Expanded Thoughts on Subjected Will

Many people believe the ability to choose A over B is free will, and to not have free will means one can not choose A over B. However, the ability to choose A over B is not evidence of free will. It is only evidence of will (a desire to choose one over the other). And the opposite of free will is not “no will” but rather, “not-free will”, or subjected will.

Even though you actively chose A over B, there is a reason you chose A over B, and if you trace that reason back to its point of origin, you will discover different sorts of forces acted upon you which you had no control of. To have true free will, you would have to be under no influence of anything whatsoever when making any decision. That condition is probably impossible.

Your will is subject to your desires, and your desires are subject to your nature. Even God has a nature which He can not violate.

Related reading: Subjected Will

Be Judged by Reality (Not by Peers)

I recently finished reading two books by Nassim Nicholas Taleb: Skin in the Game and Antifragile. Both are good books and I will have to go back to them to glean more of the ideas.

One idea Taleb puts forth often is how one should strive to be judged by reality rather than peers. Your peers will most likely not give you a realistic assessment of how you’re really doing. In fact, your peers will celebrate you, perhaps in the spirit of teamwork, without even knowing much about what you’re doing.

If you strive after the judgment of peers, you will tend to portray yourself in a way that generates positive reviews from your peers, even when those portrayals are less than true, which is most likely the case.

Reality will not treat you so kindly.

cannews

If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. -Code of Hammurabi #229

Taleb’s book Skin in the Game focuses on taking real risk in your endeavours, and if you have no skin in the game, you will build nothing worthwhile.

Over-eager politicians are very happy to usher in their version of paradise but will never suffer the consequences when their ideas fail. Their peers celebrate them and so they are encouraged. However, when reality proves them wrong, only those with skin in the game will pay the price.

A builder who is put to death if his building fails definitely has skin in the game. There is huge risk so he must be careful to be sure his construction is sound and safe and strong. He will be held personally responsible for his actions, no one else. Reality is a harsh judge, but it is a true judge.

I live and work in Cambodia and whenever a non-Cambodian tells me they’re going to come and build some new ministry in Cambodia, I ask them two questions: 1) How long are you planning on staying in Cambodia? 2) Are you going to train up Cambodians? If the person answers, “Maybe about 5 years,” and, “I’m going to focus on English speaking expats first, in order to build a core team, then focus on Cambodians after,” then I won’t pay much attention to them, and I won’t invest much or any of my time and resources into them. They have little skin in the game. They may be able to create an appearance of doing much in their short time in Cambodia, especially when posting creative photos on Facebook and being judged by their peers. Reality, however, will dissolve all their efforts in the long run.

Related reading:

Facebook Illusions

Like People, Like Priest

***

Visionary Leaders Vs. Masters Part Five

dedicatedWhat do Visionaries & Masters Invest Into?

I once knew a woman who was starting up a new NGO project in S.E. Asia. When speaking of her work she said, “I’m a starter. I like to start things. Then I like to work myself out of a job. Once things are up and running, I get bored, so I hand the work over to someone else and go off and start something else.”

There are truly gifted visionaries out there who can do just what my friend described above, and the project they begin does indeed continue on under new leadership for many years. But, in my experience, more often than not, when someone says, “I’m a starter and then I’m gone…” what they’re really saying is, “I like to be around when things are new and exciting. Once the novelty wears off and things become more mundane (and difficult), I leave.”

Visionaries tend to invest into the New! and Exciting!; into a fleeting glory which quickly fades. The Visionary invests into what makes him look good in the here and now and into what the masses focus on and get excited about (and pour resources into) in the here and now.

The Master, however, invests into an undying glory which never fades, but is often hidden in dark places in the days of small things.

Visionary projects start off big, but that’s mostly an illusion. It’s like a sugar rush — lots of energy rapidly infused into a body, but then just as rapidly leaking out. There is nothing wrong with starting big, in fact it’s probably the better way to go, but is there a sustainable system ready to take over once the initial momentum dissipates?

When a Master invests into a new project, he does not think, “Okay, let’s throw a whole bunch of money at this thing, hype it up big, and add it to the list of our great accomplishments (regardless of wether it works or not).” No, a Master says, “I am investing into this project for the life of the project. I want to see this thing flourish, not just at the beginning when everyone is watching, but in the middle, and the end, after most initial investors have lost interest.”

dedicated 2

Read Visionary Leaders Vs. Masters Part One; Part Two; Part Three; Part Four