Mind Blogging. Mind Boggling.

Imagine regular Rahul with a regular Role-  9-5 job at a technology company, comes back home to play tennis ball cricket with his 2 kids and friends, enjoying the game and being part of a cheerful crowd in his apartment complex. He is environmentally conscious, careful with water and plastic, and using public transport as much as possible. During the weekend, he participates in 2-3 hour discussions with Rotary club on sundry, small improvement projects - how to how to make the immediate colony greener (barely 1 square kilometer), and some charitable causes nearby. He also visits nearby parks with his wife and kids, where he goes for long walks and occasional boating on the lake. At the tech company, Rahul is part of an important project to make a software to enable Virtual 3D Holograms (like in Star Wars) - to make global virtual meetings more effective. Now make a country of 1 million Rahuls, and don't you have a happy and prosperous country? 

Will there be a book written about Rahul? Never. He's no CEO, he's just a middling mid-level manager. Where is the drama? Regular, predictable life, nothing seemingly remarkable. No autobiography or movie about him, with a bombastic title - "Story of a Stud" (made that up), "Losing my virginity" (real), "Mah lyf mah rulez" (made that up). However, he's happy, and he's part of a decent bunch of people at work, and 1 Mn versions of him are working cohesively are taking the country towards sustainable prosperity.

My point is to warn against idolising 'heroes' before deep scrutiny. Today, I think there is a massive rise in non-fiction 'hero-worship' content. This is probably due to excellent data recording over the past 30-40 years such as digital storage and the powerful media. Globalization, and reach of the media via streaming and social, is magnifying the power of spreading these stories. Further, there is increasing scrutiny of factors behind world class performance, with books like Outliers offering a formula based on some individual successes.  Note that I myself have consumed a lot of hero-worship content, and therefore, all my points below are not just sermonizing to the read but to myself, too.

There are three main issues I see that should lead one to be careful when worshipping heroes that modern media and society throw up. One, is Survivorship bias. Second, is the story that is told and the story that is not told.  Last, is happiness quotient of their own selves.

Survivorship bias- classic fallacy- the very mix of traits that supposedly explained the success of this guy, could have led 99 people to failure, but we will not hear of those stories- we will hear only of this 1 guy. Therefore, adopting his traits would lead us towards a 99% chance of 'failure', however we define it. There's the standard finance test; in which there's 1000 people who randomly predict that the market in the year will go Up or Down. After 10 years, there will be 1 guy out of 1024 who predicted the market exactly (Up, Down, Up, Up, Up, Up, Down, Down, Down, Up) and Wall Street Investor will run a cover story on this guy and talk about various habits of his such as drinking Ragi Malt at 11 PM contributed to his stunning success. And completely ignore the 1023 others. All media, be it print or streaming, is built on stories; and humans love stories; and therefore temptation must be great to build a cover story on  this 1-guy who got the call right for 10 consecutive years- what are his habits, beliefs, philosophies, and favorite coffee flavor.

Next is that there's the untold story behind the told story- success was only possible because of underhand or unsaid means not mentioned in the book or movie. I call this the Autobiography fallacy, because one might tend to avoid murky secrets or perhaps even suspected elements of luck in telling their story to the wider world, in order to not destroy one's own legacy. Elizabeth Holmes, after the success of Theranos which did blood tests on just a pin prick of blood, was the darling of media and was hailed as hero for women the world over. Netflix would have been close to releasing a mini series on her success and her methods the world over. I am sure girls in Silicon Valley copied her deep voice, her dressing, and her hairstyle, her ways. However, 3 years later, her world collapsed and her company and she was indicted of massive fraud (book review of Bad blood on this blog is here ) . Now Netflix would have quickly done an about-turn and released the series about the shocking fraud. Movie's under process - Bad Blood IMDB link is here .  Further, as pointed out in Outliers, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had immense lucky breaks - getting unprecedented access to a university computer at a young age- that gave them a huge early leap over others. No one knew about this, and for all their amazing traits mentioned in movies and biographies and copied by many, this lucky break might have been the most important reason. Their success therefore might have been despite these traits, due to their lucky early break, and not because of these traits. Further, there are numerous famous dubious stands which Steve Jobs has taken, which his biographer has not mentioned. One of which is- when he stole Mac's OS from Xerox, he said in 1996 "we have been shameless about stealing great ideas" (sic); but after Google launches Android, he said he would do Thermonuclear war on Android copying iOS (2 minute link here ). Also linked to this point is the fact that the company that these 'heroes' build, such as Nike or Apple, survive during the date of publishing of autobiography and said heroes hold a lot of stock of the company in their wealth. Therefore, there is no way that Phil Knight or Steve Jobs will reveal anything that will materially lower the company's share price.

Lastly, there's Van Gogh- VVG is obviously an immense professional success- his works have held the world in their thrall for 200+ years. I myself have dazzled by his works in the Van Gogh museum, a book on him and his paintings adorns my coffee table, and there's a review of Starry Night in this very blog right here  ) There's also an analysis in the book Range about how the fact that he was unsuccessful in various vocations and those repeated quick failures 'trial and error' approach led him to hit upon big success in painting.  However, the fact is, he was clinically depressed, realized that his paintings were a big hit only for the last 2 odd years, shot himself to kill, died a painful and lonely death, at the age of 35 odd. There's no posthumous joy from all the global adulation he is receiving till date. Will you be ok with this deal?  Another fairly famous from the annals of biographies is Agassi's bio 'Open' - on how he absolutely hated Tennis and was very insecure for a very long time.

In conclusion, I am not saying- do not learn from heroes or do not annoint heroes. I will continue to read biographies and inspiring stories. How does one guard against this? Some thoughts follow, and they apply to me as much as to you. Firstly, better to wait for a bit before quickly anointing someone as a hero, because the closely guarded dark secrets behind the success might come out soon. Secondly, define one's own framework for personal success based on our starting position and our priorities. Thirdly, filter out survivorship bias and search carefully if there's some critical detail missing in the story and only then pick up traits or stories. More the data around it all, the better. I am reminded about how I went back to IIM B recently for a run, and I was speaking to a Professor Saurav Mukherjee about senior alum returning to campus and giving talks. He was skeptical and said that in such cases, people only talk about 'war stories', which he wanted to avoid, and that he wanted more of cases, with their data and rigour. War stories would probably be highly susceptible to Survivorship bias and Autobiography fallacy.  Lastly, massive change and impact can be achieved by a group of 'normal' people with no superhuman powers, who work closely together in spirit of community and bonhomie. So instead of solely focusing on being a hero all by yourself like all the heroes in the book, one could perhaps also spend time on increasing co ordination and cohesion with community around. 

Edit on Oct 18 2020: Extract from "The Four" - a masterly read in the tech-firm-bashing genre, by wise and got-my-hands-dirty-not-just-a-phD prof, Scott Galloway: "There are few better examples of what Pope Francis refers to as in unhealthy "idolatry of money" than our obsession with Steve Jobs. It is conventional wisdom that Steve Jobs put a "dent in the universe". No, he didn't. Steve Jobs, in my view, spat on the universe. People who get up every morning, get their kids dressed, get them to school, and have an irrational passion for their kids' well-being, dent the universe. The world needs more homes with engaged parents, not a better f*ing phone" While this paragraph is somewhat reductive in itself, and I feel Apple has done more than create just a phone, I do see the point and it echoes the theme of the post. 

With the world seeing at the same time, shenanigans of Trump, age-polarised voting for Brexit, the rise of an opaque, authoritarian yet successful China, and the undermining of democracy in Russia, there is surely an upheaval in the world order and in democracy. USA, Britain, China and Russia are top-5 heavy hitters in their world stature today, and in the last 100 years in term of economic, political and cultural mark on rest of the world (the other being Germany I would say)Why is democracy in poor health?

Urbanization is increasing drastically, in 2007 we crossed landmark figure of 50% of humans living in urban areas. By 2050, it will be 67%. I postulate that the organic bottom-up democratic and community-organization urges are weaker in urban areas than in rural areas. Currently, people move from city to city regularly, hardly know their neighbors (as seen in the example of me and my friends) and enjoy the 'anonymity' that the modern city offers them. Most immigrant people in Indian cities don't care to learn the local language, which is the most practical course of action. In urban societies, I am more connected to my fellow lovers of Arsenal football club (say) all over the world, than my own neighbours. In fact, the more 'educated' a human is, the more likely one is going to be engaged in global interest groups and professional communities, and thus disengaged from local community, thus stripping the democracy of its most learned participants. Individualism, and small sub-groups, have become the units of measure instead of larger communities. Thus, one of the chief pillars of a robust democracy, which is a rich community engagement in the democracy from the bottom-up, has been stripped away through this trend of urbanization and individualism.

At the same time, the world is growing increasingly complex and data-rich. Whatever my point of view is, if I devote time to it I can find data points to defend it, and it is increasingly hard for the occasional dabbler (average Joe) to argue against these well formed points of view. Now the average Joe (juggling job, family, hobbies) has lesser and lesser time, but has to devote more and more time to ensure he listens to both Right media and Left media, delves into the data, and crafts a nuanced point of view.  Even if he does want to make the effort, how does he instill the discipline to confine himself to one right wing magazine and one left wing magazine? Should it be magazine, website, blog, podcast or twitter account? What about the regular stream of news links which flood in through whatsapp groups- how can Joe ignore all of these? These demands are further worsened by the fact that jobs are getting more intellectually demanding as blue collar, repetitive-task jobs disappear.

In this scenario, people are drawn towards a commanding leader who can offer a clear point of view amid all the clutter, speaking in attractive analogies and slogans. Given that data points are numerous as mentioned at the start of this para, this leader can pick from data points available to back his own point of view, and present a convincing but simplified and perhaps polarized point of view. The reality is that that most people and situations are grey, and not black and white. However, the power of communication is seriously undermined when one keeps adding 'on the other hand' to the end of every communication, so it's better communication to paint the issue black or white. A polarized point of view can cut through the clutter more easily. Further, due to the virality and abundance of news and facts, a few 'fake' items can also be slipped in to make the point of view stronger. Once the lie is exposed, 2-3 months later- it's too late. By that time, 'tetris effect' has already set in (the famous effect of tetris players seeing the world in tetris blocks)- people already see the world through that lens, and are too invested (both emotion and time) in one side to change their point of view. Next is the perverse comeback of 'physical attractiveness' in the desirability charts-  I read somewhere that in matchmaking, there is so much data about the partner, and so many options on so many apps, that singletons get overwhelmed and end up choosing based on the most simple metric- looks.   

Enter Trump. 'Build the wall', 'Shovel the coal' - concrete and simple solutions, which many can easily relate to, to solve the woes of America. As opposed to say Elizabeth Warren, who is not as convincing or witty a speaker, speaks in complex words, is professorial looking and not immediately striking, and ends every sentence with 'on the other hand' . Similarly, both Trump and Boris have weird haridos, Trump's son and daughter are immaculately turned out and attractive-looking, ready to cut through the clutter.

What about China model? Well, we saw its failings in the information-quashing episodes behind SARS and Coronavirus , tensions with rest of the world are rife (South China sea, Trade wars) and it is questionable if humans would like to live in a society where basic freedoms are curtailed.

Thus, world over, government seems to be floundering . However, the role of a government is mission critical, today. Firstly, to solve the problem of helping citizens make sense of all the issues of the world through smart communication- striking a balance between simple and attractive messaging for the pressed-for-time populace, a messaging which at the same time bakes in all the complexities and available data. Put in another way, to convert a lengthy article, which is a truer reflection of reality, to a palatable tweet or instagram picture. Secondly, to use this smart communication to get the disjoint populace engaged- create coherent campaigns that unites humanity with the right rallying cries, cutting through individualism/small-groupism. Lastly, building on the first two and also most importantly, to address the issue of climate change that is staring us in the face. The situation on the climate change front is dire, as anyone who has spent even half an hour by himself reading serious material, will realize (this article is one among many good starting points). Covid-19 is a wake up call - because many Climate change agnosts, including me to a great extent, were smug in the knowledge that human technology and our global pool of talent will solve any problem. Where is our much-vaunted technology today, when the world is on its knees due to the virus? And as for a concerted global effort against the virus- there's borders being sealed and blame games being played. Ok- middle class types may not be on their knees and perhaps even enjoying the forced break, but what about daily wage workers- their livelihood is badly hit, and it's not that they will have certain access to a ventilator when they contract the virus. This is a precursor to an extreme climate change event- our much vaunted technology will be helpless, and the poor and marginalized will be most at risk. Imagine a flooding in low-lying Bangladesh and Mumbai- in that scenario, I shudder to imagine the ghastly consequences to already-creaking South Asia. Also, borders of other countries are likely to be closed, in such a scenario. Further, once the event has happened, it is too late to react - just as in the case of Covid-19.

Today, as the book Collapse by Jared Diamond cogently mentions, a strong effort at both top down (Government) and bottom up (citizen communities) is absolutely required for the radical reimagination of society and life required for meeting climate change goals. However, as I have mentioned, both bottom-up citizen communities and top down organization (government), both are floundering. Unfortunately, at the time when the challenge facing humanity as a whole is hardest, our organization and sense of unity appears to me to be weaker-than-desired.

For the species as a whole, it seems a dark time. If one were to take a step back and view it all as part of a potboiler , the plot has seriously thickened by now. Here are the chapters that build up the suspense: Chapter 1 : Floundering Communities, Chapter 2 : Deadly Game of Thrones, Chapter 3 : Climate Challenge Looms Large, and Chapter 4: Covid-19- Taste of Things to Come?  The reader will yearn to flip the page to the next chapter: Chapter 5: The Perfect Storm