In an April 6 essay in the Globe and Mail, Thomas Homer-Dixon makes the case for the value of fear.  Homer-Dixon writes that conventional wisdom deems fear as bad and that fear just begets more fear.  In the article, he writes:

“But, in this case, conventional wisdom is wrong. The truth is that fear is good. The economic crisis we're facing is not at root the result of too much fear but of too little. If we had been more afraid for our economic well-being, we would have saved more, borrowed and speculated less, and been more cautious about letting financial wizards make bets with our money using opaque mathematical models.

Today, if we were more afraid for our futures and those of our children, we would be doing much more to address potential problems – such as climate change and nuclear terrorism – that could derail our societies tomorrow.”

Let’s look at the definition of these two key words Homer-Dixon is discussing: pessimism and optimism.  According to the dictionary on my trusty Macbook:

Pessimism is defined as “a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future.”

Optimism is defined as “hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.”

As usual, Homer-Dixon makes a strong argument in his essay.  However, looking at these two definitions above, I would put a somewhat different frame on his discussion.  I would argue that neither optimism nor pessimism is helpful in and of themselves.  In my view, the real culprit is tunnel vision.  Many of the issues we face today – including the current financial crisis – are the result of tunnel vision.  Tunnel vision can result in looking at only one piece of the issue or just within one timeframe.  Sometimes entire populations are guilty of it, while other times individuals in key positions have tunnel vision.

In the case of the current financial crisis, tunnel vision resulted in a relatively small amount of individuals being focused on profit maximization over a very short term. There is possibly no human-made system that is more connected than the global economic system.  Those connections exist, yet were ignored.  The result is the crisis we see today.

Rather than keeping the blinders on, we need to start playing “connect-the-dots” in our decision-making. In his 2006 book The Upside of Down, Homer-Dixon carefully explains how our global systems are linked, or “tightly coupled” as he puts it.  These ever-increasing connections in our world require us to understand the linkages between our decisions and the impacts they have beyond just what tunnel vision allows for. Disregarding these connections and the impacts of decisions across economic, environmental and social realms is unproductive at best and irresponsible at worst.

Taken to the extreme, optimism and pessimism are both forms of tunnel vision.  Taking off the blinders allows for a better understanding of the whole, an ability to see connections and to understand implications over a longer timeframe.  For the natural optimist, connecting the dots will create a more thorough understanding of impacts to create a more holistic picture.  This will likely temper the blind all-is-going-to-work-out-for-the-best instincts of these folks.  For the pessimist, connecting the dots will enable an understanding of potential opportunities to move from the doom-and-gloom into more positive solutions. 

Either way, the focus should be on creating productive and realistic solutions.  Taking off the blinders is the best way to make this happen.

- John, April 8, 2009 

Labels: change, complexity, learning

¶ 11:57 AM