Attention Rules!

Referring to my previous post here, puzzling over the likelihood that the choice of how to be quelling aggressive tendencies in other people, such as in Iraq, would be for the decision of dropping of bombs on them, instead of the option to provide them with adequate Omega-3's in their nutrition so their brain cellular walls can function properly and thus more wholesomely for all concerned. Why is that kind of choice typically made, in general?

Sometimes one needs to call a spade a spade, it is said. The causative principle in that kind of decision, perhaps is that the choice ultimately is for that which is more exciting, that one is ready and able to do, and is of doing something highly visible to others. The choice goes to that which gets the most intense attention. Even angry attention, if cheery attention is not an available option.

Why? Being ignored is a potentially disastrous condition to a dependent tiny child vying for shares of the goodies being supplied by harried distracted parents. The pattern is deep within the brain's survival modes even from earliest days, and probably instinctively works to prevent starvation of nutrition or other critical resource to the child. It is said that a small boy will choose to be a naughty boy, even knowing it results in being punished, since being ignored is far worse than mere punishment. Getting punished is a form of attention, in other words; and thus is deemed better than receiving no attention, and thus determines the decision of the little boy.

This instinctive force still lurks deep in the adult decision making process. Thus the strong tendency for even big decisions to go for that which will bring more attention to the doer, choosing that which gives more bang for the buck, so to speak. Attention rules.

Widespread acknowledgment of this human need for receiving personal attention in everyday life (and similarly of a need for experiencing outer drama which somehow resonates within oneself); then discovering the most wholesome ways to fill these needs, may be a way to solve this ancient problem that has probably been involved in so terribly much grief-making even in recent times, even worldwide.

To make this more wholesome consciousness happen, per the same principle, it will have to provide the most dramatic attention among the options. Unfortunately, right now it looks pretty boring, right?

Advertising seems to use some of these principles, but instead to sell a product. Maybe advertising could be applied to this kind of task, too. Anybody want to fork out enough money to do the job? Or is the alternative far more exciting? Attention rules!


Bringing wider perspective to decision-making

Bringing a much wider perspective to the decision-making process is likely to enable far better decisions than has been evidently practiced in much of government in recent times. A wider perspective becomes far harder to evaluate, of course; and even harder to justify results to others. Since women are inherently better at integrating the wider view with the detailed view of things, longer range positive results ought to happen.

Yet the range of problems needing best-possible solutions is enormous, when the needs are of a country in a world of nations on a planetary ecosystem much shared by all. A lot of the data will need to be boiled down to amounts digestible by leadership, and that process too needs to fully observe the details within the context of the whole picture, at each step.

Mechanisms for doing this need to be developed, tested, and put into practice, since current conferences of specialists miss the bigger picture, and conferences of members of diverse disciplines don't talk each other's language. This seems to be a priority that goes unmentioned as far as I can tell. Increased value needs to be ascribed to being a generalist.

Such broader range thinking may come up with off-the-beaten-path conclusions such as that of integrating the body-mind of each person using "Brain Gym" and similar kinesthetic-involving techniques would provide for higher individual human functionality; understanding the 16 types of human temperament's interconnectiveness may solve many communication and interrelationship problems; and something as un-obvious as widespread supply & consumption of long-chain Omega-3's in nutrition for proper brain function may be better at quelling international & internal aggression than is dropping bombs on them. The acknowledgment of needs of the human ego for esteem among peers, and of limits of corporate product options to that which produces maximum profits instead of maximum human value, needs to be understood firmly and taken into consideration as both strengths and weaknesses in the broader picture of advancing a worldwide civilization in a closed world ecosystem, that also "has to do something" with industrial civilization's waste products, as well as waste material that is normally biologically recycled. Perhaps even near-future new forms of high capacity and efficiency space transportation structures can enable the world ecosystem to no longer be predominantly a closed system; but until then, we need to cope with what we have got. Such options need to be evaluated outside of the context of existing corporate profit maximization and maintenance of current elite status; both of these very powerful concerns are likely to block changes, and so this needs to involve governmental decisions for the people of civilization and in our case, America's involvements in the greater picture.

The challenges involved in such an undertaking are enormous. The evaluation of the true efficiency of the multiplicity of uses of energy and materials is likely to result in unexpected ways for civilization's processes, yet such evaluation techniques have yet to be adequately created, thus needs to be done sooner rather than later. Time is not on our side, the clock is ticking, the mess is getting bigger and usable resources are fading.

A far better comprehension of what we are doing as parts of the overall worldwide civilization context, may be able to keep us from making more big messes that have to be cleaned up, as well as soon enabling far more wholesome ways of life for everybody. This seems a very worthy effort for new leadership.


who is boss here

When more than one person is involved, a mental mechanism gets activated to provide answer to a question that might be phrased "who is boss here."

Much of people's actions seem to be motivated in establishing that answer of "who is boss here." The "here" can refer to a zone of life activity, and different people can be "boss" of the different "zones" or territories, creating a hierarchy of bossyness. The "boss" establishes what is permitted for another person to do, including the other's option of activity or inactivity.

The higher levels of bossyness are established by who apparently can alter another's bodily options or resources: ability to "overpower" another, thus determines who is "boss" of the other.

Once overpowered, what does the larger do to the smaller? This fantasy implication provides the fear that rules the other person; rarely is there actual physical confrontation. A "challenge" is an activity to establish whose is the "larger." Usually a few trouncings to prove the ability to harm the other's life, sets the standard of who is boss of whom, and thus prepares the specific way for what happens from then on, and thus to whose benefit activities goes.

Larger physical body and muscles usually can overpower another's body to render the other powerless, and thus is "boss" due to larger body and muscles. However, the larger body and muscles are of little use in a world of the far more powerful muscles of technology's engines of car and jet aircraft. Thus the larger body and muscles are not economical or efficient of life's resources, except for the implication of assaultive control potential on another person.

Knowledge providing weaponry making and usage, such as the bow and arrow, can render useless the muscles of any man, so "knowledge" becomes zones of bosses too. Who presumably "knows more" becomes a boss level like muscle size, also ruling by implication.

Also, consider religion's declaration of an invisible pervasive entity to be top boss, having the higher interests of mankind and the world environmental context as motivation, instead of the selfish motives of living people-type bosses.

And physical nature can suddenly awake and temporarily become "top boss" such as in earthquakes or hurricanes, but has little interest in controlling reproduction options, unlike people's interests in "who is boss here."

Is it possible to have the "boss" be a "mutual goal" instead of a person, enabling purer motives? "Getting closer to the mutual goal" being the guide of the group? There would still be the problems of the ancient heritage of "larger muscular" individuals attempting to overpower to take goodies away, in the form of forcibly controlling what "the mutual goal" is. Yet, it might be a step in a more wholesome direction, for civilization's long term enhancement.