirs that justify our own marginal measures of comparative success. We resent them for the values they have through envy, as we have no hope of competing.

I may have canceled a Tesla preorder because a person who drove a Tesla tried to rape me. One day I stepped back and thought why do I not like this. And then I remembered why. Despite my attempt to overcome that unsound dislike, I had to coach myself to separate mutually aligned values and tastes with someone I detested. Well, let's just say I'm still trying to coach myself there. I am not above the humanized traits which I disdain.

Baggage.

I don't get upset at many things that matter to most other people. I may have an economic ideological tilt, chaotic political beliefs, thoughts/opinions on society, business, people – but I don't think those opinions really matter that much. If I were in a completely different environment or circumstance in life, I could see myself attaching to movements and belief systems completely opposite of everything believe at present. I'm not really righter than them, even though I catch myself telling myself I'm wiser than them.

People do this in early life. In their own microworlds, they naively think they can impactfully alter the momentum of the world. The fatberg doesn't really allow for that, and with further towing fatbergs across nations and oceans, a .1 degree incremental shift is a clear win. Or at least it feels like a win.

On the same level, I care about my microchallenges – the daily win – the taking from who is trying to take from me. The hurting back those who are trying to hurt me. The support and success for those whose dreams I value by their sheer attachment to me.

I view life in that same way. It's not as much about getting ahead or building something fantabulous, as defending my turf from people I view as bad because they want to take from me or my alliances. And spellcheck did not flag the word "fantabulous" – interesting!

My alliances have some basis in shared likes and mutual respect that builds a sense of reliability and camaraderie. Shared dislikes are what really shake Mother Earth more than anything.

I call it Dark Energy.

You may notice that I have a penchant for trichotomy.

One thing my staff get tired of hearing from me is the Rule of 3.

It applies to social contexts, ideological positions, and helps add some nuance from overly dichotomous thinking that leads to the human trope of dividing and conquering.

My soul is always conflicted, in seeing both sides of the equation. Ultimately, the selfish humanitarian wins. When pressed, I can usually compromise in the 3rd position.

It's fun to play the game sometimes

Never take anyone completely at their word. Always be aware of your own biases, and your own emotions that aren't always simple to logically break apart.

I'm prepared and ready to be wrong. When the point of recognition arrives, my ego backstops my position with their position to make room for the third. My ego can't take myself being dead wrong on something I feel strongly about. My ego likewise can't handle letting someone else feel like they have leverage over me if they feel that right.

Dealing the the Gogues

Sowing doubt and confusion frustrates them. Sharing doubt about my own position shows humility, and gives them a confidence boost where they start to lazily think.

1. Start strong, fixed, and stubborn.
2. Negotiate, stall, backtrack, play dumb or chalk up to mutual ignorance and a general lack of understanding.
3. Get on your knees and lick a labia.

Sometimes, when dealing with an ideologue, it's best to start in position 2. It saves you a lot of time and distraction when they are seeking someone who just wants to fight or negotiate. I do this often with politics. I have my own views.

If someone approaches me with conflicting opposite viewpoints, I take position 2. If they try to sway me or convince me, I'll just stall and play ignorant to the point where I then move into position 1 in a different fight.

Example

Up vs Down

Take position 2:

Ignorance vs Down

then, the virtues of Ignorance (or indifference) becomes Position 1 and Down becomes  "make a difference", resulting in Indifference vs. Difference

It's a whole different argument now. Funny for M. Up. Frustrating to M. Down.

If you really want to confuse them, then take a new position. Move from Indifference to another topic Cold vs Difference.

The Appeasing type will try to agree with Cold vs Cold. And then there is peace. Appeasers are a pathetic bunch, but necessary to the functioning of the world.

It gets especially interesting when someone adept in this gives you a taste of your own medicine will switch from Difference to Indifference Cold vs Indifference.

The Conflicting type will switch to Hot vs Cold. This actually reminds me of some of the ChatBot vs ChatBot conversations.

It's really fun to take a confusing yet offensive position that the opponent can't disagree with.

We need to fix climate change / Cows contribute to climate change

The wrong response to "X contributes to climate change" is to deny its existence. The correct response is to agree and, and then take a more extreme stance.

"Yes, we need to really work on the obesity epidemic. This 'body positive' movement is detrimental to the environment. The amount of wasted fat resting on many Americans' bodies is a travesty."

Take a few stabs at this and this ideologue will leave you alone. The Appeasing type will agree your statement but offer no new notions. The Gogue will move the the compromising point and/or leave you alone. And then you can enjoy your tea in peace.

Trichotomy... it is such a twisted tango!

We enjoy the heavenly pleasures,
so can dispense with earthly things!
No worldly turmoil is to be heard in heaven!
Everything lives in gentlest repose!

We lead an angelic life!
We are, however, at times quite merry!
We dance and jump,
we skip and sing!

Saint Peter in heaven looks on!
Saint John drains the blood of the little lamb!
Herod, the butcher looks out for it!
We lead a patient, innocent, patient,
a lovable lamb to its death!

Saint Luke slaughters the ox
without giving it thought or mind!
Wine costs not a penny in heaven’s cellars!
The angels, they bake the bread!

Tasty herbs of every kind grow in heaven’s gardens,
good asparagus, beans and whatever we desire,
Whole dishfuls are ready for us.

Good apples, good pears and good grapes!
The gardeners, they let you have anything!
Do you want roebuck or hare?
In the middle of the street they come running to us!

Should, per chance, a day of fasting occur,
all the fish immediately swim up to us with joy,
there’s Saint Peter already running
with his net and bait
to the heavenly fishpond!
Saint Martha must be the cook!

No music on earth
can compare with ours.
Eleven thousand maidens
are bold enough to dance!
Even Saint Ursula herself laughs at the sight.
No music on earth
can compare with ours.
Cecilia with her relatives
are excellent court musicians!
The angelic voices
delight the senses!
So that everything for joy awakens.

Source

People think I hate birthdays. It's not true.

Birthdays are often the excuse for all the people in your life who want something from you to come out of the woodwork and feign caring about you. By the standard dolt's measure of success, every year of my birthday in the last 15 or so years, I attain more of something they want. When is there a better time for every former frenemy sniveler to emote their excitement for your birthday celebration?

The same works for death. The Mages of Death descend on any opportunity to show themselves, earn points, and eat free food. Do they expect you to go to their parent's funeral when that time comes? I don't know.

I remember going to my grandfather's funeral when I was a kid. At the time my father was the public leader of a somewhat large workforce. Hundreds of people who worked for my father descended upon the funeral. His staff came to be seen, some delivered (and others ate food), and some obsequious people cried real tears. Why?

They never had met or known my grandfather at all!

Years later when my grandmother died, almost nobody came. It's not that she was a woman or wasn't a good person. At that point my father's power had disappeared, he was no longer the boss. He was no longer the vessel in which to game their plot to climb life's twisted Penrose ladder.

I know what I am for most people. I am a vessel for validation. I am a rung on life's ladder. There are maybe a few people who will probably commiserate in time – when immolation strikes, sticking around to watch one whither and burn -- out of glee, shared sentiments, or pity.

When I really need validation or attention, at least I can pay a restaurant staff to sing me happy birthday and clank some pots. But when I die, I can't guarantee the same – unless my eventual offspring have something others covet.

Look here. Telegrams.  Hundreds of telegrams from every corner of this great state. Wishing you happy birthday. You want me to read them?

No.

One from the Governor, United States Senator...

It must be getting on to election time...

Everybody here, including Big Daddy, owes thanks to those in high places who...

Gave us nothing. Every scrap on this table was raised right here on this place, Deacon. I made a pastureland out of this place when it was nothing but a swamp.

When you want to serve something for free, my laws of humankind dictate that you have to get something out of it. Then again, I don't grasp the modern connotation of selflessness, because the mere projection of that so-called trait is typically conjured in the most selfish of fashions that negate true value.

Returning to Sondheim here.

Those who know nothing.

Some people have good excuses for their mistakes. Good examples would be 1) children who have the benefit of learning many first lessons, and 2) the Illiterati, who let's just say are off the deep end and it may or may not really be their fault... and you may not want to take the risk of finding out for yourself.

Children get a free pass, most of the time.

The Illiterati are an interesting issue though. They're sometimes the most beautiful of people. They don't understand themselves.

They remind you on a sorry day that there is another way maybe -- that your lot in life was lucky, or that you found a way to learn from childhood. Or maybe discovering that one should just do a lot of hard drugs and live on the streets to appreciate our most base degenerative selves.

When I leave work every day, I pass by a guy who sits on the corner, hardcore dancing , singing his heart out. It's such a beautiful sight to see! Urban environments provide so much stimulus for a wallflower grey person like me.

There are people like this everywhere in life that people avoid even observing, without casual disdain. We're told that laughing at them (even to ourselves or close friends) is wrong. How many times I've said something that someone thinks back whispering "You shouldn't say that!" I mean, it wasn't that bad... and they were thinking that too? And this is a private thought or conversation. Well their anecdote is just to pretend it doesn't exist. Avoid the stimulus to avoid the reaction. Great recipe in life!

I'm saying something inappropriate and finding some sense of joy from my observation, and it's often misconstrued. I respect those individuals because they remind us of all of our options in life. They set the 3d plot points on the spectrum of being human.

Being around children opens this up. The questions they ask are intriguing. I don't have friends with children, so I stick to observing and even interacting with the Illiterati. As I write this, there is a glimmer in my eye for them, wishing I did this more. The consuming environment of judgmental peers and loved ones inhibits me from enjoying the nature of partaking in the Illitertium.

Those who know too little.

These are people who don't really have good excuses for being who they are. They embrace ignorance in a way that is not cute or endearing. They're willfully violent and adolescently adversarial.

What creates this person? Brainwashed denial? Tyrannical victimhood? Pure doltitude?  Fear?

Calling out these sort of expectations and behaviors are not actually fruitfully imparted lessons. Better to headfake and disorient them.  Plot methodical, incremental points so they eventually find themselves in another timezone on another continent and look back puzzled – how the heck did I get here?

These are the majority of people.

Those who know too much.

A place in the inner circle of Hell.

I always have been excited yet terrified at the prospect of death. It makes me want to get everything I desire in my one single life – my existence exists with an unknown endpoint. It keeps me moving in my own ratrace. It forces me to make tough choices, ally with those who I don't enjoy as long as it helps clear a more certain path to what I desire.

If I life very long, I better be rich. If I die young, well at least I got my piece of goal. "Get rich or die tryin'" is a more poetic way to describe it.

All people should eventually die in order to improve our species for the long term. No uploaded heavens or magical fountains of youth. Delaying the inevitable makes sense if it increases the probable endpoint – so you can achieve your goals in the ratrace.

I've heard our creativity peaks in our mid-20s. That's when the bold moves an artist makes are defined before our neural pathways establish as shortcuts. Risks are taken when we have less to lose. Our "identity" is still emerging from its ignorant adolescent cocoon.

At a point, old people stall progress and inhibit freedom of new thoughts and expressions. Many carry with them an imposing unprovoked virtue that, while may have some intriguing points of consideration through experience, may just be wet blankets.

This mindset may be due to fear, lack of education, or unintentional ignorance. It may be due to resentment in paths left avoided untrekked, jealousy. With this crowd, what they say is based on so much intricate history and personal experience that you have to either intimately know and trust this person (their life history, their failed engagements, career). Regardless, so much of their projected mindset rests on them knowing more than the other through the value of time. The value of time is something you can't have on them, so they overuse that position to state absolutes which carry no merit.

I seem to have lost where I was going with another diatribe on the thought triad. My original notes for this were the 3 points below. Perhaps I'll continue this later and find my original point.

1. The Patrons who visit your show.
2. The Friends who are outsiders.
3. The Relationships that wind and bind.

I advocate living a life without any regret. That's not to say that we can't acknowledge our mistakes of the past. Instead of wishing we had done differently, we should just do better the next time.

True regret doesn't accept the lessons of the past. It's a futile wish to roll back time and do it over again. It's overly reductive and that do over may or may not make you better than you were before. And even if we could go back and change one thing, it can undo so much else.

To regret is to be so unhappy with your current self that you will roll the dice again and hope to find yourself in a better place. My pride doesn't let me go that far. But that's the special power I have.

The types of people who live with regret can be the most resentful miserable people to be around. They live backwards, not in the moment or forwards. They are angry stillborn types who sap you for all your lifeforce.

Sometimes we have to learn life's tough lessons in order to harden our psyche for the next challenge.  

ALFREDO:
Don't come back any more, don't think about us, don't turn round, don't write, don't give in to nostalgia. Forget us all. If you can't hear it and come back, don't come looking for me, I won't let you into the house,   you understand?

SALVATORE:  
Thanks for all you've done for me.  

ALFREDO:
Whatever you do, love it like you loved that projection booth of the Paradiso when you were little...

ELENA:  
What difference does it make to find  an explanation? That's the way it  went. But Alfredo didn't betray you,  he was the only one who really  understood you. Salvatore, if you had  chosen to be with me, you'd have  never made your films. And that would  have been a pity! Because they're  wonderful, I've seen them all.   (Her eyes glitter with  joy, then she smiles,  almost ironically.)  

SALVATORE :
This afternoon. Elena, in the future  maybe we could...

ELENA:  
No, Salvatore...there is no future.  There's only the past. Even meeting  last night was nothing but a dream, a  beautiful dream.  

We never did it when we were kids, remember?

Now that it's happened, I don't think  there could have been a better  ending.

One piece of my personality that prevents me from having long term friendships is my independent belief system. I witness so many people who believe something because another source told them. And the sourcing of the information is not based on reputation or clout, it's based on how badly that person wants to satisfy the source – often for their own validation from the source to feel accepted.

I ask people I know "why do you believe that?" and the answer I get dictates the worth of continuing the conversation.

... because [source] told me
... because I read it on [source]
... because [source] had the same experience

Eventually, you call someone out enough on it, and they get tired and defensive, so they adapt into "because I believe so."

It's still quite easy to detect when they insert defensive branding or advertising diction into their speech.

... nootropic boosting ...
... it was started by a Former Tesla Engineer who ...
... makes money while you sleep
... former CIA officer predicts ...
These guys made 10 million dollars in 2019 just by ...

People fall for these traps all of the time. It feels like it's become worse even, with a short attention span community who mindlessly taps like (quid pro quo) while skimming photos or short headlines. People don't have as much time to develop their own beliefs. They increasingly look to who they aim to please for guidance and mimic.

The beliefs don't matter even. It's the approval that means more.

Consequential megastars have trended toward inconsequential microstars. The internet helped with developing doltish lemmings who vie for acceptance from the inconsequential in their lives. Better them than none.

They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?” Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason.

― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?”

This whole obsession with "Fake News" was spawned by microstars who are able to establish a foothold in microcommunities. It spreads to then become widely accepted belief in a community or group. The phrasing people use show their hand in how they get their information. And then Trumpotus grabbed the term, spun it around and pointed it the other way. The dossier says he may have urinated on it too.

Not to judge, but to repeat.

To the one who peddles others shows and shares it with others. One of the saddest forms of puppetry.

Not to do, but to give the impression of doing.

This goes to people who go to the beach with their adorning Resting Bitch Faces. They strip down into a bathing suit, and put on their fakest smiles for a camera – then dress up and leave, Resting Bitch Faces returned. Their straining eye wrinkles are baked into their face due to their overexuberant smiling.

Not creation, but show.

The Latent Sagging Artist who is always working on some form of art with nothing to show for it. It's not a lack of talent, but a lack of confidence and insecurity in their talents and the market and a lack of discipline and perseverance.

Not ability, but friendship.

To the people who start a business and beg their friends to like it on Facebook. To the people who have a band and invite you to like and follow them. Perhaps they send a pleading message to you expecting you to like something of theirs out of loyalty.

Not merit, but pull.

How many times have you heard: "This person has 4 million followers so they are really good at [singing/dancing/eating/sewing]." All of that can be faked, bought, manipulated with guile and motivating drive that lemmings fail to understand. It's not always the case, of course. But how many talented people do you know who don't have millions of followers?

The rule of thirds

Bottom Third: Dolts/ Lemmings
These people are pitiful. Not free thinkers. Not engaged in free spirited exercise. Avoid indulgent imaginations. The need a leader in life or they are lost. But they tend to be happy!

Middle Third: The Strugglers who lack discipline
They want to be good. They want to be leaders. They lack discipline and the mindset to fall flat and take it like a good ol' lickin. You know when you trip on the sidewalk in public? These are the people who stiffen up, start to sweat, and walk another direction from the people who saw them fall – instead of just laughing it off and accepting it.

Top Third: Leading the Bottom and Middle
They understand the world with a bit more clarity. One my view them as falling into some gradient of psychopathy.

How do they fit together?
Society needs these thirds. The Bottom Third are the trash that the Top Third can in pure conscience take advantage of without feeling bad. And they'll be happy regardless. This Middle Third struggle to be something, but usually end up lacking. The Top Third has to be more careful with pushing these too hard, because a Middle Third can be triggered into sabotage, whistleblowing, or irrational aggression in an attempt to level up. Leave the Middle Third always wanting and just a few steps away from what they want. They'll never be leaders, and they shouldn't be. They are Lemmings who want to be Leaders.

I've never been too comfortable with being served. I'm talking about like restaurants, hotels, and being the recipient of service industry.

When I go to a hotel, I like to handle my own bags. I don't have 100% trust in the staff or their attentiveness to the security of my belongings. On top of that, I'm an able bodied person. I'm walking to my room anyway, my luggage has wheels for a reason, and I can probably deadlift more than you anyway – and I need the exercise.

At nice restaurants, I find a way appreciate a chef's mastery. Service can only detract from that experience, meaning if I have to ask for something too much to the point where it negatively impacts my experience. I don't expect to be doted on hand and foot, or treated like royalty. I don't deserve it. Nobody deserves that.

At any old hole in the wall or food truck, I find a way to appreciate any value, or creativity, or efficiency, or even the simplicity. I try to find a way to appreciate anything – even in the worst experience.

Cringing at my own reflection.

I was at a sushi omakase the other day and had an experience that made me cringe.  The staff is very nice to me, and at this point I'm a regular, and that means I get the chefs and staff drinks towards the end of the night, and they treat me to a little extra stuff too. It's a fine sushi restaurant -- the chefs are successful and hold some level of esteem.  My experience there isn't just about food, or even conversation. I learn. Read my monozukuri series for more on that.

At the end of the night the chefs were preparing their own cornucopia sushi roll, consisting of all the trim from the night. One of the newer servers approached me and struck up a conversation with me.

It started with banter about the meal itself, where I was from, where he was from, how he got to this city after growing up in Japan and the US, school...

Then he said to me, "Man, I hope one day I can be like you and sit at The Counter" and he pointed to where I was sitting with deference and awe.

I didn't really know how to respond. I redirected to say "Well you can sit at this Counter whenever you want, if you really want to."

He looked down "Well I mean, I don't really... deserve to.. sit at the Counter. At least I haven't earned it. What have I done? What did you do to get here?"

So Japanese! I told him that nobody deserves anything, and nobody doesn't "deserve" anything either. It's about what he wants, and what he prioritizes and/or sacrifices to get what he wants. Where does he draw the line with his own life harmony?

The Zinger.

"Can you tell me how I can become like you? Or how you were about to get here? One day, I hope I can sit The Counter, like you."  He awkwardly laughed and I just wanted to cry.

Well I was happy at least that he didn't think I was some kind of trust fund baby. I was also happy that, with millennials being the fair+"everyone should win" generation, this 19 year old server fell into a different category. Also, since when have I been defined as successful? 10 years ago I was mocked by some, 5 years ago I had to get my computer financed from a close friend because I couldn't even obtain credit approval after living off credit cards in order to pay my staff first. Last, I was sad that he looked at himself in a way like he didn't deserve something, or that he looked at me like I did deserve something when so little was known about me.

I probably said more than I should have said to him. This is what I can remember from that night as I finished off a bottle.

Be careful of jealousy that sources from envy. It leads you to self repressive victimhood.

Nobody likes a victim, even if they pretend to care. And victimhood is a mentality that justifies your lack of success, and infects your goals and plans in life. It's a justification for mediocrity.

What else did you do in order to get here, to the Counter?

Insert personal aphorisms here:

Don't listen to critical people.

If someone is critical of you, ask yourself what motive they have to lead you down this path. Try to understand who they are, where they are coming from, what predispositions they have about their own personal goals and successes. If someone falls into the jealous category about those around them in life, their words are not meaningful. And don't take it personally, because they know not what they really do or why they feel certain ways. Jealous Envyites lie to themselves well.

Engage practical idealism.

Many Principles may derive from other forces and unseen hands. Principles may also be pretentious lies or excuses for fear or failure.

Don't ever show all of you to anyone.

This makes you more immune to manipulation because someone can't really figure you out. It also limits your exposure and breaches of trust for a miscalculated friendship.

Beware of anyone entering into your life when you are working on your goals.

People like to ride coattails to chip away or get something for doing very little. Again, it's often done unconsciously, not in a scheming manner. So don't take it personally when someone views you as a resource, or a vestibule for their own short term goals. People's goals are innately selfish, and they won't align.

When you have a really good opportunity, do everything you can do to beat everyone around you.

If you don't act with 100% vigor, someone else may. And when you achieve this, don't take it for granted. For example, if you are given a low level internship at your dream company, do everything you can to succeed and quietly pander to your superiors.

When taking big risks, minimize your small risks.

At some point, you only have so much luck you can cash in with your boost of guile credits. That means, if you are in a federal lawsuit, don't have more than a drink at happy hour (or don't drink at all). Or if you are elected to congress, don't cheat on your wife or sext the intern. Don't go cliff diving in Phuket.

Don't be intimidated by people's experience or educations.

Preparation and planning is of course important. Just because someone has an MBA at Harvard or worked in a leadership role at a Fortune 500 doesn't mean that they have something over you. These people master their own Personal Brands. While they may have some merits, their isolated experiences can be predictably used against them, or leveraged if you catch them in Personal Brand traps.

Chance.

It's a universal equalizer that nobody really gets everything they want in life. That social safety net propels us to struggle, learn, move on, and then die.

The way that student server looked and talked to me scared me. Those looks can be innocuous, and likely so in his case. They also can be forms of misdirection and flattery. If so, I didn't really take the bait. I avoided overtly aphoristic responses like "Work 18 hours a day" that I hear from many showboaters.

I hope I injected some life force in him to give him hope in playing life's game. Because I'm not that smart, I'm not that well educated, I'm not gregarious or that likable, and I'm not that good looking. But I'm perceptive, passionate, sneakily defensive of my realm, and viciously aggressive in the right situations.

Some of my best lessons in business come from slaps on my face, cold wet towels, and wonton walks of shame. I'm sure to share more of those as we go. For now, I'll start with one of my favorites where prior lessons and preparation came out in our favor.

This has to be my favorite because this was someone who I actually feared and respected as a contender. I thought he was a prototypical CEO type. He checked most of the boxes.

• Male.
• White.
• Middle aged.
• Not too handsome, but not bad looking. He's the kind of man who somehow becomes handsome as he ages after never being considered that when younger (a health skin care regimen really helps).
• Good teeth.
• Smiling crow's feet wrinkles that are designed by God.
• Extremely well spoken, articulate. He can don a Madonna Mic with ease.
• Harvard MBA.
• A man of the outdoors, loves pets, and staged photos doing manly ranch work.
• Masculine, decisive.
• A wife of a few decades, his second wife.
• Has a mistress.
• A fantasy houseboat, with a heart shaped mattress in the master bedroom.
• Worked in sexy startups that built his resume, while sidestepping several C-level jobs as he bust his nuts to get his hard earned CEO pants.

When Timothy became the CEO of one of our largest competitors, I was on alert. I could see something in his eyes that I believed particularly devious. One of my close work peers came to the same inauspicious conclusion about him too, confirming my best:worst fears.

From my take, Timothy was probably about a 9.2/10 on the psychopathy scale.

People like that try to suck up all the air in the room when they first enter the market. Their relative inexperience grants a free pass for the first 100 days, but that veneer is a cover for audaciousness.

Draw the line early.

When Timothy's CEO-ship was officially announced, I could see he was a quick study. His public Amazon wishlist shifted from hifalutin books about Impactful Leadership and Management with an Edge, to books about the new product/market he was pitching in my industry, and even the new lapel pin he wore on his perfect suit. He connected with the who's who and became an overnight armchair expert.

Timothy needed a gut punch. On his first day of work, about 500 of his published partnerships received a carefully written email statement by my company, about our values, what we stand for, and what we reject. Okay, I'm really trying not to make it seem like we "threw down" some unprovoked aggressive action. This was like a statement that we are committed to things everyone can agree with – but those things were nonsense commitments to spotlight vulnerabilities to Timothy's company.

An unfortunate analogy

I'll use an analogy. Your competitor's product is a high resolution micro-DSLR camera that simultaneously uploads your videos and pictures to your cloud storage system.

I sell a simple video camera that's really easy to use.

I send out a press release statement/email to all of their 3rd party partners, noting our support for user's photo privacy. I state that we don't believe in selling or siphoning our customer's private picture and video data details when they manually upload videos to our server.

Making people ask the right -- or wrong -- questions.

When you outwardly state that you don't do something, the natural response people ask is "well then, who does?" And they need to have somewhere for them to point and question. You're not at fault for what dots they connect from a mere marketing statement about what you alone simply don't do.

Well, Timothy's day started well. The people I emailed responded with some questions, requesting more details about privacy, of which I gave none because I didn't have that unequivocal certain knowledge. The people I emailed forwarded my email to Timothy's company. Timothy's little minions replied to the firestorm stating that they have a secure product and follow their (verbose) terms and conditions to the letter. That didn't sound like a denial, did it?  My instincts may have been correct, though. The credit only goes to Occam.

And no I don't actually run a business that sells cameras.

Several recipients actually forwarded Timothy's responses and replies to ask me to fact check them – which of course I couldn't respond with anything real but only restate our position. This experience created an unexpected business opportunity where the people I emailed were asking if they could connect to our product because of our commitment to user privacy. Unfortunately we didn't have that capability but it was quite powerful.

Welcome to the Club, Timothy.

Lesson

When a qualified opponent is preparing to battle you, you can let them dictate the rules of their game, or you can have a transient person piss on their red carpet. The goal is to make their day does not go as planned.

Use covert virtual arson to disrupt their day and make them paranoid. It works well with a more cold and curious person.

Use subtle virtual arson (following all laws) to get in their head a little bit.

With Timothy, I saw a smiling smart sociopath with a clear goal. He was too quick of a study and his ego fueled his vision of success. His goal would negatively impact my company and make my days more difficult. Striking first ended up being a good move.

Source for Header art

I sit here working on a patio, while the Dog lays next to me on a pillow overlooking a Yard that she doesn't really care to explore too much.

The Dove swoops above from the Tree, standing on the Fence, peering into the lawn with a desire to come peck worms.

A Lizard hops through overgrown grass along the sun line towards the Shed.

The Dog stands up, intensely staring at the Dove who appears not to notice the Dog yet. The Dove has a somewhat lurching stance. It's getting hungry thinking about flapping down to the stretch of the Yard.

The Dog growls, and immediately the Dove changes its stance to a more neutral position. The Dog stops the growling, fixing its gaze on the Dove to make sure it doesn't try again.

The Dove plots as it casually strolls the Fence's line away from the Dog.

After moving about 3 meters away, the Dove looks back and the Dog is still watching.  The Dove walks further away, another 3 meters or so.  The Dog appears to relax.

The Dove looks at the Dog, gets in a lurch stance as a test. The Dog doesn't appear to be watching and doesn't seem to object.

Then the Dove glides down into the grass. The Dog immediately catches the motion and runs out into the Yard, charging at 3/4 standard speed. The Dove escapes into the air with ample time to evade the Dog. It disappears into the Tree and cannot be seen now.

The Dog watches for some minutes waiting for the return of the Dove. The Dove doesn't appear. The Dog is worn out and goes inside to get refill on water. The Dog walks to the patio door, moving backward to guard from its new interior perch.

Not long after, the Dove reappears, swooping down from the Tree atop the Shed. The Dove is slightly further away from its last incursion into the Yard.

The Dove walks to the edge of the Shed. The Dog is at patio door, and has no vantage point of the Dove or the Shed.

From atop the Shed, the Dove assumes its familiar lurching stance, no objection is heard or seen from the Dog, and the Dove flaps down into the grass.

The Dove forages at its own leisure in the half of the Yard where the Dog doesn't have visibility.

The Dog is maintaining its minimal guard, but is still regularly looking upward at the Tree and Fence.

The Dove spends about 10 minutes foraging around the Yard, eventually getting closer and closer to the Dog's vantage point, near the patio door. The Dove knows that the Dog can come out of that door at any moment. The Dove cautiously keeps one of its side eyes focused near that door.

Eventually the Dog, still at the patio door, appears to see the Dove in the Yard. The Dog glances at it and pants in frustration. The Dog is visibly stressed, yet this time doesn't run out and do anything.

The Dove realizes this and continues prudently foraging, careful not to get too much closer to the Dog or test further boundaries. The Dove knows it won this battle, but isn't going to further test its luck – today.

The frustrated Dog, pouting and panting, was all bark and no bite.

Definitions are tricky when it comes to naming divisions or collectives. What defines a nation? What defines human?

I tend to avoid US politics as much as I can. By that, I mean really joining an identified group or attaching to a particular cause. To do so, I'd have to take the cause's projections at face value, and wring out the background noise and ego interplay that I tend to overanalyze. I'm an avid spectator, finding the subtle lawless nature of humans embodied in international relations, similar to business.

In 2011, China smashed and grabbed Mother Google. It was a pretty overt act to hack the email addresses of activists and do Mao know what to them.

Google replied back in a fit of anger.... well the founders at the time did. They were outraged...

And now they are trying to make China work (even though what US company has successfully cracked the alluring China nut?). Because, if they don't, they'll die. If a company lost. Baidu will grow, spin off a separate US-centered service and collect more Westerner personal data for the Chinese government than the US government.

This underscores a serious problem with trying to satisfy the values of an entire group of humans, naturally prone to divisiveness and fractiousness. You can't get them to agree on anything in unison. If a domineering murderous race of aliens invaded mother earth, you'd find some people who would agree with their cause.

The main problem I see is that there is no universal right path. So many believe there is. The larger the collective the more we move toward one path as whole, at a slower rate. Things eventually right themselves. Unity helps with progression, until it moves you the wrong way and the world lights on fire.

Today I read an article on "Experts" and how often they get it wrong. The primary example used was a researcher who believed that the world was overpopulated. I've lost a lot of trust in academia. 1.5 years of grad school did that to me. In doing research, I was quite shocked at how data was fabricated by many people. They desperately wanted to be correct, and would omit or fill in data to make something appear statistically significant. The professors didn't advocate fabricating data outright, much like an attorney wouldn't advocate sharing evidence that was questionably related to a case.

The integrators outperformed their colleagues in pretty much every way, but especially trounced them on long-term predictions. Eventually, Tetlock bestowed nicknames (borrowed from the philosopher Isaiah Berlin) on the experts he’d observed: The highly specialized hedgehogs knew “one big thing,” while the integrator foxes knew “many little things.”

Hedgehogs are deeply and tightly focused. Some have spent their career studying one problem. Like Ehrlich and Simon, they fashion tidy theories of how the world works based on observations through the single lens of their specialty. Foxes, meanwhile, “draw from an eclectic array of traditions, and accept ambiguity and contradiction,” Tetlock wrote. Where hedgehogs represent narrowness, foxes embody breadth.

Incredibly, the hedgehogs performed especially poorly on long-term predictions within their specialty. They got worse as they accumulated experience and credentials in their field. The more information they had to work with, the more easily they could fit any story into their worldview.

My loss of trust in research, academia, and facts in of themselves prevents me from getting along with emotive believers. If I do get along, it's because I'm looking for someone to laugh at inside, or test the limits of a person's willingness to go along with something.

Debate can be fun for me when someone doesn't take something too seriously, though I may come off as a bit too nihilistic for some. When an expert is referenced to boost a factual argument, it's hard to go along with that in the debate. I will usually just say that I have to read that article for myself. Just because someone is world renowned doesn't make them infallible to our human ego.  There can be two truths to anything. At a point, personal brand and politics choose which truth to enforce across a discipline. And that's not really scientific at that point.

Sometimes, when I feel sly, I try a few tricks to test how far I can move someone. This isn't much for a legitimate desire to change their opinion as it is to reinforce the nature of human identity.

1. Agree with Friend on much of what they are saying
2. Throw shade on those who disagree with Friend and I
3. Present a specific rational viewpoint of the Opposing Side and add some reason of understanding to that.
4. Test the response of Friend, and if Friend doesn't take that bait move back to Step 2, but throw more shade.

At some point of doing several repeats, the Stubborn Friend gets suspicious about you possibly being a closeted member of the Opposing Side, and becomes more adversarial, typically resorting to personal attacks. This can sometimes result in the loss and failure of a friendship if the person is too indoctrinated.

The Appeasing Friend will fall for those traps to the point of appeasing near agreement. They may change the subject out of fear of falling to the Opposing Side. Or they'll use tricks to present the irrational viewpoints of the Opposing Side as something they just can't understand. At the end, if they're embarrassed for their ideological movement, they'll present themselves as the more reasonable and willing to compromise sort as a way out. Not so dumb, perhaps.

Unfortunately, I just fed them the antibodies to avoid the specific path the next time. They'll be better armed.

The Ideological Friend may fall for part of the trap, but when they start tracking they will pull the rug out and pretend there is a disconnect or misunderstanding, perhaps weighing you down in irrelevant details to stall progress of the debate. This type can be frustrating to many, but I admire them for it.

I practiced this the other day with a debate about abortion. The Friend was upset about the abortion vote in Alabama and commented on the idiotic freaks who supported the law. He was emoting bile and anger over what was to be a happy celebratory lunch. I tried to change subject by using a half joke that I'd rather not talk about abortion while eating all this food. Friend looked at me, disgusted. "You agree with the law?"

"I actually don't, and I don't see how it's going to stand through the court system, they're just testing the limits, pretty smart to do before election year to get the hard right out to vote," I said.

Friend "Well the fact that you can't talk about it while eating means that you find abortion gross in some way."

I respond "Well, it is kinda gross, have you ever seen one? It would definitely be a thumbs down for me on my Netflix watch list."

Friend is shocked and turning red from anger. Friend tries to relax and calm down and caveman the question "What makes abortion worse than a woman's period or a man's semenal omission, isn't that a loss of  life also?"

I purposely take the bait and add some gas to the fire "Well I don't think a lack of sex is murder."

"Abortion, is, not, murder," he says emphatically.

Friend responds exactly how I thought Friend would and I say "If you say so. And capital punishment is just resource reduction."

The argument twists and turns into capital punishment, but eventually I get movement only after Friend resorts to throwing shade at supporters of the law "Savage freaks, imposing their backwards religion."

I know Friend is a dog-lover, as am I – I talk about how some cultures eat dogs, presenting scenario as if we are walking through the street and someone is eating a dog. "Wouldn't you find that offensive? Wouldn't you wish that you could prevent those dogs from being murdered?"

Friend expectantly responds with "Of course, I'd want a world where no animals were murdered!" Friend is a vegan, so that's a given.

"I want that too! And I wish people would be responsible enough to mitigate pregnancies from the start, and stop the spread of HIV, sterilize better to prevent MRSA, and not kill animals or people (unless the animal or person started attacking us."

"Yeah," Friend replies.

Satisfied, I say, "cool, so we agree then."

Friend: "No I don't." And I can see the kumbaya replaced with red anger again.

Nobody enjoys being wrong. Worse than that, is being often wrong. Your personal brand can only take so many hits.  

Globalism embodies such challenges in getting people to agree. Human nature feeds off divisiveness, in the need to satisfy our ego and betterize our peculiar minuscule existence – and beat the Jones. Experts and respected figures, as much as they try to appear above cesspool, still swim in the sewers.

Globalism is about hegemony. And when you feel like you have the world in your hands, it's so easy to be supportive of it. When the world and the norn scrolls tug in an opposing ideologies, humans resist and reject it.

Like world peace,  ending hunger, disease, and even unwanted pregnancies, it's an objective that most rational people can support if they are stripped naked in an arctic sensory deprivation glacier, holding onto each other for dear warmth.

We are not that evolved from the our cavemen ancestors. Arguably, societal support systems have genetically devolved us.

Diverse experimentation, competition, while letting systems fail and rebuild themselves without overreaching support will get us closer to a globalist eventuality most want to achieve. If not, then an alien invasion or AI revolution will help too.

Over 160 years ago, human slavery was legal – blacks could be bought and sold like cattle. If America was a world power in 1965, black slavery could have become the world economic system. Over 65 years ago segregation was still legal (and it still exists in spirit through local school gerrymandering!). The Soviet Union used American hypocrisy as legitimate propaganda. And it's not an American thing only – Look at the imperial colonial system spurred in Europe. The list goes on. The system now isn't perfect, but the world is entrenched into it by nature of today's hegemony. It's seemingly better for humans than previous systems. It's allowed more population growth, while increasing access worldwide to clean water, food, and air conditioning. But is it best? China doesn't agree.

I admire people who keep their eyes on seemingly insurmountable goals, especially when I agree with them. There is a place for them in society. I'm fascinated by the David Dukes also who project goals in which I don't agree. There is also a place for people like that in society – to remind us of our worse nature. Letting them articulate their goals reminds us of our ancestral flaws, or strengths. It gives something for the majority of people to agree over, while we continue our search for the next divides.

-- Hashioki

When suffering from acute monomania, it's difficult to come by hobbies or commit to social time where my work or passion does not seep through my pores.  To get out of myself, I try to incorporate other leisure and learning activities that double up with my daily routine. For example, I listen to fiction audiobooks while showering, toileting, or gearing up to enter my land of dreams. Eating is another good activity for catching up with friends (if they don't mind me chewing on FaceTime) or just catching up with my other personalities.

Eating out alone used to be scary to me.  I've been at restaurants with friends who pitifully point out other patrons dining by themselves.  

Look at that guy over there cutting his own steak with the glass of wine... Is anyone with him or is he really just alone. Wow, I hope I'm never that guy!

I think I became that guy. Traveling by myself necessitated eating alone. I would usually seek venues that had bar seating with a TV.  If there was no bar, I'd pine for eavesdropping on the lives of others. When smartphones became big, that changed things a lot. One could dine in any seat or table, without nearby patrons, without a TV, drooling and scrolling through the droll projections of social media. And that gets old. Or my enlightenment came early.

I started looking for food experiences that could entertain me. Sit at a bar conversing with my drunk neighbor as they tell me their life stories, tall tales, and buried skeletons as they sought my independent absolution. This is really not what I intended to write about here so I'm going to get to the point. Enough about me.  I came here to talk about work, ethics, kokoro, monozukuri, and sushi. So let me start.

In my solo dining experiences I've gone to a lot of sushi restaurants.  Partly because the Japanese seem not to treat you like a total weirdo eating out by yourself. Go to a fine French or Italian restaurant by yourself and the staff will be afraid of you. Go to a Mexican restaurant and the staff will try to be your pal because you must be devoid of love. Go to an Indian restaurant and you'll be seated awkwardly at a table for 8 alone (maybe a true story). So yes, sushi – and Japanese establishments in general – are prime safe zones for introverted solo diners.

Sitting at sushi counters you can order through a variety of ways. Order directly with the chef, sous chef, a server, a form card with a pencil, or even an iPad. Ordering is sometimes an interesting experience.

I've become fascinated by sushi chefs over the last several years. This was my portal into Japanese culture, values, and craftsmanship. It's taken a lot of time to find the words to articulate my appreciation. This first attempt and verbose preface is probably too much anyway – so I'll make this Part 1.

Pride and the art of making things.

Monozukuri can be interpreted as “the art, science, and craft of making things." This can be something seemingly as simple as a handmade greeting card for a friend or designing and building an automobile. The combination of monozukuri with pride and profit incentive is a unique combination. Balancing those three are complicated.

Building is often eschewed by people or considered too dirty of work. As companies grow, business owners must transfer and pass their knowledge and skillset to others in order to scale. If a business owner never did the dirty work, that means they either threw excessive money/people/resources at the problem that led to extensive waste and risk, or they risk not understanding the solution or problems itself. Lack of resource can be a limiting factor.

Pride is a matter of your heart and soul. Some people have few qualms about lying or cheating if it achieves their end goal. Sometimes they are best at lying to themselves to protect the precious ego and their image. You can work hard and pour your heart and soul into building, or deceiving.

Profit is the driving force to create income from our creativity, hard work, and dedication. This is the nature of our capitalistic system where our social positions and freedoms expand as we obtain wealth. We can coast on our own coattails if we achieve a certain position.

Scaling with sacrifice.

The reliance on the leader identity is a real problem for a restaurant. If your success is due to your heart and soul, successful scaling is difficult to extend.  When you become a chain, you have to somehow transfer your knowledge, cut corners, and accept a certain degradation of standards. You can be comfortable cashing in without concern. Likewise you can work unsustainably harder and impose your standards on new people. Today with unemployment so low, I wish you luck finding employees who follow your standards without your watchful eye.

Rather than scale you can raise your price and increase margins rather than scale. But you have to make sure you don't diminish your demand. But if your accolades are vaunted and demand is high, raising your price too much can create a backlash. This way you shut out your original clientele and invite the hiso clientele who visit as a result of their status or for the purpose of status updates, without appreciation of your artistry. That lack of appreciation can create indifference towards cutting corners since our new client can't tell the difference between exceptional and good.

Ambition is the greatest challenge. We must face the capitalistic impulse to "grow or die."

Not everyone wants to be Morimoto.

Morimoto walks in on the red carpet to his new grand opening wearing a couture onesie and Gucci boots. He's opening his new restaurant today. Along the way to building the new restaurant the concepts, designs, menu, management hiring was fed to him with ivory chopsticks by intricate layers of Placaters, Coattail Riders, and Shadow Whisperers. His brand has become the art. Vapidity embraced. Mediocrity bolstered by the brand, the man, the sake magnate, the Japanese food guru. He's done it well.

Apply the same to Lady Gaga. Stephanie Germanotta was an amazing artist before she became Lady Gaga. Her morphing into a gross capital art project is perhaps the most well calculated exemplary modern treatise on the matter. But it tasted so good and triggered our worse impulses -- just like McDonald's French Fries or crack. Her own vapid brand created an eternal fame where she navigated into her more natural artistry. Her new art isn't as well known, but her notoriety is preserved for a generation.

Effects of capitalism and scaling art.

• Losing one's self: We try to uphold standards as we attempt scale, creating friction and eventual self destruction of your personal and professional life.
• Losing one's heart: We somehow balance some acceptable standards and find technical efficiencies to enforce those standards, enjoying the fruits of moderate success. Knowing that we must continue to growing causes anxiety as we focus attention on mass production.
• Losing one's pride in the art of making things: Pride doesn't evaporate, it just morphs as a result of self-rationalization that the pursuit of wealth and power was worth it altogether.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the latter. It's a respectable path and if I were to judge it I would be a hypocrite.

This can apply to almost any business. The answer I wish for is that we didn't have this innate drive to grow out of fear of loss. We must grow because if we don't someone with more drive will do it. And in the end that will take resource from us. This is how our evolved human survival mindset fits within the capitalism. It would  be a shade different if this were an agrarian or socialistic society. Maybe we wouldn't desire growth at scale because it makes you a target of your own success. Or maybe the fear of being cast into laolai status is motivating enough.

The graceful fall into success.

I fall into the losing one's heart category. I never dreamt of becoming a manager of people, books, or hiring. I make food for hungry people. Yet I most enjoy serving it to them or seeing it served to them as I watch their face approve or disapprove. If they disapprove, I try to do better next time. If there is a split, I try to create a choice or variation. Or I just create a disclaimer upon selection.

The satisfaction from gaining the approval of customers drove me to do better. The satisfaction of watching competitors – who had been serving uninspiring food for years – scramble to compete, improve, or throw shade is also most exhilarating. When faced with competition, you can really see what humanity is made of.

Now I can't watch most people's faces. I get fed most information by Placaters, Coattail Riders, or Shadow Whisperers. Recently I found myself digging into systems and processes on the menu that I originally conceived, and found it had morphed into something new and unfamiliar for me. I used to know the trenches because I built them. Now I'm asking for directions around the trenches. Placaters help me in am uncomfortable groveling posture. Coattail Riders obscure information to cover their own lack of skill and knowledge. And Shadow Whisperers misdirect out of a malcontent desire to witness bumbling leaders to use for their own gain.

Leading while traversing the trenches in a 24 hour day is tough.

Most people say "Get out of the trenches" but that makes me feel blind. At some point, the information you receive isn't as valid as your own instinctual perceptions on the ground. And at some point, our skills, our perceptive powers, experience becomes replaced by our own vapid brand.

But at least we have several cars, houses, and mistresses to show for something.

Coming soon

What I Learned from Great Sushi Masters about Business.

1. Kokoro. Spirit and Heart in the Art of Building
2. Apprenticeship. Earning experience and learning under a master or through an existing system.
3. Pursuit of Knowledge. You can never know everything. And your master isn't perfect.
4. No compromise. Enforcing what you know is right to others who don't know any better.
5. Controlled dissatisfaction. In the pursuit of mastery, a healthy level of discontentedness prevents complacency.
6. Everlasting. Don't iterate for tomorrow, iterate for life following the lit way.
7. Attention to detail. Demonstrating the pursuit of perfection creates trust and sets you apart.

-- Hashioki

Shameless self-promotion artists are not only tied to Hollywood celebrities, aspiring pop stars, and self employed Youtubers. That's not to say they have only ever existed there.

Our social lives, workplaces, church/religious networks, neighborhoods are full of this too.

Over the last decade, self-promotion artistry has quickly evolved through a fairly easy to conquer and deceive internet medium. Our natural "spidey senses" have not quite been able to evolve in parallel. (Note: I'll be sure to write what I think the lasting effect that our lack of understanding of these phenomena at a later time.)

The appearance of wealth begets wealth.

CEOs, entrepreneurs, and wealthy individuals are another mainstay exalted celebrity type. Legitimate billionaires used to be the focus of the newspapers and media pre-2000. Think of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or go back more to Rockefeller, or more to Carnegie and many other names synonymous with a wealthy legacy. Today these types are represented by the heroes of Silicon Valley. The reason someone in the billionaire realm downplays wealth would be to avoid Uncle Sam's monocle. While ostentatious overstatement of wealth may make Uncle Sam curious, it's not illegal. After all, it's only a byproduct of capitalism.

By any means I don't mean to write that I relish in the self-promotion artistry game. I'm mostly wallflower who admires any form of self-promotion artistry. More than anything, I've learned to appreciate many of these artistic exhibitions in my own field of business, competitive realm, and the many succubistic grifters who try to use that art against me or my few close friends.

I wish it were another way, just as I hope for world peace and that we could create mass from endless sources of non fossil fuel energy. It's just not possible right now. I've learned through time, my own dealings, and unique insights (and drunken bar talks) with others that self-promotion is they underbelly of success.

Hard work and dedication can still get you pretty close to the Joneses. The Joneses may be playing their own best Strategic Defense Initiative. Believing that this is easy or natural for them – not contrived or projected – can drive you into depression, failure, bankruptcy – or becoming an Unmitigated Malcontent. (Unmitigated is key here. Admittedly, I'd classify as a Mitigated Malcontent.)

This intro can move into any number of directions. Rather than go on a sprawling treatise yet, I'll go back to the purpose of what I'm writing about: self-promotion artistry.

4 Points of Self-Promotion Artistry

Playing the game requires a balance that changes as time/technology progresses, objectives met, and social networks change.

1. Obscure substance
2. Bandwagon popularity
3. Apparently unique contributions
4. A base network

Obscure substance.

You have to have some level of substance, experience, or fact to get in anywhere. I can't call Facebook HQ reception and demand to speak to my old friend Mark from Harvard. I wonder how many people have actually tried that?

Though, one can probably call into Facebook HQ and connect with someone a few layers below Sheryl. Then, can spout off a few Wikipedia facts about her and mix in a seemingly legitimate backstory with random details about "when my eldest sister worked with Sheryl, you know, on a trip to Asia back when they worked at McKinsey in the 90s?" That could be enough to get one's company in for a medium-level meeting that could fast track another meeting for that data deal that will level you up. That's because, you know, that Facebook employee wouldn't want to bother Sheryl about some old person she used to work with 25 years ago. Likewise that same employee wouldn't want one to call several layers up and possibly piss off Sheryl by wasting her time about a low level meeting that should have moved forward anyway.

Now that's not a true story. Or is it? Well, I'm sure it's happened before.

Have Full Command of the core facts. Double down when pressed and throw out a few other specific details that could be options too.

Bandwagon popularity.

I wrote about that "the appearance of wealth begets wealth." Sure, I'm quoting myself. The same is true with fame, knowhow, and popularity. This was a part of self promotion until Google increasing incorporated "likes" and "sharing" as legitimacy. (Before then, it was solely about the wide level of "noise" one could conjure through repetition and junk websites.)

How many conversations I've had with dolts where they use a figure's number of followers or likes on Instagram/Facebook/whatever as an argument for their legitimacy? That failed argument fallback used to be about more difficult to obtain credentials. "Well she has her PhD in psychology from Stanford. What credentials do you have?" or "She has 4.1 million daily viewers. So if she was really that wrong, as you say, the world would be in an uproar!"

Followers and likes on easy-to-manipulate platforms are a signifier of credibility. Conversely, if one doesn't play the "Game of Self-Promotion Artistry", the lack of followers or likes – or a voided social media presence altogether – can indicate a lack of credibility.

Yet, it's quite easy to pay for followers, likes, comments, sharing. And while you may think it's easy to see when 1/3 of an American Instagram celebrity's followers are from Central Asia, you are behind the curve. I've talked to many people who have delved into these websites. The laws of supply and demand would mean that social actions described above can be produced at higher quality.

If a teenager with a minimum wage job can buy 10 "random" comments from people in Uzbekistan for his photograph of a sunset, a low rate debutante can do much better. These same websites that sell the likes of Mechanical Turks can sell higher end products, "Grade A, North American 'likes' -- from real people with real lives" to those who can afford it. In fact, many have told me that the more quantity of fake likes you buy, you'll be opened up to "unmarketed programs" offering "higher quality likes." If you're going to spend $1000/month for 1000 social actions, why would you not pay an extra $200/month for people who who seem more like you to not comment using gauchely awkward english?

If you matter to one person, it can validate your entire existence. I don't think anyone can say they haven't paid something once in their life to be more liked.

If you suspect your competitor is paying for positive reviews, find out any detailed traces of it, report it anonymously to Google with documentation, send the same reports of this data to anyone who is looking at your competitor. Use that knowledge against them if you have it, any way you can. And then get good reviews. If you have a good product, you don't have to pay for it, but have to work harder to solicit them. If you have a bad product, well, you're probably already out of business or you're already paying for the positive reviews.

Or, if you can get Dr. Oz onboard, you are money.

Apparently unique contributions.

I mentioned the sunset photograph earlier. That photo may be in the 30th percentile of all sunset photos shared online, ever. Sure the iPhone XS camera helped, as did the post-cropping of the aspect ratio, and advertising the #nofilter. (Some have told me that #nofilter applies to the out-of-the-box/provided filters only, and it doesn't apply when someone manually expends the time and energy to add subtle tweaks to lighting/shadow/contrast/saturation/color – that's still a filter in my book. But if Annie Leibovitz can photoshop the Queen, I guess this is okay.)

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. That same photo may get a critical meh by a professional photographer who thinks it to be so amateur or a college student studying modern art. In the eyes of that teenager's friends, they may see that as representative as a budding natural talent, someone they should keep close now in case he becomes the next Annie. They may view his photograph with a derisive slant, and leave a passive aggressive comment while liking it and telling his peers offline that his photo is obviously filtered and that he's a fraud. They may want to just get in his pants or have him invite you to the rave with him on Saturday night. More than likely, they may mindlessly like or comment on it because he does the same on their photos and they want to his continuance of meaningless admirations.

I can attempt to play the Brahms Violin Concerto in front of a group of 4 year olds and they won't know or appreciate the difference between me or Joshua Bell. The kids are only behaving because they know they'll be served cookies after the screechfest.

A base network.

It's easy nowadays with the magic of the internet. We can become part of a network even if we don't try or don't want to join. Each base network has its own inferred hierarchy of varied egos. The hierarchy can be based on whatever capital that network values or trades – it could be money, lifestyle, followers, looks/sex appeal, intellect, charity, storytelling, connections, skillset, talent – that je ne sais quoi.

In the early days of my career, I realized that I could get so many people to work for free because I could check some box on the above. I'd like to think it was my looks and intellect, but it may have been like them buying a penny stock on Robinhood or dropping $10 on a dumb cryptocurrency they overheard at a Wework today. A penance of help or assistance at an early stage can mean a lot more owed later. If anything, it makes for a nice story where you can claim some ownership of another's success or victimhood at not getting what was owed.

The point here is that anyone can be at or near the top of the totem pole for virtually any network. This is because networks can be invented out of thin air. Once you obtain some notoriety/followers and move up, the old network will try to piggy back you to the next stage. If you don't take them with you in some way or let them have some stake in your success, some may try to bring you back down to reality by starting rumors out of obscure substance.

It's the cliche of the nerd getting a foothold with the cool crowd, outcasting her old collective and budding into a new network. If she's smart, she won't cast away her old crowd, but give them nominal nuggets of hope that they can merge into the same cool crowd, in time, or invite them to a party. It may cost her a little capital in her new network, but it mitigates risks from ostracizing her old network. If she's dumb and doesn't give them any nuggets, an adept and resentful old playmate may try to bring her back down, slutshame her, or sit on her face.

Fortunately, these subconscious human games typically fade with time, distance, and the limitations of our memory as we eventually forget the sources of ire. This is changing a bit in the digital age where an old tweet or text message someone said at 13 years old can resurface as a image liability. It may not apply to you as you eventually fade from high school/college networks into professional oblivion -- driving a Porsche with a 7 figure 401k – or if you were promoted over a decade to become a successful middle manager as your peers and enemies slowly petered out or moved away. As an ephemeral network shifts, morphs, fades or reemerges in a new identity, the social expectations, capital attachment and risks of blowback tales fade. The disintegration of ephemeral social networks are similarly aligned with jihadi terrorist networks. For example Sageman's network theory states that a jihadi terrorist network is statistically likely to dismantle at the point where over 50% of the network's individuals are dispersed/separated or eliminated from the network. I think it was Sageman, but don't quote me on that.

But if you want to win a Heisman, host the Oscars, run for president, or become as big Mark or Annie, smokey apparitions of the past mixed with uncertain/unproven Obscure Substance will play a factor in your game.

I'll continue on later when I feel like it. Many antics of life, business, and success can be aptly compared to geopolitics – where there are few red lines and laws, if any. Yet the projection of one's power/hegemony has to be a part of the game to maintain an understanding of order, obtain a desired outcome to gain more in the future, and to not just give out easy capital to a rival enemy faction, and definitely not give any ammunition to an enemy who will use it against you any way they can. Another good source of material examples would be just about any silly move drama plot about high school friends (made before 2015).

-- Hashioki