The Tale of Broccoli

There once was a boy who disliked broccoli very, very much indeed.

Half of his older siblings obediently ate broccoli as told and pretended to like it even though they very, very much did not.

The other half of his older siblings refused to eat broccoli and instead ate salads and the occasional piece of cake when Dad was feeling generous.

Since the young boy did not like broccoli, he followed his older siblings who ate salad instead, a mixture of many greens and cucumbers and radishes and tomatoes and carrots and all sorts of yummy bunny food.

One day, the older siblings who obediently ate broccoli, even though they very much did not like it, stuck around the dinner table after eating supper.  The boy started to get up, but they hammered him back into his chair.  They seemed very cross and the boy was confused and frightened.

The other older siblings, the ones who ate salad, wanted to intervene, but they were also younger and weaker than the obedient broccoli-eating siblings.  Fearful, too, they could only look on.

"Eat," demanded the broccoli eaters, even though they very much did not like it but still pretended to, with scorn.

"No," the boy refused.

"Eat it," they screamed!

They boy wanted to run.  Why they were so insistent on him doing something so trivial and pointless baffled him greatly, but he knew that giving in to them was the last thing he wanted to do.  That they were bullying him into eating broccoli that he very much did not want to eat was all the more reason why he would never, ever eat it.

"No," he cried out, and tried to bolt.

They nailed him back down and began shoving the broccoli into his mouth, forcing it down his throat against his will while they held him down.  The boy vomited all over himself.

"Oh, how disgusting!  Look at how gross you are, you little turd," derided the older siblings, as they finally released him.

They boy ran, weeping, to the bathroom to shower and let the water rain down and cleanse him.  They laughed at him all the way and then went to the gym to do Pilates.

They never felt sorry.  They never felt compassion.  They kept trying, relentlessly, to compel the boy to obey their command for 40 days, because they felt so ordained.  They placed broccoli under his pillow every night.  They threw broccoli at his back wherever he went.  They would interject the word "broccoli" into sentences just to unnerve him.  They were a cruel lot and were dead in heart.

That's it.  That's all I had.  If you thought there was more to the story, there isn't.  Sorry if that was a little abrupt and kind of a letdown.  Life's kind of like that sometimes, isn't it?

Well, OK, I can give you this:

On Leadership

That's probably a misquote and also misattributed, but it serves my purposes, so who cares?  I pulled it off the internet, so it must be true.

Ah, the fine art of trying to control other people.  Let's look at some basic strategies, shall we?

Carrot:  entice desired behavior with rewards; positive reinforcement.  Too little and the subject loses interest.  Pull the reward away too often (to encourage further progress) and you breed discouragement and resentment.  It is important to note that different types of rewards affect people differently; see 5 Love Languages for home life, for instance.  In a work environment, some employees may prefer a private pat on the back, while others may thrive on public recognition, or additional time off, or bonus pay, or new opportunities, etc.  Everyone is different and the preferences can even be dynamic.

Stick:  discourage unwanted behavior with punishment; negative reinforcement.  Too little and there is little effect on the subject.  But too much, especially too much too often, and the subject becomes disaffected to the negative stimulus.  It loses its effect and the subject no longer cares if they receive it anymore.  Further, it breeds a strong resentment towards the leader.  The leader loses credibility to lead.  The subject can also suffer other long-term health problems and become despondent, unmotivated, and unaffected by further stimulation of any type.  Even too much negative stimulus in a short period can cause PTSD-like symptoms and a small amount of negative stimulus consistently over a long period of time can cause chronic stress.

Manipulation:  persuade the subject that they want to do something.  The leader uses knowledge about the subject and general human nature to undermine the subject's own autonomy and self-determination.  Examples include negging (backhanded compliments), nagging, yelling, silent treatment, threats, swearing, emotional blackmail, guilt trip, sulking, crying, playing the victim, rationalization, minimization, selective attention, shaming, evasion, vilifying the victim, veiled threats, seduction, projecting blame, feigning innocence or confusion, brandishing anger, and bandwagon effect (from wikipedia).

Dark Psychology:  this is simulated waterboarding and is just plain sick no matter how you look at it.  Any person or organization that does this commits a crime against humanity in my opinion.  Examples include inducing fear, threats, and intimidation to break a person's will; using deep deceptive tactics in an attempt to throw a subject into psychosis; recruiting family members and community residents; employing agents in the community to shape a message in the mind of the subject; spiking a subject with psychoactive agents; and gaslighting the subject to cause them to question their own experiences and reality.  This is reminiscent of Project MKUltra and  enhanced interrogation techniques (euphemism, anyone?).

Guide:  empathetic shepherding.  When done effectively, the leader perceives the world in the follower's eyes.  They see what they are seeing and feeling, to the best of their ability.  They empathize.  Once the leader has actually taken the time and care to understand the mind of the follower, they can use that knowledge to help them proceed from where they are to where they need to go (which includes where the follower wants to go, not just where the leader wants them to go), at a pace that is appropriate for the follower, using tools the leader equips them with.

By Example:  showing the way.  The leader does little but be themselves and show genuine interest in the people.  They see them as people, individuals, with real lives and real struggles, not objects that serve the leader's purpose.  The leader tries to do their job the best they can, and most will follow naturally.  

Combined Tools:  I really appreciate the humble leader who leads by example, but recognizes it alone is not enough.  A healthy dose of carrot is still good for all.  Most followers still need a little stick from time to time, ensuring the course correction is proportionate and appropriate, and done with empathy and love to help the person improve.  And pretty much everyone needs guidance, even leaders.  Leaders should avoid ever using any manipulation and absolutely any dark psychology (what kind of psychopath?). A good leader would remain forever humble, recognizing that they, too, are imperfect and flawed and on their own path from a certain place at a certain pace, just like everyone else.

I have seen the worst of leaders in toxic work environments and homes and family relationships.  I sadly admit to helping create these at times myself!  Through mistakes we all learn.  Hopefully we learn from others' mistakes.  Sometimes we learn by repeating our own mistakes multiple times.

Sometimes people intentionally manipulate others or abuse their positions or power because they are seeking selfish goals and others are merely means to accomplish those ends.  Other times people manipulate and abuse only because they are stressed or distracted or otherwise lose sight of the bigger picture.

Here's the thing, though.  What's the thing?  Well, here it is, I'm about to tell you:  the bigger picture includes other people.  The bigger picture includes all people.  The bigger picture includes All.  So really, the only reason why anyone is ever selfish or toxic is because they, too, are suffering from lack of perspective.  They are being too small-minded to see, you see?  It's hard to keep that in mind when they are manipulating and causing pain, but it is true.  That's why we should love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) and help them, too, best we can.  Plus, we can all be small-minded at times.

B&W Vs. Gray

Do you see the world in black and white?

Or do you see the world in shades of gray?

People who see the world in black and white see absolutes.  Everything is a discrete, quantitative value.  It is digital, on or off, right or wrong.  Of course their way is the right way and all other ways are wrong.  This exclusive superiority leads to conflict when two different black and white worlds collide.

There is no middle ground.  There is no compromise.  You are friend or you are foe.  You are either obeying the law or you are breaking it.  You were pulled over for doing 56 mph in a 55 mph zone.  You are either a good person or you are a bad person.  Something is either good or evil.  There is no in between.

People who see the world in shades of gray see relativity.  Everything is a gradient, qualitative value.  It is analogue, quantum.  Most things are neither right nor wrong, but right or wrong for the person or group or culture or time; it's more a matter of what works best.  This inclusive humility leads to a growing cooperation when differences meet, except when hostility from the other demands defense. 

There is wide open space for negotiation and mutual win strategies.  You see that good people do bad things and bad people do good things, and you can be on good terms with anyone who is willing.  The law is there to guide the enforcers.  The police don't pull you over if you were going with the flow of traffic.  There is no universal good or evil, only some universally accepted standards, and many others that are not as standard (and therefore fought over in senseless wars of morality).

Now obviously no one truly only perceives the world in strictly black and white and no one truly only perceives the world in strictly shades of gray.  The irony is that claiming so would itself be a black and white statement.  However, most people do tend to see things more one way than the other.

Which way do you see the world?  Which outcome do you prefer?

Do you tend to see black and white, where your preferred perspective battles all other perspectives until they join or are eliminated?  Where your one and only monolithic perspective attempts to dominate, subjugate, and control all?

Or do you tend to see shades of gray, where a collage of perspectives band together, a tapestry of diversity, woven tightly together for freedom and sharing and to protect against oppressors?

"But, I see the world in color!"

"And through synesthesia I see the world through sound!"

Yeah, yeah.  We're just sticking with this analogy for now, 'k?  ‘K.