The Kindness Doctrine

Wake-up call  

So, the latest revelations from Francis Haugen about the social media algorithms used by Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have got me thinking about old-fashioned ideas like decorum, respect, dignity, and empathy.

Is it possible any longer to have a discussion with a person with an opposing viewpoint without attacking or killing them?

It’s a serious question to ponder. I think of the early days of the nerd-hippies in Palo Alto, creating the internet. There was a utopian view that the Net could be better than real life. I think many of the original builders believed that idea to be possible, that there would be a respectful code that people on the net would follow that people in real life didn’t. Of course, that was fucking naive, and we ended up with a cruel narcissist running our country, inciting everyone to behave like our pettiest worse selves, or egg on others passively. That setup helped elect a complete homicidal lunatic into the most powerful office on the planet. Now are we to believe things will be better off inside a pair of goggles where the attacker is running at us with a digital machete instead of trolling us with hate comments? It would drive any sane, decent person to fall into hopelessness and drink themselves to death in response. 

Hopeful signs

 A dark thought for sure, but the opposite of that are recent writings and appearances by thought leaders (and even politicians!) advocating for civility. It’s a small group of people at this point, maybe 1%, but i see it as an indication of little sprouts of enlightenment showing up after a decade of hate, intolerance, and violence. It’s been an understanding in even the highest level of media that if it bleeds, it leads. There is also editorial restraint for sure, but the social networks not only aren’t holding back bad behavior and violent ideas, but encouraging them for profit. There are more things of importance than just profit. There’s the little idea of having a peaceful and happy citizenry in this country and others. That has to be more important than sheer greed. We even manifested it, at least to a limited degree, after WWII, when most people in the US were making enough to have a comfortable life, and live in relative peace. 

Cause and effect 

Being a record producer, mathematically minded, and a Nicherin Buddhist, I think about interactions socially and in business in terms of what creates the greatest good.

Based on the law of cause and effect (Myoho), every interaction between people, planets and molecules yields a net positive or a net negative. The Law of Cause end Effect basically says if you think, speak or act in a way that’s harmful or hurtful to another person, you are inevitably hurting yourself because you’re interconnected,  depriving yourself of happiness and peace. The simple reason is that energetically if you take an aggressive posture against someone, you will inevitably be the victim of blowback at some point. For so many interactions I’ve had in my career with companies, and fellow writers and clients, there is always a negotiation. What am I getting, and what are they getting? Where is the value? You both have talent, they might be spending money, and you may be providing a service, and even think you’re pretty awesome. So how do you divide the ownership of what’s being created? Many famous negotiators have said, “If both parties feel shitty at the end of a good negotiation, it’s a success.” I personally take exception with that zero-sum game philosophy. I think if you apply an additive model to any interaction, where you put focus on the desires and needs of the other party, then it is possible to have a win-win negotiation. How do we go about that? Is that an excuse for being a doormat and getting steamrolled? The answer is no. Having respect for the dignity of the other party, and employing wisdom and compassion in your perspective does not mean that there’s no boundary, or that it’s OK to be fucked over. In fact, to employ the Law in your negotiation would be to show ultimate respect for your position AND the other person’s position. I think a structure that honors the desires and goals of both parties is the pathway to success. I try as much as I can to listen and internalize the desires of the other party before deciding what I want. That is employing the idea of value creation, which is another Buddhist ideal. 

Value creation

Am I throwing all my passion into producing this singer’s vocals for the money, or for the love?

I think if it’s just about the money, it’s hard to truly fulfill your job of creating value for the artist.

I say this because going beyond the expectations to create something great goes way beyond getting paid. It falls into the category of creating something of greatness for both of you, something that is long-lasting and brings value for a long time, not just for today! I feel bad for a certain politician who attacks almost everyone all the time because he’s so terribly insecure. How said is that life, and all the suffering it engenders? It’s great to have friends! This is the essence of the greatest collaborations in art, technology, and business.

Respectful interaction

It is so clear the effect disrespectful interaction on and off the web is having on our society. There are wars of aggression and military takeovers of countries based on misinformation and incendiary posts that pit one group against the other of completely marginalize a group of people. That kind of behavior as well as ideologies around business and the military of crushing, dominating, destroying, or overwhelming the other side are animalistic ways of thinking about interaction. Because we are all energetic beings at our core (electrons) we effect others and ourselves with our actions. This is obvious when you observe soldiers or gang members who have harmed or killed others. Shakespeare is full of observations of what happens when you harm others, verbally or otherwise. Its a stain that is impossible to erase. Often human beings can’t take the blowback and end up harming or killing themselves. Again, it’s impossible to harm others without harming yourself. So why do so many people choose to insult and attack others with such great regularity? Well, part of the reason is you get rewarded for it. Whether it’s media attention, or likes, or popular adulation, there are multiple short-term benefits of being aggressive. You might even start your own cult! 

I can’t do much about flame throwers, but I am noticing a new trend in society away from that kind of behavior towards a more respectful and compassionate way of communicating. I dub this “The Kindness Doctrine.”

In my interpretation kindness is not weakness, but a way of expressing your ideas without attacking the other person or group. For the most part in my career over the last 35 years, I have often chosen to lose an aspect of an argument or negotiation in favor of preserving a relationship long term. It is worth it to take a money hit on a record that goes multi-platinum and builds a lifetime friendship and working relationship.

So, my employing the Kindness Doctrine of not disrespecting or insulting the person even though you may disagree with them, you open up the space where you both have the opportunity to create remedies down the road, or re-negotiate down the road when you’re both having success. There is a lot of good and bad being represented in the climate negotiations at COP26. This is one global negotiation where, if people focus only on winning, we are all going to lose. The rules have changed.  All intelligent players in the game realize it. Like all humans are connected because of the laws of energy, we are likewise connected by the complex weather systems and temperature systems that govern our planet. If we choose to not cooperate sufficiently when we are a major violator of pollution and carbon limits then we are not only harming everyone else, but ourselves as well. Young people inherently understand this interconnectedness of all people. I am very inspired by new model writers and politicians who are advocating for a more nuanced and respectful tone as a way to win and get more accomplished. I’m also advocating for limiting the ability of powerful AI machines to dictate what we are exposed to. Like other self-fulfilling prophesies, the more violent and aggressive content you are intentionally exposed to, the more violent and dangerous our world becomes. 

The path forward

I believe the ultimate path forward to save our planet and take care of our fellow neighbors is for each of us to embark on a radical campaign of self-improvement called Human Revolution.

The concept is from Buddhist philosopher and leader Diasaku Ikeda. Many will say “I’d be fine if those people just stopped doing that.” The problem in that calculus is that demanding others to change is not something we have the power to do. But changing ourselves is something all of us can do. Even showing a little compassion when a lady is having a total meltdown at a store, instead of shaming her into submission, might actually enact a big change in that person’s life. Simply judging people never will lead to systemic change in society. Shaming people when they’re already upset and confused only radicalizes them and drives them further to the other side. I am choosing to follow this path. It has really served me well in my life and career, and I can sleep at night, knowing that I didn’t intentionally make enemies in this lifetime, but good friends. When we all become friends, even though we sometimes disagree, we all WIN.