Trees cool climates and also help with climate change. Planting trees in neighborhoods that do not have many trees would be another example of generating comprehensive benefits by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits.
As reported in Scientific American,
…communities of color have 33% less tree canopy on average than majority white communities, the analysis revealed. And neighborhoods with 90% or more of their residents living in poverty have 41% less tree canopy than communities with only 10% or less of the population in poverty. (Greenwire, Sept. 16, 2020).
As summer 2021 has demonstrated, heat waves have become more common. Trees are nature’s way to cool the planet. So simple, more tree planting helps the environment by trapping more carbon, provides more home for animals, cools the neighborhood, and therefore benefits everyone an everything. Please share plans that we can participate in to help plant trees.
A recent July 12, 2021 New York Times Daily Podcast, “A City’s Steps Toward Reparations” helped me better understand how wonderful and needed reparations are for society. When I first heard about reparations I, I had many questions and doubts. While I thought it was a good way that we could possibly makeup for some of the horrible ways African American’s were treated, I was unsure how reparations would help. However after learning about how the reparations were done in Evanston Illinois, to subsidize housing, I realized it was much better than I had thought.
During our history, African American’s had difficulty getting and owning property, not because of what they had done, but because of redlining laws, prejudice, and as we learned, because it was stolen. I encourage you to listen to the linked wonderful NYTimes Daily podcast so you also can understand how helping others helps move society forward for everyone and everything.
Success breeds success, good begets good (See Good Begets Good and Bad Begets Bad: Green Grass Theory). We must do all we can to enable people to be the best version of themselves. Helping African Americans get what was previously withheld from them will enable them to meet at least their basic needs so they can move toward self- actualization. This therefore is an example of not only how to practice paneugenesis, but how to enable Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
This would be an example of how society can’t generate comprehensive benefits by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless interactions from which everyone and everything will benefit and while all improve, we can fix some things we had done wrong.
alter Isaacson’s new book about Jennifer Doudna and her journey to gene editing and the Noble Prize. He ask many important questions about what it means now and for our future. He is able accurately highlight the value of this technology and its riveting development, while also acknowledging the scary side.
CRISPR technology is a simple yet powerful tool for editing genomes. It allows researchers to easily alter CRISPR is a technology that can be used to edit genes and, as such, will likely change the world. The essence of CRISPR is simple: it’s a way of finding a specific bit of DNA inside a cell. After that, the next step in CRISPR gene editing is usually to alter that piece of DNA.
He describes how easy it is to end up wanting to have a child that is smart, athletic, ore even have blonde hair and blue eyes – the Nazi trap. Is that the outcome if we leave it up to the open market? People generally want what is best and if people can choose the best options, why wouldn’t they? Government regulation concerns have been written about from Orwell’s 1984 to Huxley’s Brave New World.
While these concerns are appropriate, my perspective on his little bit different. While Walter Isaccson does an incredible job describing and helping the reader understand this complex topic, I was left thinking that he had not addressed the obvious dilemma of unfulfilled potential. If we do take the path of altering our genes to get an unfair advantage, what suggest it would be used? Our world is full of smart and talented people that have not fulfilled their potential. I am sure all of us have unused potential. We could all be better at many things, this however takes deliberate work to get better. Would people put in the time and effort? If so, why do they not do that now?
In addressing the issue of what is too much for gene editing, he asks, “what’s the difference between people who hire extra tutors or provide more opportunity to help kids develop or instead pay to change one’s gene’s?” This question is hard to answer, however an even harder question is what inspire them to work harder?
From my perspective, to treat genetically inherited diseases makes sense. Gene editing then can and should be used to eliminate diseases such as Hodgkins or Sickle Cell anemia for which we have no treatment. As Isaacson asks, what is the difference between doctors to treating diseases or starting treatment before it happens? Of course, changing something before it happens means we don’t know if there were positive potential options also eliminated.
The big question, just because they have the potential, does it mean they’re going to have the associated outcome? The other question is what else are we losing? Would a nicer personality in Steve Jobs still have produced the same results?
I think they’re jumping the gun about gene editing. Does gene editing guarantee a better in life? What do you think? Can we edit genes so people are more likely to want to generate comprehensive benefits? Can we create genes that such that the default thought is to create pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits? Or is the practice of paneugenesis, creating all good, something that must be learned?
As I reviewed this post, I realized it was all questions. My answer: I think it the better world will need to be nurtured and natured into our existence by creating an environment that nurtures, supports, encourages, and reinforces the practice of paneugenesis, the creation of all good, or more, not less disorder is likely. What do you think? I encourage you to read the book and share your thoughts.
My daughter shared a “Morning Motivation – Decide to Make it Great Day” with me and my other daughter because she said, “This is what Dad always says”. Wow they listen??. She is right, a few years ago I stopped saying, “Have a nice day” and instead I say, “Make it a Great Day”.
I made this change because saying to others, “Have a nice day” seems like a command or it is a hope and something we cannot influence. It also suggests no effort is required on our part. I don’t want to suggest that or contribute to the impression so I usually say “Make it a Great day” instead of “Have a Nice Day”. I say this because to get things done as desired, we must take action. We always can have an influnence, but we need to take action to create an impact we want on the day, week, year, life.
We also know this is likely true because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. My basic understanding of the 2nd Law is that entropy, or disorder, always increases. For application of the 2nd Law, this means that we must cause order. Disorder will happen, order takes effort
We must do what we can to make things workout as desired or it can only work out as desired by chance.The second law of thermodynamics says entropy, or disorder, only increases. To create order, it takes work. . Below is a short educational video from the Khan Academy about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics if you are interested.
This then means we must take action to cause things to turn out a certain way. We also must keep in mind, however, since everything is connected, our actions impact all other things. We therefore should use strategies, as best we can, that are likely be multiply beneficial and not take actions that only switch the problem from one area to another. This is hard to think about, especially over the long term.
Human history is full of examples that provided short-term solutions that created long-term problems. Of course climate change is one of the most currently relevant example. With regard to climate change, fossil fuels were used because they provided a short-term solution that has powered our current high quality of life. Now, however, according to most available evidence, their uses have short-circuited our future.
As noted, we should always attempt to create interactions from which everyone and everything benefits. As you probably know, we all benefit from “Nudges” that help us move in the right direction. Included with this post is the “Nudge” my daughter shared with me that I believe provides an effective morning motivation that will encourage you to take action to “Make Your Day Great”.
Please let me know how this inspires you to generate comprehensive improvements. Being in the right frame of mind will help you create pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits. Please share effective methods you have used that benefit everyone and everything.
After participating and presenting the 2021 6th International Conference on Salutogenesis: Advancing Salutogenesis for thriving societies in June, I had another realization about how salutogenesis can be differentiated from pathogenesis. My understanding is that salutogenesis methods can cause better, not just less bad, outcomes. Pathogenesis was developed for less bad outcomes. It works great and effectively treats disease and its precursors. From my understanding, that means salutogenesis must produce something different, not just another way to do the same thing, such as treat problems more effectively.
I realized that salutogenesis is primarily what you use daily – over the long term. I had this realization as I listened to many good presentations and had invigorating discussions about salutogenesis with colleagues. While salutogenesis produces immediate benefits related to feeling good for doing good, salutogenesis is about how to play the long and short game. Salutogenesis therefore is for chronic care, while pathogenesis, or traditional “health” care, must play the short game for emergency care. Pathogenesis then should primarily be used for the short-term or acute care.
To explain this I have updated my often viewed video, Pathogenesis & Salutogenesis. The previous video has almost 30,000 views as of June, 2021. Please let me know how you like the update and if it has helped you better understand how to effectively use salutogenesis to generate comprehensive improvements.
Here is the updated video which is also posted here and on my YouTube Channel.
For me salutogenesis is a way to practice paneugenesis because it can generate comprehensive improvements and create all good for health. Life is all about probabilities, not guarantees. Salutogenesis improves the probability of better outcomes.
We can increase the probability of generating comprehensive improvements if we work at creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits. As W. Edwards Deming always asked, “By what method?”. Using the method of salutogenesis for health will help just as it will help to use quality management methods for business and manufacturing and Nudge techniques for policy.
I hope this inspires you to generate comprehensive improvements. Please share effective methods you have used that can generate comprehensive improvements so everyone and everything benefits.
From my perspective, research, and general common sense, salutogenesis must be the idea we use to advance society to a better place. I also believe it should be understood, while it will be less bad, creating more good is the major attribute. A better reality, not possible now must be created. Salutogenesis is the origins of health. It is the idea, concept, theory, and approach to health that from my view is about the creation of good health beyond the absence of problems. It is not a better way to treat disease or discomfort, rather it is a way to create better outcomes not possible otherwise.
Upon returning from the conference in Finland in 2009, I was concerned the idea of salutogenesis was being used pathogenically. By that I mean the salutogenic techniques discussed were more focused on treatment and helping people recover than on creating a new and better reality. Which also, by definition, must mean bad things get better or become less problematic. To voice this idea, my response was to publish the linked article, “Salutogenesis 30 Years Later: Where do we go from here?“. Nine years later, in 2019, those in Europe who chose not to participate in the article I published wrote a related linked article, “Future directions for the concept of salutogenesis: a position article“.
Fortunately, since this virtual conference started at 3am for me, it was in Girona, Spain, I was able to send videos of my scheduled presentations (below). Each 10 minute presentation was supposed to be a conversation starter to generate a discussion about how to advance salutogenesis.
If you watch these presentations and it generates ideas or thoughts, please share. Of course each of these ideas are an attempt to help generate comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits. As I have noted previously, salutogenesis is an effective way to practice paneugenesis or create all good. I look forward to hearing from you about how we can advance the ideas of salutogenesis.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, Work-Life Balance is defined as: the amount of time you spend doing yourjobcompared with the amount of time you spend with yourfamily and doing things you enjoy. That is confusing, by definition that means you do not enjoy time at work. W. Edwards Deming, the famous quality management expert strived to help people experience “Joy in Work”
If we are entitled to Joy in Work, doesn’t that mean work should be a benefit, not a balance? Why are we only shooting for balance? What does that mean? We should generate a Work Life Benefit! We should design our life at work with the aim to have our experiences at work and life outside of work be reciprocally beneficial. Life should be mutually beneficial and reinforcing.
We gain skills at home and work by developing relationships and understanding how to be more competent at tasks. Our increased competency in each area of our lives should make the other parts better – if they are not, some adjustments are needed. Realize, this is a choice.
The idea that the impact work has on us is a choice was explained in the Harvard Business Review Article, Work-Life Balance Is a Cycle, Not an Achievement by Ioana Lupu & Mayra Ruiz-Castro. The article explains balancing work and life is “… not a one-time activity, but rather a cycle of continuous re-evaluation and improvement.” The article however is mostly focused on how to make sure work doesn’t cause problems. They recommend using these 5 steps:
Pause & denormalize
Pay attention to your emotions
Consider your alternatives
These steps can be valuable if used proactively to make work and life mutually beneficial, not just less damaging. I recommend we change the perspective towards seeing how we develop and become a better person and actively make work a benefit, not a burden.
In other words, our aim each day should be to generate comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions at work and home so everyone and everything benefits. As we do that we will develop not just a work/life balance, but a work/life benefit.
I noticed I had several drafts about the same theme. In all these drafts I was wondering, why do people believe I think outside the box?
Out of the Box thinking is described to be when people think in an original or creative way.
I had always assumed that thinking outside the box meant you were being creative and finding better solutions. I assumed it meant you did not accept traditional norms and that a person thinking outside the box was not doing things the way they were always done. This is accurate, in a sense, however there is more to “Outside the Box Thinking”, at least according to Wikipedia, and it all started with 9-Dot Puzzle.
What Would be “ThinkingOutside the Box“?
I work in the health field and my focus is on what creates, generates or causes better physical, mental and social well-being. How is that original or out of the box thinking? Couldn’t that represent in the box thinking, just from a different angle? While I don’t go directly at well-being, I focus obliquely on factors associated with improved well-being such as relationships, personal and group development, physical activity and food selection. Although the goal is not specifically well-being, it is pretty direct. We also know that John Kay explained to us why, For Complex, Oblique(Obliquity) is More Effective.
Well-being, life, health and society are about as complex as it gets. This then suggests that traditional and prevailing approaches may not be as effective as they could be. This may also may explain why traditional approaches in health, business and the environment could benefit from a different perspective. From an outsiders view, it seems they started by thinking outside the box and need a better perspective. Lets review:
For Business: thinking generally focuses around how to decrease costs and avoid problems…Instead of thinking how can we serve customers better while we also, simultaneously, clean the air, land and water from their uses. In other words how can we be multipliers of our time (see: Be Fruitful and Multiply – Time That is…) For many, and based on how society has progressed, it appeared our “Take, Make, Waste” system was effective. However, if we take a different perspective in the box, as Ray Anderson did with “Interface”, that takes into account that everyone and everything is connected. Using this approach, Ray demonstrated how we can be even more effective, efficient, profitable as we also improve everyone and everything. (see We Must Make It Better – Saving the Planet not Enough!)
In Health: thinking generally focuses on how to treat diseases and or avoid risk factors…Instead of thinking how can we increase physical, mental and social well-being. The majority of the focus and effort being used by health is how to find disease and treat it. It is as if we are trying to be a day late and a dollar short with regard to improved well-being by “Thinking Outside the Box”. We could be in the box using Antonovsky’s salutogenesis and focusing on what causes health. Many of these ideas are capture here: We Need to Use the 3rd Alternative
As I reviewed this information about “Thinking Outside the Box”, a proverb came to mind:
“To change and to improve are two different things.”
Time for a Reboot
Sometimes we need a new start, a reboot. We need a reboot because now some things are backward, upside down and confused. Let’s get in box and use a better perspective. Life is all about probabilities. It is time to turn the tables in our favor by getting “In the Box” and using a better, “Net Positive” focus and perspective that uses oblique factors related to helping everyone and everything.
A “Net Positive” results from using a Selfish, Selfless, Synergy focus. Selfish, Selfless, Synergy efforts help generate comprehensive benefits by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits, or the practice of paneugenesis. Please share you engage in #SelfishSelflessSynergy so everyone and everything benefits.
Last week in my post, Being Paid in Multiple Ways, and in many others I have emphasized how quality, environmentalism and generating health can generate comprehensive benefits from which everyone and everything can benefit. Evidence suggests these methods that bring all these benefits together are more efficient, less expensive, impact more people in a positive way and are better for the environment, which of course helps everyone and everything.
In other words, a lot of my posts are what Rory Vaden called “Time Multipliers” (see Be Fruitful and Multiply – Time That is…) because over time, they give you more time to do what you want to do. It reminded me of how Steve Jobs explained the computer was a bicycle for the mind because it helped you do things better and faster. Steve explains this concept here and below.
All this came to mind as I was listening to Amber McReynolds TED talk, “An election system that puts voters (not politicians) first”. She describes a voting system that brought everything together and showed how it helps everyone learn more, do more and be more involved. The voting system she describes can help our government be a bicycle for society. Better voting from more educated citizens enables a better system that will function more efficiently. I strongly encourage you to listen to Amber’s talk – it is very powerful and empowering.
I also realized this post is overdue, especially after learning more about the hidden massacres like the described in this NYTImes Daily Episode, The Burning of Black Tulsa. If we work together, many answers will evolve that can help everyone and everything make progress. As we all know, voting is a current issue and Biden puts Harris in charge of efforts to protect voting rights. If we use Amber McReynolds ideas, we can not just protect voting rights, we can improve the voting system.
Please share how you will help empower and enable yourself and others to be the best version of themselves so you can feel the glow and pride for acting in selfish, selfless, synergistic ways. I believe this this was captured well by Simon Sinek and Time Shriver podcast in Episode 34: Learning to Love with Tim Shriver. Though they talk about problems, it seemed they were promoting us to help others more and to practice paneugenesis by doing selfish, selfless, synergistic actions.
My hypothesis, that has been supported by a lot of evidence, is we can generate comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic acts that benefit everyone and everything. What do you think?
This post is of the the review I created for New York, New York, New York: Four Decades of Success, Excess, and Transformation by Thomas Dyja. I am also posting it here because from my reading and the data provided in this book, it suggests NYC practices paneugenesis. The book documents how NYC generates comprehensive improvements and how these improvements were caused to happen. Specifically, the book outlines how these improvements became more likely from fan environmental design to create pervasive reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions, so everyone and everything benefits. While this was the aim of must, it was interesting to learn about the interactive process required to make it work. Overall it is a great read and I encourage you to read his book. It documents how the findings of Glaeser play out in life (see Updated Review of Edward Glaeser’s Triumph of the City).
I encourage you to read the many interesting parts of this book. I took special note of the value of having a clean city with good services, shared public spaces, good education and affordable housing. Time and again, those solutions are what appeared to make NYC a better place to live and work or everyone. He also continually noted the problem of police abuse. Policing was vital to helping NYC go from a very dangerous place to being a place that was very safe to live. He suggested, as is true throughout our country, a better solution must be found to maintain a low crime rate. His recommendations for the continued re-imagination of NYC after COVID is the development of more community, backyard and roof gardens, especially in underserved areas, more community functions that facilitate interactions and healthy foods, and police reform. He also suggested more support for transit, transportation and parks to help people feel good about the city. Overall, from my reading it seems he is suggesting the continued development of a built environment that Nudges people toward selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits. We need cities that help people be better versions of themselves and this book explains how that is possible.
In other words, practicing paneugenesis not only helps you, it can help a city thrive and that city can help a state, country and world improve, It is All about the Ripple… or how interactions impact others and the impact of those interactions. From reading this book, I thought of ways I can be a better citizen in my city and be more involved. If you read it and you take action in your city, please share how you have helped your city generate comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergsitic interactions that carry the potential to ripple out so everyone and everything benefits.
Everybody wants to get paid. It is also good to earn your pay, actually I recommend we always do more than we are being paid to do. I have also realized pay is not always monetary. Though money is vital, the best pay I get is not monetary. I say this, yet I am selfish. I want to live in a better world. To live in a better world I do things that evidence indicates make the world better. Although I will benefit, all of you also benefit. I also have come to realize that the much better world I want can only come about when all of us are the best versions of ourselves.
We all have greatness inside of us. This then means we have to enable all to develop and use competencies to create a better world. I tell my students, I ask you to work hard and develop competencies so you can go out and be great professionals. When you do great work, I get to live in a better world. It is all about me, but of course you also get to live in a better world that you helped create.
Beyond my teaching future professionals, sustainability uses the same concept. Being green seems to finally be the rage. However upon deeper review, it is not about being green, environmental or sustainable. Closer examination indicates it just a better way to do things, with regard to time, effort and financially…especially over the long term.
Deming preached that organizations should sell for the lowest price possible. He explained if they didn’t, any sales would not be long term because others would do it better for less and sales would move in that direction. In other words, we should always create the best thing possible, accounting for all impacts short and long term, while we also think about future impacts beyond the direct transaction.
I thought about this today as I was putting my compost in my backyard bin. I realized doing so made me feel good for going good. I got some extra physical activity, I decreased my waste, will grow good soil and benefit with a better garden next season. Also benefits I paid include no trip to local garden store for compost or topsoil, less trucks deliver soil – meaning cleaner air, less plastic wrapping, less cost, less garbage, cleaner world, better vegetables and I can feel good about it all.
Like I said, being green, and sustainable is not just the right thing to do, it is the better thing to do for many reasons. Actually, in total being environmental is a time multiplier as explained by Rory Vaden in his great TED talk, “How to Multiply Your Time” (see Be Fruitful and Multiply – Time That is…). He explains we can multiply time by investing time today to give us more time tomorrow and time today to focus on the future. His explanation indicates being environmental has a high ROTI (Return On Time Invested).
So how do I get paid? I am paid in multiple ways, beyond it being a ROTI (Return on Time Invested). I get more fit from extra physical activity, intellectual growth from learning more, better food, save money, and as noted save time – over a longer term. Being environmental is a no brainer, or from another perspe
ctive, not being environmental is very wasteful with regard to time, health, well-being, and contributions. As Kahneman and Tversky documented, humans are loss averse so not being environmental is against our nature (see Build a Net Positive Life for ALL). An easy example is the environmental way I now enjoy my plant based milk, explained here: A Way to Practice Paneugenesis. Also don’t forget, as we are healthier our stronger immune system means we will also prevent more. Prevention however is a beneficial side-effect, a better life enjoyed is the main benefit.
To me the most rewarding part is I get to feel good about myself, I feel good for doing good. All the other reasons listed reinforce those feelings. It suggests to me I continually work to design my life in a way that generates comprehensive improvements by the creation of pervasive (it influences multiple areas of life and possibly others). It also allows me to be role model to my family, friends, and students, especially when it is understood actions speak louder than words.
These actions are also reciprocal (I benefit and others as much or more than I give). This also means these actions are selfish (I feel good for doing good) while also being selfless (the actions improve air, land, human rights, animal rights, human dignity, etc.). Overall being green is all about the ripple (see It is All about the Ripple…) because it is synergistic (all is connected so as improve the interactions this may improve the whole system) so everyone and everything benefits.
I hope this inspires you to take environmental actions, to not do this would be against you nature. What is the downside? How do you practice paneugenesis? Please share. Being environmental allows you to contribute to everyone and everything. Please share your environmental selfish, selfless, synergistic actions. Thank you.
How do you feel about freedom of speech? Should people be allowed to say whatever they want? What if what is said causes harm? How can that be regulated? Sometimes people say things they believe are true but are wrong. How can that be regulated? Should different people be held to different standards?
Sharing our thoughts with others and getting others thoughts is what helps everyone improve and develop their ideas. The sharing of thoughts and critical feedback is vital to generating better ideas. The ability to provide critical feedback is allowed by the first amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Interestingly, we can now say much more than we used to be able to say. Comedians were previously arrested for saying things they now say. We now take that as our right, however that is a fairly recent change. I often wondered why comedians used to get in trouble. I learned from the excellent “RadioLab” Podcast that much of what we now understand as our first amendment rights were formed from the work of the great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to this accounting, Holmes went through a dramatic transformation. I encourage you to listen and share your thoughts about this podcast: What Up Holmes? on Radiolab
Description of What Up Holmes? Podcast: Love it or hate it, the freedom to say obnoxious and subversive things is the quintessence of what makes America America. But our say-almost-anything approach to free speech is actually relatively recent, and you can trace it back to one guy: a Supreme Court justice named Oliver Wendell Holmes. Even weirder, you can trace it back to one seemingly ordinary 8-month period in Holmes’s life when he seems to have done a logical U-turn on what should be say-able. Why he changed his mind during those 8 months is one of the greatest mysteries in the history of the Supreme Court. (Spoiler: the answer involves anarchists, a house of truth, and a cry for help from a dear friend.) Join us as we investigate why he changed his mind, how that made the country change its mind, and whether it’s now time to change our minds again.
Use of speech and conversations are valuable because providing helpful critical feedback and engaging with others in scholarly debate is a way to Practice Paneugenesis. Giving feedback enables us to generate comprehensive improvements by creating pervasive, reciprocal, selfish (you share your thoughts), selfless (others learn from you), synergistic (a better idea is generated) interactions so everyone and everything benefits.
Please share how you use your first amendment rights to generate comprehensive improvements.
As I listened to the April 30th 2021 Friday Morning, NYT Daily Podcast,”Odessa, Part 4: Wellness Check“, I was stunned at their focus and how it seemed to relate to life. At the end of April 2021 there is hope that we are coming out of the pandemic. This 4 part NYT Daily Podcast has described the experience of a High School in Odessa Texas during the last half of 2020 as they attempted to have in person classes during the pandemic.
I enjoyed the podcasts focus on the progress they made to have school despite difficult times. I was then confused when their ending question was, “What is the permanent damage that has been done?”. They also stated they were asking this question about the impact on these 17 year old students.
I stopped walking as I was listening because I realized it related to me and my story. At 17 years of age I was the passenger of a car that collided head on with another. Despite difficult times because of the accident, I carried on. What was my option? In my incident, the driver and the other 2 passengers were killed and I suffered a severe head trauma that left me comatose. The Odessa podcast shocked me because I wondered why they were asking about the permanent damage being done instead of how and why some did well and how how they can do better.
In my recovery, I also wondered, “What is the permanent damage done?” I am sure there is some, however it it is not where I focus. I focused then and still do, on discovering how I could make progress. This focus was possible because of the significant positive help from family and friends, most especially my parents. Can you have this type of influence on your family friends and or organizations.
A progress, not problem focus is helpful because my success, and the triumphs of anyone, come about by finding ways to do better or more good. Progress cannot develop evolve or happen, unless by accident, by only learning how to experience less bad. Bad or difficult things will happen, they are inevitable, however we will only be capable of overcoming those difficulties if we have a capacity that enables us to adapt and “carry on” in a better way. Searching for permanent damage will not enable us to do better or have more capacity. To move forward we must develop our capacities and enhance our collaborations. It is also valuable to remember the self-worth reinforcing feelings accomplishment generates, especially through trying experiences, by focusing on progress, not problems.
As noted often on this blog, research from my work and that of many scientists has documented how it is more effective and powerful to generate more good, or comprehensive improvements, than it is to diminish bad. Even though less bad may not be the focus, it is often the complementary side effect. For instance higher quality products and services generated by quality management methods also result less bad in the form of in lower costs and less waste.
The most notable proponent and promoter of quality management methods can be seen from the work of world changing quality management Dr. W. Edwards Deming. His promoted quality methods provides a processes to generate more good and as a secondary benefit, less bad. His quality management methods are relevant and useful everywhere because as he stated, by doing things this way, “everyone wins”. I prefer everyone benefits because if someone wins, it suggests there are also losers. Quality management methods like paneugenesis helps everyone and everything benefit. If it does not, it is not being done correctly.
Dr. Deming’s work is certainly foundational to what I do. A foundational principle of quality management is continual process improvement. I have translated these quality management techniques to wellness and lifestyle process improvement. My work has also shown the most effective way to generate more good and practice paneugenesis is to work toward creating pervasive reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits.
Shakespeare provides another related perspective when he explains that there’s not good and bad, it is just what we label it. For this situation, we should choose progress, not problems
The labeling perspective is also shared by Ben Saunders who trekked the South Pole. At the end of his Ted Talk, “To the South Pole and Back – the hardest 105 days of my life”, he suggests we focus on progress
“Happiness is not about finish lines…If we can’t feel content here, today, now, on our journeys, amidst the mess and the striving that we all inhabit, the open loops, the half finished to-do lists, the could-do-better-next-times, then we might never feel it.”
If we truly want to make progress and overcome problems as necessary side effect, our focus has to be on progress, not just problems. Please share how you focus on progress and how this has helped. Thank you for all you do to help all of us make progress!
This blog is my scratchboard. Like all of us, I have thoughts that seem to make a lot of sense. After I write them out, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. This time they didn’t turn out as I had thought. Either way, writing about them helps me understand better. If they make sense, I share with you and hopefully they help you. At least in this case I am sharing what I learned.
If you find these posts useful, it is another way I practice paneugenesis by engaging in selfish, selfless, synergy. I am being selfish, because I help myself, selfless, by helping you, and synergistic because it helps us improve comprehensiveness of the world which may lead to creative solutions.
I encourage all of you to do the same to see if your sudden thoughts are an epiphany, which is a sudden insight, that can stand up to scrutiny. I had one of those sudden thoughts after listening to two podcasts. The first was I listened to was on Freakonomics, How to Fix the Hot Mess of U.S. Healthcare (Ep. 456). During this broadcast the discussed the 1% solutions for Health Care Reform led by Zack Cooper and Fiona Scott Morton at Yale.
In this presentation it was indicated that they were having trouble getting traction because leaders want to improve by 15%, not 1%. They indicated they were not interested if the change could not be more impactful. As explained in the Freakonomics podcast:
…I got off the stage and a senior executive came up and said, “Hey, this is great, but we don’t want research that tells us how to save 1 percent. We want you to do the research that tells us how to save 15 percent.”
COOPER: “There isn’t stuff that saves 15 percent. It’s a series of half-percent or 1 percent steps.”
In this podcast they reminded listeners about the importance of variation in systems that are from either common or special causes. Variation makes the outcomes less predictable, decreases quality and increases cost. The point was that if they attempted to decrease variation incorrectly, they would be tampering with the system by using misguided efforts to decrease variation. Tampering results in even worse outcomes.
The Deming Institute provides information about variation in the Knowledge of Variation post. On this page, it is explained that common cause variation is the natural result of the system. In contrast, special cause variations represents a unique event that is outside the system: for example, a natural disaster. Knowledge of variation can help people learn why something went right or wrong and what to do about it. Control charts can be used to determine if there its a common or special cause in the process.
Eliminating variation, be it from common or special causes, dramatically improves the outcome quality. Quality processes determined that 94% of the causes of poor outcomes are common causes. This means most improvement can be made by improving the normal processes. It also must be understood that unique improvement strategies must be used to eliminate either common or special causes.
I skipped over a lot about common and special cause variation. I thought I had an epiphany from reviewing and listening to Freakonomics about 1% solutions and Deming about common causes and special causes. The overlap is that most of the 1% solutions are common cause solutions, or regular process improvements which should be regular continuous process improvement methods.
I shared the post with a Deming Expert, Allen Scott and he made me aware of the error in my thinking. He shared my understanding was not up to date. As Dr. Wheeler explained,
This whole dichotomy of special causes being external to the system and common causes being internal to the system, and who is responsible for them,is simply nonsense that does not hold water.
Allen Scott also pointed out, “
I watched the video. A 1% anything is questionable. Probably meaningless variation. There will be a variation up and down. Things will vary by more than 1%. Then he quoted Shewhart, “The measure of quality no matter what the definition of quality may be is a variable.” (Shewhart, 1931)
Most importantly he explained, “The changes they speak of can only be proven or disproven statistically and the percent will then be found out. How will they know a one percent improvement is something they did and not a routine fluctuation? …A one percent change in any measure is probably routine (no difference). In math 2 numbers can be different and not the same. In analysis two numbers can be different and yet the same (homogeneous). The central question in improvement and analysis is homogeneity. The improvement must breach control limits to signal an improvement. That could be one percent or fifteen percent. We have to make a plot to know.”
My take away, 1% is probably mislabeled. It is probably just normal variation and it cannot be known without measures. If we want to improve, we should focus on continually improving the system in ways that are pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, and synergistic so everyone and everything benefits. We should continually ask, by what method might this work better? Critical thinking is key and asking experts (see Stop the Death of Expertise) will enable us to continually improve the process.
Please share your thoughts, what is your best technique for learning from experts?
Acknowledgement: Big Thank you to Allen Scott for his expert advice, with the help of Don Wheeler, for helping me with this post.
Please know this is not an advertisement and I do not receive and compensation for any of my recommendations. I suggest things that work for me. I let you know about them because they may also be good for you and if more of us use these ideas, we all benefit.
Like many people, we enjoy plant based milks. We were buying cartons quite often. We bought this milk maker and a bag of soybeans in December and have not had to buy another carton of milk, although our supply of beans is starting to get low. The milk is good, it is easy to make, it saves money and benefits the planet. We also have used it to grind coffee beans and this enables us to enjoy good coffee. We also know our milk and coffee have no additives.
The soyabella helps us practice paneugenesis because I benefit with convenient milk and coffee at a lower price. I save time because I take less trips to the store to buy milk. It is also helps me be selfless because we don’t use as much material to package the milk and less trucks have to burn gas to drop off the milk at the store. This also means we are able to contribute to a healthier planet which can benefit everyone and everything.
Some may complain it means less jobs, however in my view this is required and forces us to redesign reality. This will require us to evolve toward a better and more sustainable way to live on this planet. Our goal has to be to find ways to prosper and work that promote and enable pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless, synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits.
We must be creative and design idealized outcomes so everyone and everything benefits. As Simon Sinek recently posted:
Intelligence uses what is known to solve problems. Creativity uses what is unknown to discover possibilities.
If you have one or decide to get a soyabella, please share your experience. Also please help us learn ways you have learned to practice paneugenesis by engaging in pervasive, reciprocal, selfish, selfless synergistic interactions so everyone and everything benefits!