Doesn't emotionally connect. How right you are, sir!
In a recent case study of Vic Toews, I discussed a certain personality profile; the tough-minded, aggressive, limited-capacity-for-empathy limbic thinker. I have also previously discussed how Vic Toews' penchant of shooting from the lip and confabulating justification later is symptomatic of the same cognitive hard-wiring. The tendency of saying things like "I'm surprised at the reaction people took from my words" instead of "I apologize, what I said was insensitive and inappropriate" equally fits the bill - if you don't see others as people - if you don't emotionally connect with them - it makes no sense to have to debase oneself in apologizing to them.
David Gilmour has now provided another example of how this hard-wired (but malleable, thanks to neuroplasticity - we'll get back to that later) reactionary world view plays out and has significant impact within society.
Think about it; he can sell anything to anyone. There's a thing about sales - a certain personality profile that excels at it, that breathes deep the concept of ABC - always be closing. Tough, aggressive, confident, dismissive, manipulative - able to force anyone into anything by sheer strength of will. They're sitting out there waiting to give you their money. Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?
Yet he only feels comfortable teaching what he's passionate about - and he teaches passionately. He doesn't feel comfortable with other literary folk (too introspective) or other teachers (not as passionate). He can sell anything to anyone, yes, but, cognitive dissonance caveat, he only sells what he's passionate about - i.e., he understands. He doesn't understand women, doesn't understand Chinese authors and he doesn't see himself as capable of expanding his perspective, so it's only that which resonates in his gut, that which is familiar that he's able to articulate. Despite is assertion that he can sell anything to anyone, in the same breath he admits that he can't. It's a sad delusion, really, but a common one for aggressively confident people.
Think about it; he can sell anything to anyone. There's a thing about sales - a certain personality profile that excels at it, that breathes deep the concept of ABC - always be closing. Tough, aggressive, confident, dismissive, manipulative - able to force anyone into anything by sheer strength of will. They're sitting out there waiting to give you their money. Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?
Yet he only feels comfortable teaching what he's passionate about - and he teaches passionately. He doesn't feel comfortable with other literary folk (too introspective) or other teachers (not as passionate). He can sell anything to anyone, yes, but, cognitive dissonance caveat, he only sells what he's passionate about - i.e., he understands. He doesn't understand women, doesn't understand Chinese authors and he doesn't see himself as capable of expanding his perspective, so it's only that which resonates in his gut, that which is familiar that he's able to articulate. Despite is assertion that he can sell anything to anyone, in the same breath he admits that he can't. It's a sad delusion, really, but a common one for aggressively confident people.
I've recently delved into two other professors that are passionate, aggressive and have difficulty viewing the world from perspectives beyond their own. My recent deconstruction of The John Robson hints at someone who is dismissive of youth for not fitting into his world view, although his thoughts on labour and the workforce are outdated. At a recent Why Should I Care, Economics Prof Michael Hlinka went out of his way to antagonize and condescend those in the audience who didn't hold his fiscally conservative viewpoint. I'm pretty sure that his goal was to get them riled up to incite an "honest" debate focused on emotional, gut-feelings - just like Alec Baldwin. At the same time, he did not hesitate to put a talent recruiter on the spot in front of the crowd, pushing her to meet with his students and help them find jobs. Always be closing, indeed.
Vic Toews, David Gilmour, John Robson, Michael Hlinka - you could add to this mix the Ford brothers, Mike Duffy and a host of others - even my-way-or-the-highway Unionists like Sam Hammond. Tough-minded, limited in their ability and desire to expand their perspective, antagonistic, sales-oriented, competition-oriented. What else do they have in common? These are the kinds of people that force their way to the top and don't believe anything they do in their own self-interest could possibly be wrong. Therefore, they're the sorts of people driving the policy agenda these days. Is it any wonder we have so much political heat without much policy light?
What happens when you have a group of competitive, aggressive, dismissive people setting an agenda and figuring they have the tough sales skills to force everyone else in line (the bums need to get jobs) or if not, label them as threats to be removed (tough on crime)? These folk don't believe in committing sociology and in fact see social programs as impediments to aggressive, competitive success. That would be fine, if the whole world had the same limbic-driven cognitive makeup as they did - but it doesn't.
Gilmour is right, though - he doesn't have a racist or sexist bone in his body. Stigma and bias aren't osteocentric - they're neurological in nature. The emotional, passionate lens through which Gilmour sees the world is the reason he is dismissive of (and unable to understand) people with different perspectives. Just as he probably couldn't do a gymnastic routine because he doesn't have the physical flexibility, Gilmour can't walk a mile in the shoes of a female Chinese author because of his functional fixedness.
Here's the rub - the kind of success that's fueling growth in the Knowledge Economy is driven by the exact opposite approach to the one they insist is the only one that ever works. They're behind the Roger's Curve on this evolved reality. This isn't to say there isn't a role for these sorts of singular-focused, personally-dismissive and sales-oriented people; whatever Knowledge products and services we come up with still need to be pitched to prospective buyers. With a bit of social-emotional learning, they could even learn how to really sell to people who don't view the world as they do - a particularly useful skill to have in a globally competitive market where understanding cultural protocols is as important as knowing your product.
But the kinds of behaviours we're rewarding with management positions - competitive, confident and sales-oriented - are victims of the Peter Principle. The abilities which get them to the top are the same reason they both fail to adapt to the times and yet find ways to blame others (like youth who just aren't tough or realistic enough, urbanites who drink lates, foreign workers and welfare bums) for ensuing problems.
Don't give up on these folk yet, though - we are always too quick to ape their approach and demand someone throw the bums out. That selection of the socially fittest model doesn't really work in society; see Syria for an example of how it can go spectacularly wrong. There's a better way.As a lover of literature, I'm sure Gilmour will be familiar with the traditional heroic journey of the penultimate man of strength, ego and arrogance brought low, forced to redeem their position through acts of altruism and the development of empathy and humility. If not, they should go watch Thor to see how that journey plays out.
Here's where the neuroplasticity comes in. You actually can teach old dogs new tricks; old bones can learn to flex in new ways. These A-type players can strengthen their overall mental fitness if they're motivated the right way by their peers. With a better sense of how their aggressive sales acumen fits in the bigger picture, these folk can find all the things they want (affluence and influence) by playing the specialized roles they excel at - reacting to threats and identifying and exploiting opportunities for the good of the whole.
We truly do need emotionally-driven people like Gilmour in our society; it's the healthy tension between emotion and reason that propels society forward. But just as we teach our kids to think before they act, you want to ensure its Executive Function, not Reactive Function that's in the driver's seat. In a diverse society with disparate needs and perspective to be mined, we want leaders with the ability to understand, build consensus and drive collaboration in charge.
So you see, Gilmour does make a valid point, if we're willing to apply it broadly. We shouldn't expect everyone to be all things to all people; just as he's incapable of teaching that which is beyond his comprehension but perfectly capable of representing the macho writers he prefers (like Ernest Hemingway), we shouldn't expect A-type personalities with a "with us or against us" approach to be capable of leading diverse, complex societies.
After all, if you can't emotionally connect with people, you'll have a hell of a time leading them.
"The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership."
- Colin Powell
No comments:
Post a Comment