Conversational Tools

I don’t think we’re ever really having the same conversation.

It’s like sitting in a theatre watching the same play but from different seats, distracted by different things. Maybe you’re focusing on one actor, while I’m captivated by the lighting.

Jonathan Haidt uses the metaphor of the rider and the elephant. The elephant (our emotions, intuitions, and embodied experience) is doing most of the habitual and automatic work. The rider (the conscious mind) tries to explain it afterward.

Inside my head, it feels like there’s a committee in constant debate. Each member has their own agenda, and their words float around, interrupting and overlapping. When I speak, it’s not a clean stream of thought—it’s fragments trying to make sense of each other. Dipping in and out of connection with my elephant.

I don’t have access, but I am as sure as I can be that the same thing is happening in your head.

So when we talk, it’s not just me talking to you, it’s my inner committee talking to yours. No wonder we miss each other.

That’s why we need better tools for conversation. Tools like Interpretive Charity, Transcription, Summarising, Questions, Reframing… and teasing out meaning rather than thinking we can just force it on each other.

To truly hear.
To truly listen.
Because sometimes… we’re not even in the same conversation.

Truth is conversational. 

Refining Conversation

Conversation is not the same as the written word. 

When you read a transcript of a lively discussion, it often looks as if we’ve forgotten how to speak. Sentences zig-zag, filler words appear, we change tack mid-thought, someone interrupts, and on paper we can seem semi-literate. We blame the voice-to-text software, but the truth is that real-time conversation is messy by design. 

Think about how we listen. We are not like a driverless car with hundreds of sensors. We have one brain that’s simultaneously attending, drifting, and free-associating. We catch enough to respond, yet our thoughts wander to whatever the moment triggers. Transcribe that dance and it’s chaos. 

Inside my own head (and, I suspect, yours) there’s a five-person committee chattering away. Jonathan Haidt’s “rider and elephant” analogy captures it well: the rider (conscious mind) believes it’s steering, but the elephant (subconscious) actually decides where we go, and only afterwards does the rider cook up a justification. Free will exists, but it’s more like gentle guidance than total control. 

That’s why stories matter. They take those bouncing ideas and smooth them into a clear arc: beginning, conflict, resolution. Even then, a short story or a two-hour film is a drastic simplification of real life, which is infinitely messier, full of randomness and ambiguity. Storytelling is how we compress complexity so we can think, and act. 

Writing is the workshop where this compression happens. Forcing thoughts onto the page helps us sequence them, trim the excess, and discover what we really believe. It’s also why I’m excited about large language models. They act like mirrors to our half-formed ideas—reflecting, rearranging, challenging. Modern AI isn’t rigidly rule-based; it learns the way children and, yes, elephants learn: through iteration, feedback, and embodied patterning. 

That’s not something to fear. Humans excel at adaptive learning too, especially in the context of relationships and collaboration. The task is to stay aware of what our inner elephant is absorbing, remain reflective and conversational, and keep refining the stories that steer us. 

Conversation is the raw material, writing is the refinery, and learning (human or artificial) is the fuel that keeps the whole system evolving.

Willing the Body

Ken Robinson was a phenomenal communicator. He talked about the disconnect between the world of practice and the world of theories. Lamenting how academics can sit in universities, detach themselves and look at how the world should work from an ethical perspective, or values perspective, or a meta “how are we thinking about thinking” perspective. They can go really deep to the edge of human understanding. They don’t always have a lifeline back to where people are actually living. 

We have a wealth of knowledge that is hidden because we are not good at communicating with each other. When we are living separately from the world. We have people who are so busy, they don’t have time to think deeply. They are trying to be constructive, and so don’t have time to deconstruct. There is no time for finding holes, dangers, and unintended consequences. 

He talks of academics being disembodied, and seeing their body as a device that gets their head from meeting to meeting. The East has a more healthy relationship with the body. Yoga, for me, has also been about exploring embodied learning. At a later stage, I also started doing Five Rhythms dancing, which is part of a growing movement culture. An exploration of where knowledge sits at the subconscious level. 

In “The Happiness Hypothesis”, Jonathan Haidt uses the metaphor of an elephant and a rider. The real strength sits in the habits, scripts, loops, and behaviours that go on without thinking. Our rider may pull the strings, but the elephant must be willing. That requires a mind and body that talk.

Monday Happens

Behaviours get embodied. When we respond in a certain way for years, we can cease to be aware. Our minds and bodies are ruthlessly focused. 

If you do press-ups, they will progressively get easier. If you aren’t exercising, then you go for a run... you will be sore, because you have told your body those muscles don’t matter. 

Regularity allows deep soaking. If you learn superficially, then the knowledge can disappear. Explaining or teaching is one method to allow you to constantly re-engage and not forget the steps. 

"The Curse of Knowledge" is when we forget what it is like not to know. 

If the steps suddenly stop working, it can be hard to fix the problem if you have been on automatic pilot. 

In Jonathan Haidt’s analogy, the elephant is in charge even if the rider looks like they are holding the reins. 

The elephant is our habits. The rider is our perspective of the decision-making. The rider can point, and even believe they are in control, until the elephant wants to do something else. 

You can train your elephant, but it takes work, consistency, and time. I believe in Free Will. But it is incredibly hard. You don’t just have life-changing epiphanies in a weekend away, or by reading an article online. 

Monday happens. Repeatedly. Do the work to create the meaning you want. Invest in the resilience and endurance needed to hold space for you to create.

Galileo's 1616 drawing

of the phases of the moon

Will of the Elephants

Agreements are made by getting to know elephants. In Jonathan Haidt’s analogy, the conscious choices we make are the riders, and normally when they pull left, the elephant goes left. The riders think they are in control because the choices are followed, but in reality the elephants want to go left. 

One day, when the elephants go right despite the pull... we don’t even admit the lack of control. We make excuses. We defend. We rationalise. We change the story. The power team of a public relations officer and defence lawyer explain away our behaviour. Like after a difficult relationship, or being fired, or other traumas... we have inbuilt coping mechanisms to make sense of the world. To believe in cause and effect. To believe we have control. The real intelligence is in our habits. 

The real communication is in our complicated and intimate relationships. Full of noise and deep soaked. This means epiphanies are not enough. You cannot just decide to change direction against the will of the elephants. You have to put in the hard work of retraining.

Feeling the Choices

Local markets should be more responsive to changes in preference, because they are able to respond to tacit knowledge. The stuff we can’t put into words. The stuff we don’t always understand ourselves. Our inconsistency. Our moods. 

Local markets mean relationship building and consequences. Huge markets become more abstract. If you sell someone something that isn’t a good deal for them (because you need/want the money) and it affects them badly, size matters. In a huge market, you disappear in search of the next sucker. In a local market, you still have to engage with the people. 

Local forces commitment, recognising that what we do matters. The boundaries between client, colleague, friends, and family blur. It gets complicated. Dealing with strangers is cleaner. It is transactional. Local and intimate means getting involved in the nitty gritty. Local means we experience the results of each other's decisions. Local means wrestling with issues. 

Standardization can give comfort. Where you do venture away from local to explore, some recognition is useful. When you (think you) recognise something, you don’t have to give it thought. Conscious choice is hard. 

Daniel Kahneman talks of “thinking fast and slow”. You want to embody a lot of decisions and make them fast. Jonathan Haidt talks of our rider (head) and elephant (body/habits). We think the rider is in control, but it is mostly the elephant. 

To embody and relax, we have to trust. It is hard to trust when you haven’t done the necessary wrestling to deep soak shared agreement.

International Standardization

Build Capital and Free Labour

For my Batchelor’s Party, my Best Man knew the normal ways of embarrassing me would not work. Instead, he dressed me up as White Jesus with a MAGA hat. Politically and economically, I am of the “The Future and its Enemies” (Virginia Postrel) and “The Righteous Mind” (Jonathan Haidt) school of thought. We are all best placed to make our own decisions and agreements. My main objection to the politics of the last few years is the gunk in our ears. The picking of teams. The lack of acknowledgment that decisions are complicated, and we cannot see into each other’s worlds clearly enough to make decisions for others. We can just do the hard work of breaking down barriers and building agreement. With the available resources and technology, we are in a better position than we have ever been to empower people rather than looking towards putting people in power. We are in a better position than ever to build endurance and resilience, and release each other’s creativity. To build capital and free labour. I am tired of being tired. Let’s build.

Not My Decision

Erinnerung

The French word for worried is inquiet. The German word for memory is erinnerung. More thesaurus than foreign if you look at the substance. Jonathan Haidt talks about the Elephant and the Rider. Daniel Kahneman talks about thinking fast and slow. What is it that we take from the conscious level and soak into our inners? Is there a quiet focus or a noisy angst? Haidt points out that the Elephant is in control, and the Rider just gives suggestions. Our conscious slow thoughts are the things we sit with. The things we dwell on. The things we chew. The training we follow. The Rider can train the Elephant by being conscious of the things we do every day. The habits. The scripts. The rhythms. The beat. The Elephant will listen to words that are whispered consistently and over a long period of time. Through a process of bringing in. Erinnerung.

Soaking

Training my Elephant

I spend a lot of time in my head. If you are like me, it is noisy there. More a committee than a voice that makes sense a lot of the time. Often quite harsh. I started Yoga about 9 years ago. The point, I was told, was to still the waves of the mind. Basically, to ask the committee to take a tea break every now and then. I like tea breaks. This sounded like something for me.

I came across the metaphor of the Elephant and the Rider in one of my favourite books of all time. Jonathan Haidt's 'The Happiness Hypothesis' is a wander through the history and current thinking around well being. Other books like 'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman, 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell, 'Focus' by Daniel Goleman, and 'The Art of Learning' by Josh Waitzkin all touch on a similar idea.

We tend to identify with our Rider. The Rider tells the story of our lives and explains our behaviour. The truth is that it is really the Elephant that does the doing. The Elephant may go right or left at the command of the Rider most of the time, giving the illusion that the Rider is in control. The Elephant just wants to do the same thing on those occasions. The Rider has no ability to make the Elephant do something it doesn't want to do.

The Rider can, with patience, train the Elephant. The Elephant is in fact far more powerful and intelligent than the Rider. The Rider is slow, deliberate, and forgetful. The Elephant embeds knowledge. To change what the Elephant knows and does takes time, patience, and attention. Rather than justifying or excusing your Elephant, the first task is to observe it. To understand it. To not take the credit, or the blame, for everything it does. Realising that your Elephant actually understands a lot you don't. Then you can tweak and teach, with humility.

Step one is realizing you are not the committee in your head. Give them a tea break.

Nationalism v Globalism (Group Discussion)

Other Guest Posts by the Cast of Characters
Shivani - Connecting Deep and Wide
Stu - My Fellow Americans, The Revolution, Admiration and Reward, To Ooze
Phil - To Ooze
Nick - On debut - a friend from Smuts Hall at the University of Cape Town. Now lectures at Wits University.
Brett - NotOnOurWatch, Listening Better, Hearing the Listeners, Finding the Words, Words to Life, Breaking Bread

Trev:

I am very much someone who values cosmopolitanism. I don't much care for trying to protect my identity. I like the idea of breaking it down by adding the best bits of ideas I come across. Jon Haidt, one of my favourite authors, recently wrote an essay looking at some of the recent divisions in politics from the perspective of 'globalism v nationalism'. The idea of protecting identity vs simply being racist/anti-immigrant. It does provide a more empathetic way of looking at some of the views that seem so contrary to the world I would like to work towards.

When and Why Nationalism beats Globalism
Jonathan Haidt

Shivani:

I feel as if I carry both a globalist and a nationalist inside of me. I'm wildly appreciative of travel, I believe in being open and welcoming and love the rich diversity of being human. But I also value mythology, language, history, community. The idea of the world being one doesn't make sense to me if it means losing the variation in culture. 

Who assimilates and who is assimilated? Do these ideas even make sense if we acknowledge that culture is a living, evolving thing that cannot be controlled? It seems equally problematic to expect those migrating to your country to assimilate as it does to refuse to give up any aspect of the culture you come from. As with most things, the middle way makes more sense. A little give, a little take. 

I am a fourth generation South African, of Indian descent. Indian culture still reverberates through me. A love of the food, the music, the mythology, the clothing, yoga. But there are aspects I've chosen to leave behind: language, religious practice, norms about who I marry. I don't think I could describe myself as a global citizen. I have sunk deep roots in South Africa. Does that make me a nationalist?

Trev:

I think the Nationalists are more those who feel intense discomfort with the pace of change, and don't have a foot in both camps. The issue with open borders is it does shine a big light on just how different some of our cultural and moral responses are to certain issues. Not necessarily in big ideological ways, but ways that make us feel less at home. Language, food, music, and other comfort factors get thrown on their head. 

I remember the clashes at school as we were coming out of Apartheid on issues as simple as noise levels. Natal was quite British. Think someone shouting across the tube in London, and you can see the response to shouting across the playground. Is this potentially just a teething issue that older generations struggle with? Will younger people be more used to variety? Or do we need to start making allowance somehow for more aggressive assimilation in *some* places to allow bubbles of comfort for those who are struggling with the change.

The New Political Divide

The Economist

Stu:

This is such a big topic there are lots of possible directions to go in. In one sense, my response to tensions between nationalist v globalisation groups is the opposite of a typical left wing response, which I see as being to limit the number of immigrants but then be very supportive to those who do come. I’d like lots of immigration but more assertive about enforcing local norms/laws (until these norms change naturally or via immigrants voting and normal democratic evolution). This doesn’t properly address those who feel threatened by the change, but I think nationalists feel defensive over their own norms and laws and don’t want to apologise for them.

Source: Webbed Wary Cow

Trev:

In the UK there is a concept of 'Silent Tories'. People who don't say much and then vote Conservative in the poll booth. Quite often the Globalist approach can take the moral high ground and be very loud. To show any form of dissent in public, or to say you feel uncomfortable is seeing as against any number of righteous values. This makes working these things out and gaining comfort with change hard. I regard myself as very liberal, but I come from a socially conservative background. 

One example is homophobia. I 'didn't know' a single homosexual growing up. This is not true, but the environment was so negative that there was no way anyone could come 'out of the closet'. Despite the world moving on dramatically, and a number of people from my neighbourhood now feeling free to be themselves, gender roles are still very clearly defined. Men still don't show affection as naturally and being effeminate is still a problem. People aren't vocal about their discomfort, but still wince at public displays of affection etc. 

It is easier for people to be loud about 'progressive issues'. If there isn't space for people to be vocal about their conservative issues, I am not sure we will work our way out of them.

Phil:

To show any form of dissent in public, or to say you feel uncomfortable is seeing as against any number of righteous values.” I feel like this is quite a detour off Nationalism and Globalism, but perhaps one worth having. I call it “The Great Pscyhological Dilemma” and, at its heart is the question: “What Sort of a World do We Want to Live In?” Take Trev’s example of homophobia. We want to live in a world in which people who identify as homosexual are free to live without fear of discrimination. How do we realise this goal? Do we 

(1) police the uttering of gay-slander? or 
(2) educate and wait for people to realise that sexuality lies on a spectrum, and that homosexuality (like transgender) is completely “normal” in the sense that a bell curve has tails. 

(1) Is external policing. (2) Is internal change (both rational and emotional). 

Ideally we want (2). BUT… human beings enjoy power (superiority) over others, enjoy creating “out-groups”/enemies, like to hate, and mostly hate to think for themselves. To me, one of the greatest challenges of the coming century is how to deal with HUMAN BEINGS… such that they aren’t policed into a Brave New World (or Equilibria), but aren’t left to become Lords of the Flies. Suggestions welcome...

Animal Farm in Reverse

Library of Economics and Liberty

Trev:

Perhaps this is a case of us simply not recognising the forward steps we are making, and getting very upset about the steps away from what we want? If we take a broad historical look, we are getting better at cooperating with each other. We are chipping away at prejudice. Something we are doing must be right even if it occasionally feels like we are being punched in the stomach. 

We are treating each other better

The internal change Phil speaks of can only come from intimate friendship. Those conversations outside of the public realm where you feel confident enough to express your prejudice and work on them. People change from where they are, not from where we want them to be. I don't think Globalisation is about assimilation. It should be as simple and as limited as possible. Like agreeing on the number of keys to put on a piano, but then allowing people to play Jazz, Rock, Classical or improvise. I know Stuart is much more positive on the state of the status quo than most. In a world of free speech, we focus on the bad stuff. Animal Farm in reverse.

Why it's so tempting to build walls

ideas.ted.com

Nick

I myself do not think of myself in terms of a national or global identity, or have any desire to reflect any particular identity to anyone else (although a reflection is unavoidable). I don't get excited about which sport team (/person) wins anything anywhere - but I do like watching skilled sportspeople. I find a lot of cultural identity practices abhorrent. We are collectively very happy to give up personal liberty sometimes in the name of common identity which is regrettable. None of it makes much sense to me; I have no idea why people are attached to these identities although if I gave it some thought I am sure there are plenty of candidate explanations I would accept. 

Ignorance drives our lives and this is just one of those areas which I do not get too worked up about not knowing much. The same as notions of cultural appropriation - just not something I am driven to better understand, although some are very passionate and vocal about it at the moment. It is another issue wrapped up in identity politics and in this regard it is not something I have much interest in. 

In the end the us vs them thinking is probably unavoidably human, its suppression undo-able, its glorification universal, but if left unchecked would probably destroy our species, and if it could be expunged, that would probably be a good thing (and to be clear it is not disagreement that is a problem, it's the division of us against them which is the problem)

Brett

This animal is so beautifully complicated that we really could take it to so many deep levels and flesh it out for weeks. I definitely agree with the idea of holding tension lightly and tend to think more and more that we would be a lot more healthy if we leaned towards Both/And belief systems more than Either/Or. Echoing what I’ve heard above, I love some things that are distinctively South African but I love the possibility of eating Indian food at the Eastern Food Bazaar in Cape Town centre. It would be a shame if everyone assimilated and became all the same. So holding on to some things that feel family or culture and embracing some that feel important from the local context. Each person is different and so we would be cultivating a variety of expressions which feel like they would create a richness when experienced alongside each other. The need for community in this scenario becomes so important though, whether at a family or wider level. And the importance of accepting each other and what we bring as well as learning from each other, the things that we don’t understand yet. Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu.

Shivani
Brett, I love the point about Both/And. Recognising where we come from and where we have ended up. If respect flows both towards migrants, as well as towards those who receive migrants, the issues start to dissipate. We forget that there are no pure identities....everything is mutable. Embracing the fluidity is tough. But building in rigidity cannot be the solution. As with most things, it seems to come down to a willingness to connect as human beings and not entrenching in/out groups (so often underpinned with assumptions of better than/less than).

Trev

I get very scared by the idea of laying ownership to cultural ideas. The communities who have been best at avoiding cultural appropriation are the ones who believed their ideas were better than everyone else's. Supremacists. This is normally just a case of historical amnesia. Our language, clothes, songs, food and all we held dear has been built collaboratively. Equally, I understand the desire to build close, exclusive, intimate relationships. A value to uniqueness. The anti-Globalisation forces are not just a basket of deplorables. Some argue that keeping things local and separate is a form of respect. It recognises tacit local knowledge. It prevents sameness. It prevents systemic risk since connections help good ideas and bad ideas spread.

I understand ideas about self-determination, identity building and keeping things holy. Having grown up in Apartheid South Africa, I just get sick at the bottom of my stomach when I see the damage that can be done by living purely in relative terms. Only looking around you and caring solely for those in your immediate community is toxic in its ignorance. We need to find a balance. You can still have a global world full of local flavour.

Brepairing Brexited Buddies (with Ben)

Trev

A lot of us are feeling a little punch drunk after the Brexit Referendum. This is independent of whether you were part of the 48% who 'lost' or the 52% who 'won'. It wasn't like a General Election where in 4 or 5 years time, the question gets asked again. It wasn't even a question that had a clear answer. Personally, I am tired of things constantly being put to a vote instead of us attempting to find solutions that work for most people. Instead of solutions, perhaps just frameworks that work for most people. We all seem to see the world very differently. One thing I would like is more conversation. My friend Ben chose to vote to leave the European Union. Ben, I know you are as worried as me about the divisions that keep cutting at us. In fact, we seem to agree on most things even though we came to the exact opposite conclusion?

Ben

I've never felt so alienated from my peer group as I did by voting Leave. I was amazed by the lack of tolerance shown to me by some Remainers. While things have now faded a bit, I was called 'extreme', I was told I was 'giving a mandate to racists', I was compared to Trump supporters, I was called a f*%ker, a c^%t and (most humorously of all) a 'cockwomble'. Why? All I did was to vote against an unpleasant governance structure, one which is not only anti-democratic but whose instinct for economic protectionism has left Europe falling behind. Europe would be better off without the EU, just as football would be better off without FIFA. For that simple belief I was judged as unworthy, unthinking and uncharitable, and was made to feel uncomfortable by many of the very people who claim to be voting for tolerance. What's my point? Intolerance comes in many forms. Before we can reach any sensible solutions, before we can address the class system, wealth inequality and a million other issues that divide society, let's listen. Bravo to Trevor for getting us started.

Trev

You drew a venn diagram for me the night before the referendum to explain your view. You said you were being asked unfairly to choose between two things we all want: Democracy and European Unity. You saw Remain as (European Unity without Democracy) and Leave as (Democracy without European Unity). I look beyond European Unity. I would like to see a world without borders. With less and less power, and more and more empowerment. I agree with you that there are huge challenges facing democracy. I think there is insufficient local power. Too much central planning. Not enough listening. I just think unity is a starting point that can not be thrown away. There are many who voted leave for reasons different to you. Jonathan Haidt positioned it well in my view in his essay on Globalists v Nationalists. I think all the old left-v-right, up-v-down ideologies are falling apart. I am very confused.

'When and Why Nationalism beats Globalism'

Ben

Nationalism beats globalism because people feel they belong to a 'tribe'. This is a natural part of our evolutionary ancestry which, realistically, cannot now be changed. Global love comes naturally to you but not to many others, and you'll continue to be frustrated if you hope/expect that others en masse will change their view to yours. It will happen, but it does so slowly. You and I think globally, because we've had the privilege to travel and work globally. Our 'tribe' is formed of other equally global citizens. When this privilege spreads to others, more will agree with you, but not before. You are fond of pointing out very long term charts showing how much healthier and better educated people are today relative to decades ago. The same is true of tribalism. People hardly used to travel at all, and their tribe was extraordinarily local. Horizons have widened, but it happens slowly. You are at the forefront. You'll have to wait for others to catch up.

Trev

I am less looking for people to catch up, and more looking for how we allow people to live however they want to live. I am not against tribes or homogeneous groups. Women's book clubs. Yoga Centres. There are various places that have strict rules about what can & can't be done, who can be involved, and create 'holy environments'. Fantastic. I like that there are other people in my globalist tribe, and agree that that is part of my privilege. I feel lucky to have worked in multi-national companies and have been able to travel. I think the long term trend is towards a more open world, but that we have only just reached a tipping point. Nationalism is new. People's tribes over most of time have been *much* smaller. We have experience of building shared narratives, but much of it was done through War and other exclusionary measures. How do we conserve, and grow? How do we protect, and learn?

Ben

Is Nationalism really new? For centuries have countries been fighting each other. Why were people prepared to die for their country, except because of nationalism? It might have been a nationalism based on fear of the unknown, but that's just as true today. What's new is the accessibility of travel for vast numbers of people. Immigration was not such an issue in years gone by because people literally couldn't move from one country to another in the numbers that they can today. I support your view that people should live however they want to live. This, after all, is the core of democracy. But what if what THEY choose is different to what YOU choose? What if they choose local sovereignty? It turns out you're not so happy about THAT :)

Trev

Nationalism as we know it now is new. The primordial, tribal feeling has been there, but mostly for people very similar, i.e. Kin. Empires grew when there was some powerful force that was offering death or loyalty, and most of history has been violent and bloody. Not much choice of whether to die if you were an able bodied dude. Flags, Nations, Borders, Anthems... all the ways we see the world have been fired up over the last two centuries through wars and Games of Thrones. Any look at history will show how these identities have come and gone.

You keep suggesting I am trying to force others to do what I choose. Not at all. I am trying to figure out how we allow people to conserve their identities, within a world that doesn't impose that on others. I don't believe in Majority Rules as Democracy. Constitutional Democracy protects the Human Rights of all. Within that framework, smaller societies could choose to do things differently.

There are far more people than there ever were, but immigration in the past was more significant than today. For all our globalisation in the last century, in 2015 only 3.3% of the world's population lived outside their country of birth (http://www.unfpa.org/migration). Before the world wars, waves of people populated the rest of the world. The nations we know today are the separation of the last century.

I know you agree with free movement of people anyway. I agree with local sovereignty. So I think we are on the same page anyway. If there is a non-prejudicial path to citizenship, I do believe local communities should be able to develop their own social contracts/law within a broader community that recognises human rights.

Ben

To some people, "conserving their identity" means being surrounded by people of the same language, cultural identity, or even skin colour. In some cases it is more nuanced, e.g. in Britain people no longer feel threatened by having a curry house on the corner (in fact they love it, there's nothing more British than a cuzza these days) but they do still feel uncomfortable if the local supermarket stocks mainly Polish or Arabic food. Does it make ideological sense? Often not. But there's a circle that can't be squared. You say you want people to conserve their identity without imposing it on others, but this is an impossibility. If you allow free movement to person A, you disallow person B from "conserving his identity", if the way he defines his identity in a nationalist/small-minded/tribal way.

That's why I "keep suggesting" that you are wanting to impose your will on others. You want to square a circle which cannot be squared. You either have free movement (your preference, and mine) or you let people conserve their identities. In some people's Venn diagram, there is no common ground between these two, it's one or the other. If democracy voted for "the other", one can either 

(A) accept that judgement and roll with it, 

(B) take up the struggle of trying to change people's minds, or 

(C) take issue with democracy. 

It looks to me like you are going for option B. I salute your efforts but secretly I believe it's extraordinarily difficult to change people's minds. So I'm going with option A. I'll try to change myself occasionally, but I've long since given up on trying to change other people.

Trev

There lies the challenge. I don't really think we can do it on large scales in cities. Cities naturally end up having to deal with learning to tolerate differences and change. They have to choose patchworks (e.g. Little Italy, China Town) or melting pots. Rural areas allow for a more conservative approach. I don't have a problem with Utah for example. Not really Rural, but they have built up a way of life that is different from the Cities of the coast.

What I do think is broken is the idea of Partisan Politics where we divide into parties and throw rocks at each other. Somehow we need to find a way to get better at listening to and allowing for different perspectives. Not changing peoples minds, but living with differing views. Living with different combinations of overlapping circles. I agree that people change themselves, from where they are. I would like to see where they are. I do take issue with majority rules democracy. In fact I take issue with most authority that tries to impose itself. I believe in Democracy as a consensus driven process. Not in a 'we all do the same thing' sense, but that the rules allow us as best as possible to do our thing. It feels like we sometimes descend into fighting rather than listening. I think we are moving forward, so it may feel worse than it is. The friends who called you those various things know you well enough to carry on being your friend.

If we look below the politicians and media, who have to portray conflict and 'unique talking points', people are far better at dealing with complexity and ambiguity in individual relationships. Beneath the Game of Thrones, we can see each others humanity.

Ben

FA Hayek said that the important thing is not democracy, but liberty. That's a view that I agree with, and you seem to as well. Liberty is the end goal; democracy is only useful to the extent that it provides a means to achieve that goal. But even then, our ideas of Liberty may differ. For me, ridding ourselves of the EU was a step in the direction of Liberty, for you it was a step away from it. Perhaps the truth is that true Liberty is not either towards or away from the EU, but around it. A truly free world has no need for such an institution. And you're right, we can see each other's humanity regardless of the rules under which we live. We're all bigger than the nations we occupy. Human connections don't conform to a set of imposed rules, and never will.

Interdependent Utopias

Utopia's are important. They allow us to dream. As long as they don't distract us from the beauty of the world we are in right now. When we arrive, we will still have our dreams. Our dreams will still be different. We think in contrasts.

I dream of a world full of flavour. A world where we have conquered the restraints of physical scarcity. Where we are able to invest our time in the creation of meaning rather than surviving.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

I believe in a combination of Human Rights and the Rule of Law that allows agreement on trade-offs between freedom and compromise. We have lots of things that are important to us. Jonathan Haidt calls them our Moral Foundation - Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Respect/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation. We also don't know what works. These common ingredients get combined in different proportions in different societies. I believe in the free movement of people, goods, services and ideas between societies, where these smaller societies may have social contracts that differ from each other. The individual societies can have rules for how that assimilation of the free moving parts would work. Human Rights should provide the foundation for that. A world that finds a balance between our tribal instincts and the desire to build a global society where we experience our shared best. Where we can protect the things we love. Where we can learn from each other.

 

The world is on path to this Utopia. With a step back for perspective, it is getting safer and we are getting richer. We are chipping away at our prejudices - gender, social class, age, religion, race, ethnic group, language, sexuality. There are ideas like a Universal Basic Income and Open Borders which could end poverty. Enough is less than we think. There is enough for all of us to have enough. Then we can dive deep into whatever unique or combined flavours and emotions give us the meaning we seek. We can create stories. We can dance. We can sing. We can find something that challenges us and develop a sense of mastery. We can find flow. We can savour relationships. 

I am a strong believer in a world where we empower each other. We don't need to look towards grand plans. We should be micro-ambitious. If we work on our own basic competence and we build relationships with people outside our bubble, we will chip away at the big problems. Big plans have unintended consequences. The bigger the gap between the plan makers and those the plans affect, the bigger these consequences can be. Instead, we can focus on cooperating and seeing each other. Central Planners can never substitute for real Community. Our path to our Utopia is our Central Plan. 

The heart of my Utopia is community, and that community already exists. I just have to make the time for it. Two years ago today, I declared 'Independence'.  I had got to the point where the engine I had built could finance my own basic income. My money could be the breadwinner while I was a homemaker. By deciding I had enough, I could focus on using my time in ways I wasn't trying to monetise. Capitalism is designed around scarcity. In the specific cases where there is supply and demand, it can shift resources in a way that is astonishingly good at creating wealth. It isn't great at distributing it. It isn't great at community. By creating limits around my Capital's world, I could free my Labour to do what it was designed for. Capital is designed for work. Labour is designed for love.

I want my labour to be directed to helping each other find and share our Interdependent Utopias.

Expanded Experience

Our friends and families journey's tend to rhyme with ours. To get completely different perspectives, we have to consciously pop our bubbles. One of the ways I try do this is to build lists on Twitter of groups of which I am not a part. By regularly seeing what is being shared on those lists, I can start to see the world a little differently. Even the groups I am a part of don't see things the same way as me. I see the world a little differently today depending on what I did yesterday. I never see the world the same way twice. Everything we do matters. Every action adds to our colour wheel.

Color chart, complete at last! 🎨

A photo posted by Angie Bradshaw 🌵🌈🌺🎨🌴 (@angiebradshaw) on Feb 24, 2016 at 10:24am PST

I am in Santa Monica, California. The friend I am visiting is on a very similar journey to me. We haven't seen each other in quite a while. In sharing our stories, and the books and experiences we have gone through, there were several knowing nods. There were also differences. We learn more about ourselves through learning about others.

Venice Beach, California

Meeting this friend, and getting to know his wife, has resulted in a long 'required reading' list. Names that came up were Derek Sivers and Alan Watts. We had both been influenced by Josh Waitzkin and challenged by Tim Ferriss. I was able to point out Jonathan Haidt and Virginia Postrel.  Haidt did a grand survey of our ancient cultural and religious knowledge on happiness incorporating modern scientific, philosophical and psychological research. He also looks at why 'good people disagree', i.e. those situations where we don't understand how someone can disagree with us, and still be good. Postrel's 'The Future and it's enemies' convinced me of the power of a bottom up approach to life rather than wishing we had a benevolent dictator. Understanding can't be communicated upwards. We need to empower people. Add Tim Minchin's idea of being micro-ambitious and my approach of focusing on each day and spending time kuiering with people I care about starts to fall in place.

There is an infinite library. We don't have time to get through everything, but we can learn together. We can share experiences. We can make new mistakes rather than repeating old ones by trying to go it alone. I don't think we need to understand everything. I am completely at peace with the fact that the world is uncertain, complex, ambiguous and noisy. I love it. I love the search and I love the fact that the search will never be done. I can reread books that changed my life. I can read books that changed my friends lives. We can talk about them. We can share the journey.

Is there anything better than the connections we share with other people? Incorporating others into how we define ourselves expands our ability to experience the world. 

I love this place