Do the values humans and other animals give to change result in mirroring behavior, and do those behaviors affect performance, or the ability to adapt to change to survive and grow?

ARE THERE MORE THINGS INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS CAN'T CHANGE THAN THEY CAN CHANGE? 

Organizations and individuals are constantly changing. There are more things that organizations and individuals can't change, than they can change, a function of their respective scales in space and time, and a function of the scale of the energy they can mobilize over time to affect change, collectively known as the power to influence change. If the opposite were true, organizations and individuals could choose to adapt to any change and exist forever.

To understand and manage the nature of constant change, organizations and individuals assign values to change, using mostly words, numbers, and/or non-verbal/numeric values (not discussed below, but established in the lifetime work of Paul Eckman).

Following the valuation of change using words and/or numbers, organizations and individuals tend to engage in behaviors (change initiations using their mobilized power) that mirror the valuations they have provided to change.

The success of their behaviors following their valuations of change are measured by their performance, using a fusion of words and numbers, known as key performance indicators (KPIs).

Organizations and individuals who successfully perform (or successfully mobilize the power to affect change), engage in behaviors and valuations of change conductive to adapting to change. Organizations and individuals who fail to successfully perform (or fail to mobilize the power to affect change), engage in behaviors and valuations of change that are not conducive to adapting to change, and thus these organizations and individuals become ineffective, obsolete, and/or they cease to exist.

Accordingly, organizations and individuals identify the changes, values, behaviors, and performances that are important to them,
collectively their centers of interest, and develop goals about each center of interest, which when achieved, actualizes the purpose or vision or mission of the organization or individual.

There are many overlapping concepts, theories, and models for performance-based organizational and personal development. The following Janson Matrix link attempts to illustrate how many of these concepts, theories, and models can be matrixed to be able to develop key performance indicators for personal and/or organizational growth.

INTRODUCTION TO THE NATURE OF CHANGE

Heraclitus the Greek is among the first to be credited with observing the constant nature of change. However, there is subjective reality, the way we think things are, and objective reality, the way things actually are. Just because we think something is real, subjective reality, doesn't mean it is real, objective reality. The resulting truisms, everything is real, and nothing is not real.

To align all world views, there are many different words in many different languages used to describe or value everything including, but not limited to, infinite change, infinite power, infinite energy over infinite time, infinite space, God(s), Supreme Being, and/or Grand Architect of the Universe, potentially all different ways of the same thing?

Each language has its own words, sounds, and contexts to describe internal and external change. Much like ice, snow, frost, mist, dew, rain, vapor, steam, clouds, and H2O are all English language words and sounds that describe the same thing, water -- isn't it possible that the languages of the world are employing many different words, sounds, and contexts to describe the same thing, everything, infinite change, infinite power, infinite energy over infinite time, infinite space, God(s), Supreme Being, and/or Great Architect of the Universe, from which we all come from, are a part of, and to which we all return? The answer is more likely yes than no.

Using world views to establish that there are many different ways to say the same thing, by focusing on the similarities, and not the differences, consider the following about the nature of infinite power.

French Mathematician, Émilie du Châtele, was among the first people to understand that some part of everything -- energy -- could not be created, nor destroyed, only transferred, or changed, resulting in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, regarding the conservation of energy.

Returning to Heraclitus, who observed the constant nature of change, he was observing de Chatele's constantly changing energy in the context of the following.

Albert Einstein was the first to measure that energy (E) and mass (m) are proportional, such that anything with mass (m) has an equivalent amount of energy (E), resulting in his famous E=mc2 equation -- which is best understood in laymen's terms as either slowing down energy (E) by the speed of light (c) times the speed of light (c), to the point that it condenses into a mass (m) that can be weighed, to determine the mass (m) of energy (E) or m=E/c2), or speeding up a weighed mass (m) to the speed of light (c) times the speed of light (c) again, to determine the energy (E) of a given mass (m), which when divided by its useful lifetime, results in the mass' or objects inherent power (p), or ability to do work or to affect how other things will change.

Accordingly, we and the environment are Einstein's and de Chatele's constantly changing energy because we have mass, and therefore we have a proportionate amount of energy that cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. In summary, we are, we have been, and we will be, a part of infinitely changing everything, power, energy over time, space, God(s), a Supreme Being, and/or a Grand Architect of the Universe.

We change everything, and everything changes us, as illustrated by the Butterfly Effect, in James Gleick's Chaos: Making a New Science, which describes how multivariate systems instantaneously and perpetually change themselves, change changing change, or everything changing everything.

In his book, he describes how the fluttering of a butterfly on one side of the planet can cause a major climate-based natural disaster on the other side of the planet. Using a variation of this example, a bee bites a zebra, who suddenly takes off running scaring all of the other grazing animals, resulting in a cascade effect whereby all of the grazing animals take off running, which creates a micro wind and which stirs dust into the air, both of which alter the micro climate above the animals causing cloud seeding, which then affects the local climate, which then affects the regional climate, which then affects the global air circulation, which then gives a hurricane just enough energy to reach the shore, which then has just enough energy to displace a levy, which results in massive flooding, which results in massive destruction and untold deaths. It's hard to imagine that something so small like a butterfly or bee could have such a large impact on such a large system, and there are many more smaller things which change everything significantly on a moment to moment basis.

A nuclear detonation is another example of how something small and seemingly insignificant, like an atom, can have a major impact. Consider that purified heavy atoms, like uranium atoms, with a quantity of no more that the size of two grapefruits, when smashed together, can destroy pretty much everything in their path within a five to 10 mile radius, and contaminate soil, water, and/or air for a lifetime.

A third example of how a small change can affect large scale change examines microscopic pathogens like the smallest prions (protein particles that cause Mad Cow disease), or the slightly larger viruses (mostly protein and genetic molecules that cause influenza, AIDS, smallpox, and ebola), or the even larger bacterial and fungal cells (which cause sepsis and flesh-eating disease), or the even larger cancer cell. How many lives, how much productivity, and how much money have these small things claimed?

Of course if small things can cause big changes, then bigger things can cause even bigger changes, as they have more energy or power to influence change, but larger things don't always cause bigger changes. Therefore, every small thing changes every big thing to some extent, and every big thing changes every small thing to some extent.

Returning to Gleick's Chaos Theory above, each variable in his multivariable system was observed to instantly change the value of each other variable, which then instantly changed the value of each other variable, resulting in a chaotic set of measurements with some degree of order or structure to the chaos, when plotted, yielded infinite fractal images.

Click here to see what fractals looks like, and it turns out that these infinite relationships are ubiquitous or omni-present in nature. Benoit Mandlebrot first created number sets and equations to describe these types of chaotic systems, to predict when structure would occur in chaos, and the results were amazing! His number sets and equations can be used to predict how a mountain, seashell, snowflake, or broccoli will change shape, how financial markets behave, where a branch will occur on a tree, where a tree will be found in a forest, when a storm will occur, how a virus will change with time, and how antibodies will change to respond to a changing virus, obviously with some degree of error.

INTRODUCTION TO VALUATIONS OF CHANGE

Because seemingly discrete or non-continuous subjective values, words and numbers, are used to provide values to continuous objective change, it is very difficult for us to understand much about objective reality.

More simply, we use something that doesn't seem to change (words and numbers) to understand what does change (everything), which distorts our understanding of what is real.

An analogy, words and numbers are similar to taking a few pictures of things as they change, versus filming the same things as they change with a video camera. The video camera provides a more accurate understanding of how things have changed, relative to a few pictures, as the few pictures (words and numbers) fail to capture all of the changes that have occurred. Couple this with the fact that the video camera fails to capture changes that are too small or large and too slow and fast to see, and effectively compound the limitation of the pictures (words and numbers) to provide an understanding of everything that has changed.

Short of creativity, we do not give credence or thought to those values (words and numbers) we have not been taught (by our cultures).

LIMITATIONS AFFECTING THE VALUATION OF CHANGE: WORDS

The first example of the flawed subjective values we give objective change when employing words is as follows.

When a lion kills a zebra, is it "true" that the killing of the zebra by the lion is "good" for the lion? It is "true" that the killing of the zebra is "good" for the lion, as the killed zebra provides the lion with the food it requires to survive.

However, is it not also "true" that the death of the zebra is "bad" or toxic to the zebra? It is "true" that the killing of the zebra prevents the zebra from surviving, which is "bad" for the zebra, at the same time that it is "true" that it is "good" for the lion to kill the zebra.
Because both valuations of this one change (the killing of the zebra by the lion) are opposites, and both "true", a contradiction or paradox exists, negating any functional or objective use of the words “good” or “bad”, when providing a single value to a change that results in one living thing killing another living thing. This is one example of the flawed subjective values we give objective change, when using words like “good, bad, nourishing, or toxic”.

The second example of the flawed subjective values we give objective change when employing words examines the word "love".

The meaning of the word “love” means something different to a baby, child, teenager, adult, and senior, based on each individual's unique experiences with the word "love". Some people are loved too much, other people are loved just right, some people are not loved enough, and other people are abused instead of loved. Accordingly, no person has the same meaning for the word "love", as no person has the same experiences with the word "love".

The same can be said for every other word, as no person has the same experiences or exposure to the same words. Therefore, no two people value change in the same manner, as no two people have the same exposure and experiences with the same words used to value change.

The third example of the flawed subjective values we give to objective change when employing words examines the identity of a fresh brave "pea" versus the identity of a "soup", both of which are in the process of changing the other. Is the pea a "pea", or is the pea a "soup"? The correct answer is that the pea is both a "pea and a soup", two different valuations, which occur at the same time.

However, the soup is also a "pot of soup", and the "pot of soup" is also part of a "kitchen", and the "kitchen" is part of a "house", and the "house" is part of a "neighborhood", and the "neighborhood" is part of a "state", and the "state" is part of a "country", and the "country" is part of a "planet", and the "planet" is part of a "Solar System" (which is the supernova cast-off swirling around its formerly larger parent star, often a flaming ball of gas and plasma), which is part of a "cluster" of galaxies, which is part of a "supercluster" of galaxies, which is part of a "filament", which is part of the observable "universe", which is part of "everything" and/or "God(s)".

The following link is an actual photo of the observable universe, courtesy of NASA (financed by US taxpayers).

The orange colors are filaments of superclusters of clusters of galaxies, composed of solar or star systems, and the darker regions are largely empty space, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, but where black holes are also found in galaxies, and where most (95%) of the observable universe is dark energy and dark matter. 

Eckhart Tolle's Power of Now makes short work of all of this, where he concludes that only one thing exists -- everything -- and that humans provide words to cleave up the one thing to make sense of the one changing thing. Space-time fabric supports this perspective, as does the concept of God or Holy Spirit, functionally-equivalent to space-time fabric, or "The Force" in the Star Wars series, from which all life on Earth was created, is a part of, and returns to, resulting is a different kind of Grand United Theory.

Returning, the "pea" is a part of all of these things (or everything), and as such, is not a change agent that has a single value. The same is true for any one change or perceived object or group of objects that can be provided a single value with a single word, for example "ME", or upside down, "WE".

If you take a moment to think about it, "we" and "me" have never been physically, mentally, and/or spiritually the same, as every moment "we" and "me" change, and yet "we" and "me" retain unique identifiers, "we" and "me", respectively, regardless of never being the same, which is odd and confusing.

Moments before the egg and sperm fused to make your first cell, "you" were actually two separate living things, a sperm cell, and an egg cell, or more accurately, there were two very different manifestations of "you", one of which, the egg cell, developed long before the other manifestation of "you", the sperm cell. 

Accordingly,  moments before your first cell, "you" existed in one place (inside your mother's egg cell), and "you" existed in another place (inside your father's sperm cell), and at the same time.

A little later, the two of "you" in two places would fuse to form one of "you" in one place, forming your zygote or "first" cell, which would later divide into two of "you" again, but two totally different versions of "you", and would later divide into 10-90 trillion of "you", and upon your death, most of "you" would die, until just one of "you", your last cell, existed, and a little later that one cell would pop, returning "you" to everything, also "you".

Accordingly, single valuations of change using unique identifiers, words, numbers, or sounds are flawed, because everything changes too much for one thing to be unique for too long, and every whole is composed of smaller wholes.

The fourth example of the flawed subjective values we give to objective change when employing words examines the words “big” and “small”, and other similar words  such as “long” and “short, “tall” and “petite”, “fat” and “skinny”, “dark” and “light”, “fast” and “slow”, “strong” and “weak”, and “young” and “old”. The word "small" can be used to describe the size of the house I live in.

However, as there are smaller houses than the house I live in, the word "large" can also be used to describe the house I live in. Accordingly, my house is both "large and small", and at the same time. As I walk around my "large and small" house, I go for a "short" walk, but because some walks are shorter, I go for a "long" walk at the same time. Accordingly, I go for a "short and long walk" around my "small and large" house, respectively. I walk around the house very "fast", because I am "young, skinny, very tall", and I have a "strong" stride.

However, as there are faster walkers, who are younger, thinner, and taller, with a stronger stride, I go for the "short and long" walk around my "large and small" house in a "slow" manner, because I am "old, fat, short", and have a "weak" stride, all things being relative. On my "slow and fast" and "short and long" walk I developed a "dark" tan, and this is "good" because I'm normally pale and need melanin, but the more Sun I take in, the better chance I have of developing skin cancer, which is "bad". However, as some people develop much darker tans, I barely developed a tan at all, while simultaneously developing a very "dark" tan, as some people have "light" skin by comparison.

Employing numbers to these descriptive or qualitative "measuring" words, used to value change, wouldn’t better the conflict inherent in their valuation, discussed in a later section.

Who teaches us the words we use to cleave continuous everything into discrete or non-continuous words that have similar, relative, and/or opposite meanings? Who socially conditions us to identify and judge the small parts of the whole, and the similar, relative, and/or conflicting relationships of the small parts?

The answer of course, our social groups, our families, schools, churches and temples, corporations, the media and entertainment industries, lawyers and judges, police and members of the military, members of congress, the leaders of our nations, collectively our society.

Different social groups teach different words, which have the same, similar, different, and/or conflicting meanings, relative to other social groups. As babies, we all start off with no words, and we tend to accept the words we learn from our social groups, and their taught meanings as true, even though their meanings may be false, or true and false.

Is it true that it is bad for a lion to eat a zebra? It is seemingly true, as the zebra doesn't want to die and shouldn't be killed by the lion. Is it false that it is bad for a lion to eat a zebra? It is seemingly false, as the lion wants to live, and should kill the zebra to survive.

Is it true that it is polite to burp after a meal? It is seemingly true if you come from Chinese culture, where it is very polite to burp after a meal, to show respect for the delicious meal that was prepared for you. Is it false that it is polite to burp after a meal? It is seemingly false if you come from a European culture, where it is never polite to burp, especially during a meal.  

Is it true that women should dress all covered-up with a veil, and expose only their eyes? It is seemingly true if you come from some Islamic cultures, and it is seemingly false if you come from some parts of Europe or Australia, where it is perfectly acceptable for women and men to walk naked, or near naked, on a beach with only sunglasses on.

Is it true that my worldview is the only legitimate world view? It is seemingly true that my worldview is the only legitimate world view, as it is the only view I have, and I would be very threatened if I had a false worldview. Is it false that my worldview is the only legitimate worldview? It is seemingly false that my world is the only legitimate worldview, as I have only learned how to view the world in a very limited manner, and there are over 8 billion other ways to view the world. 

LIMITATIONS AFFECTING THE VALUATION OF CHANGE: NUMBERS

The above discussions of "we" and "me", and the "pea" and the "soup", illustrate another flaw associated with the numeric valuation of change. If my first cell or one cell is "me", and 10-90 trillion different cells are "me", represented by some 200+ different cell types, how many of "me" are there, one, 200+, or 10-90 trillion? In others words, how can a single whole exist, when it is composed of more than one single whole?

It is important to note here that the human body has 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells, and so are we not more bacterial than we are human? It is also important to note that there is evidence that human cells may actually be ancient populations of bacterial cells, as smaller cells within human cell exist, known as organelles, carrying different types of DNA, illustrated by the two different genomes of the nucleus and mitochondria organelles, respectively, and some human cells have more than one nucleus, and all human cells have many more than one mitochondrion, ranging from one to ten thousand.

Accordingly, am "I" one living thing, or 110-990 trillion living things (times 10,000), or am "I" all of these things at the same time. It is hard to argue that "I" am constantly one thing and unique, because "I" am not constantly one thing and unique, nor is any other thing, so providing numeric valuations to change is very subjective, further illustrated below.

An example of how numbers are equally flawed and subjective can be illustrated using Benoit Mandelbrot's measurements of the circumference or distance around the United Kingdom. Mandelbrot measured the UK using a "standard" measuring device, let's say a meter stick (100 centimeters). Then he re-measured the circumference using a smaller "standard" measuring device, let's say a smaller ruler with only 10 centimeters. He remarked that the smaller the device, the larger the circumference of the island, as smaller measuring devices could fit into smaller cracks and grooves around the island, measuring more distance. In theory, most things can be cut in half, and so infinitely small measuring devices can be conceived, resulting in infinitely large circumferences of the UK island.

Notwithstanding, if the circumference of the UK is measured with an infinitely small device to yield an infinitely large circumference, and these same principles are applied to measure the continent of Australia, and the circumference of a small orange, then each infinitely small measuring device would result in the same infinitely large circumference, for each of the three different-sized objects, though the seemingly larger objects would reach an infinite circumference faster.

Which of Mandelbrot's many measurements of the island using different sized measuring devices is the true objective circumference or distance around the island? The answer is either all of the measurements are correct or none of them are correct. If all of the measurements are correct, and they have different values, then no single objective measurement of the circumference exists. If none of the measurements are correct, then no single objective measurement of the circumference exists again.

The same is resolved with standard measurements, standard units, and standard methods to measure like changes, to compare apples to apples instead of apples to potatoes.

Next, statistics are often employed to infer the numeric probability of large changes by numerically measured small related changes.

However, there is more than one way to perform statistical analysis on a given set of measurements, the results of which can be statistically significant and insignificant for the same set, depending on the statistical design employed to process the measurements.

Accordingly, what is the objective probability of a given change occurring, when there is more than one way to measure the probability that the change will occur? The same is in part resolved by determining the sample size and then selecting the appropriate statistical design and method prior to measuring. 

Another limitation to the use of numbers employs the nature of the "constants" used in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and all of the other quantitative sciences, whereby an "unchanging" value is employed in an equation or measurement used to value changing variables, though that "unchanging" constant may not actually be constant.

A similar concept to constants, is the concept of assumptions, whereby the numbers used to value change, are based on a set of assumptions, which may or may not be correct. The old expression holds here, "garbage in, garbage out", where if the assumptions are significantly incorrect, then the resulting numbers used to value change, will also be significantly incorrect.

To complicate matters, logic, the precursor to mathematics, employs axioms, or fundamental truths, to build logic arguments, and if the arguments are not built in a logical manner, so using false or paradoxal assumptions, then the resulting logic, and the mathematical or quantitative arguments that ensue, will also be garbage. The limits of the valuation of change concerned with logic are addressed in a different section.

As financial models are derived from quantifiable marketing research, inaccurate marketing numeric valuation can significantly alter financial numeric valuation. For example, if I ask ten people who love me if they like my product or service, and find that 90% of the people I ask like and will buy my product, and then I build financial models around these weak assumptions, then the resulting sales of my product across the country will likely not reflect what my financial model expected, based on my weak and biased marketing assumptions.

Statistical design and analyses can increase the strength of assumptions, but statistical design and analyses are also build on math, logic, and future assumptions based on past trends, which if inaccurate and misrepresenting, will again result in poor numeric valuation of change. 

As there are inescapable fallacies in logic, reasoning, and critical thinking, the same results in flaws in mathematics, statistics, and then in physics, and then in chemistry, and then in biology and geology. Nietzsche birds of prey and lamb contribution illustrate this inherent flaw in logic, reasoning, critical thinking, truth, and judgement, where it is true that it is good for birds of prey to eat lambs, because the birds of prey feed and thus survive, and where at the same time it is false that it is good for birds of prey to eat lambs, because the lamb is murdered by the birds of prey and thus doesn't survive.

LIMITATIONS AFFECTING THE VALUATION OF CHANGE: SCALE

As Mandelbrot's measurements of the UK illustrated above, understanding the objective reality is limited by the scale or magnitude of space, and also time. Our most sophisticated technologies are limited as to what changes can be observed in deep space, which create the subjective boundaries of the observable "universe". Our best technologies are also limited as to what changes can be observed in smaller space. What if just behind the observable universe, there was a giant tomato? How would all worldviews be affected if we could see just a little further? For the record, I am not advocating the existence of a giant tomato slightly beyond what we can observe.

Similarly, there is a limited amount of time in the life of an individual, or species of individuals, to learn valuations of change, to be able to value change, which limits the ability of these individuals and species to objectively understand change (all possible values), leaving these individuals and species to fill their understanding voids with their often creative, flawed, false and subjective valuations of change.

In summary, there is more to know, than there are lifetimes to learn what there is to know, and all of that constantly changes.

LIMITATIONS AFFECTING THE VALUATION OF CHANGE: LOGIC

In addition to the flawed and subjective valuation of change using words and numbers, there are also major flaws, paradoxes, inconsistencies, or conflicts inherent in the logic used to relate the numbers and words together, as illustrated by Godel's Liar Paradox, where a liar who states he is always a liar, is telling the truth by stating that he is always a liar, and thus is not always a liar.

In logic, reasoning, and critical thinking, these paradoxes are known as fallacies. Unfortunately, logic is rich with fallacies, and logic is used to construct mathematical arguments, which are used to develop theories in physics, and all other tools used to "objectively" measure change.

Some common fallacies include the following, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear,  Appeal to Flattery, Appeal to Novelty, Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Spite, Appeal to Tradition, Bandwagon, Begging the Question, Biased Sample, Burden of Proof, Circumstantial Ad Hominem, Composition, Confusing Cause and Effect, Division, False Dilemma, Gambler's Fallacy, Genetic Fallacy, Guilt By Association, Hasty Generalization, Ignoring A Common Cause, Middle Ground, Misleading Vividness, Personal Attack, Poisoning the Well, Post Hoc, Questionable Cause, Red Herring, Relativist Fallacy, Slippery Slope, Special Pleading, Spotlight, Straw Man, and Two Wrongs Make A Right.

Despite wanting to report all of this to you in the most objective manner, free of fallacies, like almost all people, I've likely engaged in a whole range of intrusions on logic, reasoning, and critical thinking, because I can't be everywhere at the same time forever, I don't have all of the information, and even if I did, I wouldn't be able to process all of that information fast enough to be able to write down a single word before I died.

Accordingly, the fallacies rich in logic adversely affect the valuation of change using mathematics and physics. That said, and relatively speaking, mathematics, statistics, and physics are less subjective than most other valuations of change, but subjective nonetheless, and this subjectivity is collectively known as "error", "chaos", and/or "entropy".

Therefore, mathematics, statistics, and physics offer a best measurable guess as to what is objective, with degrees of error, good enough to launch deep space probes into space and have them come back to Earth, good enough to remove the organ of one animal and replace it with the organ of another animal, good enough to create diagnostics, treatments, and weapons out of atoms and molecules (changes that are too small to see with the naked eye), but not good enough to predict the weekly weather or hourly fluctuations in financial markets.

Understandably, this best guess is a threat to some worldviews, but as UpRights News explores in other articles, and herein, there is actually common ground between science and religion, enough to merge the same into a single unified perspective.

QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE VALUATIONS OF CHANGE

When addressing the qualitative or subjective valuation of change, a few models needs to be addressed, in order to better understand the "mental model" or "mental valuation systems" of an organization or individual.

Though organizations are mostly considered individuals by law, they are groups of individuals, and so the mental model of an organization is the sum of the mental valuation systems of its individual stakeholders, divided into formal mental models, and informal mental models.

The Erikson Stages of Development address age-specific mental valuation systems of individuals. Skinner and Pavlov's theories of reward and punishment are excellent for understanding the socially-conditioned risk and benefit valuation systems of individuals.

The work of Drs. Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo, provide an excellent understanding of how situational authority affects the mental valuations systems concerned with morality (a variation of risk and benefit valuations). 

Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is excellent for understanding the personality valuation systems of individuals. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is excellent for understanding the motivational valuation system of individuals.

Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory is excellent for understanding a wide range of the cognitive valuation systems of individuals. One of the best mental models I have discovered thus far is presented by David Straker in his book Changing minds: In detail. The mental model of an organization or individual affects their subjective valuation of objective change.

Returning to mathematics and statistics as the best guess method for determining what is real or not real, it turns out that both subjective/qualitative variables and objective/quantitative variables can both be measured using statistical analyses, with degrees of error.

Statistics generate information from qualitative and quantitative data, derived from randomly selected sample variable measurements, creating test and control groups, from which to infer population characteristics. In short, statistics are a measure of what is possibly objective or real, providing snapshots of how components of everything are possibly changing, with degrees of error.

Metrics like statistics, despite their limitations, play an important role in the valuation of change, for the purpose of developing both an organization's strategy, and an individual's strategy, to achieve their respective purpose.

Key words from the Harvard Business Review June 2010 edition, "you are what you measure". Yes, there are the quantitative measurements of change, like power, energy, time, space, ROI, net profit, total tax, inflation, interest, but there are also quantitative measurements of qualitative or subjective variables.

For example, how much do you like X? Very much, somewhat, not really, or do you really not like X? If we were to tally your responses in each category, we would be able to quantitatively measure a qualitative variable, how much everyone likes X.

The subjective or qualitative variable of desire, which can vary significantly between any two people, is hard to measure. But if we create levels, categories, or boxes of desire, and put the response of every person we ask into one of the boxes, then we are able to quantitatively measure a qualitative (subjective) variable.

Why is the valuation of subjective and objective change variables important? Because this allows people (change agents with the power to affect change) and organization's (groups of change agents with the power to affect change) to put a number on people's valuations and behaviors, like the opinion of customers, vendors, investors, bankers, media, executives, managers, employees, employers, consultants, politicians, lobbyists, unions, associations, community, and regulators.

If you can qualitatively and quantitatively measure what people like, don't like, and would like, before, during, and after every interaction, then you can more effectively and efficiently behave or retain, produce, and acquire, what they like, and discard what they don't like, to further your purpose.

If people know about what you provide (your value-based competitive advantage brand's relative position), and like what you provide, and/or how you provide it, then they can be influenced. If they don't know or don't like what you provide, and/or how you provide it, they can't be influenced.

Similarly, with respect to change, if you can measure what adapts to change, what doesn't adapt to change, and what might adapt to change, you can keep what is adaptable, develop some of what might be adaptable, and modify or discard what isn't adaptable.

This philosophy can be applied to variables that impact organizational and personal development change, and is the central premise behind the BCG Growth Matrix, the Product Life Cycle, Balanced Scorcard Strategy, Enterprise Resource Planning, Six Sigma, Total Quality Management, Hoshin Planning, and Kaizen performance improvement tools.

By measuring what furthers purpose, what hinders purpose, and what might further or hinder purpose, an organization or individual may be able to increase the probability that they'll influence change. Where influence is the power to govern change, and where power is the behavior employed to attempt to govern change.

BALANCING POLARIZED VALUATIONS OF CHANGE

Clearly, many valuations of change are polarized, for example, good versus bad, big versus small, fast versus slow, dark versus light, thinker versus feeler (MBTI), organic versus mechanistic, centralized versus decentralized, and formal versus informal. However, as many of these words and their associated numbers are relative to other words and other numbers, such that both polar valuations can be correct at the same time, is there a danger associated with employing polarized or absolute valuations of change? Balancing, the answer is yes, and no.

Is it good when a lion initiates the killing of the zebra? Objectively, it is good for the lion, and it is bad for the zebra. However, subjectively, the lion would likely only view this as good, and the zebra would only view this as bad. If the lion thought about how the zebra feels, and behaviorally mirrored this value, and sought not to kill the zebra, or any other animal, the lion would quickly die of starvation.

Is it good or bad when a pack of lions attacks a zebra in order to profit? Is it good or bad when a pack of corporations or individuals break the laws and/or moral code that protects society in order to profit? Is it good or bad when a number of strong countries attack a weak country in order to profit? It is not good or bad, it is good for some AND bad for others, and at the same time.

Dangerous subjective valuation of these changes would support a single value pole only, good or bad, when the objective value of these changes represents both poles, good and bad. Accordingly, both valuation poles must be considered to more accurately provide valuations to change. All that said, by the end of this section, a case will be made for using polarized valuations of change in some situations.

Failure to adequately consider both valuation poles when initiating change can result in mirrored polarized behaviors that further the polarization of value systems in populations, that can further chronic wars, chronic lending for wars, increased threats to national and hegemonic security, exploding national and global debts, increased trade deficits, increased savings deficits, increased leadership deficits, decreased employment, decreased spending and investment, increased energy and food production needs, decreased energy and food production supply, exploding global populations, and increased human and environmental degradation.

However, employing polarized valuation may actually protect against all of the aforementioned, and so to balance, the valuation of change is situational and subjective. There are no hard rules for the valuation of change, and so no single model fits all.

It may be good for a lion to kill a zebra, but as the number of lions increases with every killed zebra, the number of zebras decreases until there are no more zebras, which results in the mass starvation of the lions, which is not good for the lions. Accordingly, when a lion kills a zebra, it is not only good and bad for the lion and the zebra, respectively, it is bad and good for the lions and zebras, respectively. The result, the short-term gains and losses of the lions abd zebras must be balanced in such a manner that both the lion and the zebra populations can survive in the long-term.

A second example of why polarized valuations of change need to be balanced examines the four personality spectrums of MBTI, composed of seemingly opposite poles, extrovert versus introvert, intuitive versus sensing, thinking versus feeling, and perceiving versus judging, respectively.

For every spectrum, most people are expected to fall more towards one pole on each spectrum, resulting in a dominant personality. Dangerous polarized thinking would then assume that the total opposite personality, the recessive personality, is absent in a person's personality, which would be incorrect. Most people can exhibit all of these characteristics and at the same time.

Many people have been in a group situation where they were very comfortable and stimulated by some of the people in the group, but not at all comfortable or stimulated by other people in the group, making them both extroverts and introverts, respectively, and at the same time. Many people are capable of sensing, taking things at face value, and are capable of intuition, reading between the lines, and at the same time. Many people who have been provided with the right tools, can have a logical or thinking response to a change that has evoked a major emotional or feeling response in them. Many people who have been provided the right tools, can judge a situation as black or white (polarized thinking), and yet they can also see the gray or perceive (balanced thinking), and at the same time.

A third example supporting the need to balance opposites when providing a value to change examines some of the polarized differences between a fluid organic organization and the more rigid mechanistic organization. Organic organizations tend to be
employed when the organizational environment is one that rapidly changes. Mechanistic organizations tend to be employed when the organizational environment is one that slowly changes.

Mechanistic organizations tend to have taller hierarchies and organic organizations tend to have flatter hierarchies. Mechanistic organizations tend to centralize decision-making, whereas organic organizations tend to decentralize decision-making.

Mechanistic organizations tend to have more formal cultures, and formalized processes, rich with SOPs, whereas organic organizations tend to have more informal cultures, and informal processes, with mutual adjustment. New ideas and innovations tend to flow from the top to the bottom in mechanistic organizations, whereas new ideas and innovations tend to flow from the bottom to the top in organic organizations.

Dangerous subjective valuation of these changes would support a single valuation pole only, and embrace the absolute of mechanistic organizational design for a slow changing environment, resulting in a rigid structure that does not adapt to change.

Dangerous subjective valuation of these changes would support a single valuation pole only, and embrace the absolute of organic organizational design for a fast changing environment, resulting in little to no structure, organizational continuity, or focus.

Balancing polarized or absolute valuations of change, would have all organizations apply both mechanistic and organic organizational design features, to some extent, to be able to adapt to incremental and radical change, and to hedge the risks associated with choosing one group of absolutes over their opposites.

That said, people are more easily influenced when change is framed using polarized valuations of change, an innovative tactic used by lawyers, lobbyists, negotiators, politicians, law makers, marketers, and leaders of large groups of organizational stakeholders. This is good for some and bad for others.

For example, if I tell you that it is good for you to eat meat at every meal, due to the protein content and taste, without mentioning that it is also bad for you to eat meat at every meal, due to the microbes associated with meat processing and storage, due to the cholesterol and carcinogen content (when cooked at high temperatures), and due to the environmental and animal degradation that is associated with raising animals for food, then I am influencing you to eat more meat at each meal, if I don't tell you about the other valuation pole.

Conversely, if I tell you that is bad for you and others to eat meat at each meal, and fail to mention that it is also good for you to eat meat at each meal, then I am influencing you not to eat meat at each meal, again failing to balance the valuation poles. If I were to tell you that it is good and bad for you to eat meat at each meal, then I would and would not be influencing you to eat meat, or to not eat meat, at each meal.

Those who seek to influence change, or others (agents of change), rarely present both value poles, especially the value pole that least serves their interests, and so they frame change in a polarized manner that best serves their interests. Controlling which change valuations people have access to, or controlling information, controls how people will behave, as revealed in the next section. Polarized valuations of change frame change in a manner that influences people to seek equilibrium, by motivating them to counter the opposite pole with more of the opposite valuation and behavior.

In summary, it is important to balance absolute or polarized valuations of change, and in some situations, it is important not to balance absolute or polarized valuations of change, depending on the following behavior that one hopes to engineer. At the start of this section, polarized thinking was purportedly valued as bad, and balanced thinking was valued as good. To balance, polarized and balanced thinking can both be safe and dangerous, and they can both be good and bad, like the lion and the zebra. As change is naturally unpredictable, the valuation of change has to be situational to provide organizations and individuals the flexibility to adapt, survive, and grow.

BEHAVIORAL MIRRORING AND ALTERNATIVE VALUATIONS

Regardless if they learn true or false information, young children and adults learn by a process known as mirroring, or mimicking, or copying, or practicing, or social conditioning, essentially repeating a valuation of change and/or behavior (change initiation using power) until what they have learned becomes a habitual component of their mental model.

Unless an organization or individual is trained to be able to deconstruct and reconstruct their change valuation systems, using alternative change valuation systems, they are more likely to mirror the information of their learned valuation system prior to behaving, a learned valuation system that is often limited, due to cognitive dissonance.

For example, individuals and organizations tend to value change in a nourishing and/or toxic emotional and/or logical manner, based on how their brains are structured, and based on their brains' previous experiences and memory of those experiences.

If you are toxic to me (a polar and not balanced undesirable valuation of change), unless I have been trained in emotional and/or social intelligence (an alternative change valuation system), I am exceedingly likely to mirror your behavior, and return toxic behavior to you. However, if you are nourishing to me (a desirable polarized valuation of change), I am exceedingly likely to mirror your behavior, and return nourishing behavior to you.

Emotional intelligence is whether or not we are nourishing or toxic to ourselves, as defined/valued by ourselves, and social intelligence is whether or not we are nourishing or toxic to others, as defined/valued by others.

If you are toxic to me, then using emotional intelligence techniques (alternative change valuation systems) like minimizing the significance or impact of your behavior, creatively searching for a positive in your behavior, deep breathing, and/or implementing a well conceived plan developed in advance to deal with your expected toxic behavior, would allow me to choose to behave in a nourishing manner to you, despite your toxicity.

In summary, the more change valuation systems organizations and individuals can learn, the more valuations systems they can mirror and choose from prior to behaving.

BEHAVIORAL MIRRORING AND ALTERNATIVE VALUATIONS

Regardless if they learn true or false information, young children and adults learn by a process known as mirroring, or mimicking, or copying, or practicing, or social conditioning, essentially repeating a valuation of change and/or behavior (change initiation using power) until what they have learned becomes a habitual component of their mental model.

Unless an organization or individual is trained to be able to deconstruct and reconstruct their change valuation systems, using alternative change valuation systems, they are more likely to mirror the information of their learned valuation system prior to behaving, a learned valuation system that is often limited, due to cognitive dissonance.

For example, individuals and organizations tend to value change in a nourishing and/or toxic emotional and/or logical manner, based on how their brains are structured, and based on their brains' previous experiences and memory of those experiences.

If you are toxic to me (a polar and not balanced undesirable valuation of change), unless I have been trained in emotional and/or social intelligence (an alternative change valuation system), I am exceedingly likely to mirror your behavior, and return toxic behavior to you. However, if you are nourishing to me (a desirable polarized valuation of change), I am exceedingly likely to mirror your behavior, and return nourishing behavior to you.

Emotional intelligence is whether or not we are nourishing or toxic to ourselves, as defined/valued by ourselves, and social intelligence is whether or not we are nourishing or toxic to others, as defined/valued by others.

If you are toxic to me, then using emotional intelligence techniques (alternative change valuation systems) like minimizing the significance or impact of your behavior, creatively searching for a positive in your behavior, deep breathing, and/or implementing a well conceived plan developed in advance to deal with your expected toxic behavior, would allow me to choose to behave in a nourishing manner to you, despite your toxicity.

In summary, the more change valuation systems organizations and individuals can learn, the more valuations systems they can mirror and choose from prior to behaving.

BEHAVIOR FOLLOWING THE VALUATION OF CHANGE

Stephen Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, proposes that goals (scheduled behaviors following the valuation of change) need to be prioritized, developed, and implemented around "centers" of interest, and that completing goals around these centers, collectively results in the actualization of the individual's purpose.

The equivalent of purpose for an organization is the mission statement, about which goals are developed, to actualize the purpose or centers of interest of the organization.

Scheduling the tasks to complete goals around centers of interest and missions is a necessary step in further the purpose and mission of individuals and organizations, respectively.

Work breakdown structures can be used to create flow charts of the energy and power-based resources and activities required to achieve purpose and mission. Gantt charts can be used to plan out tasks, goals, and purpose. PERT charts can be used to identify bottlenecks or opportunities for purpose and mission achievement improvement. Activity-Based Costing can be used to assign resources to specific behaviors. Notwithstanding, a wealth of other overlapping considerations can be added to this simplistic model, borrowed from organizational and personal development research.

For example, goals (intended behavior based on valuations of change) can be developed for every type of intelligence identified by Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory (with some paraphrasing from Karl Albrecht and myself here), social, emotional, artistic, spiritual, naturalistic, practical, IQ, and physical intelligence goals, respectively.

Similar goals can be developed using MBTI personality poles, extrovert, intravert, intuitive, sensing, thinking, feeling, judging, and perceiving goals. Goals can be developed for Maslow's (and Peter Draker's) Hierarchy of Needs (or hierarchy of motivators), survival, security, socialization, status, self-actualization, and stimulus goals. Goals can be developed for the Balanced Scorecard developed at Harvard (paraphrasing here), marketing, financial, operations, and innovation goals.  Goals can be developed for the Star Model, strategy, structure, processes, people, and rewards. Similar goals can be developed for the innovation model, business and technology model goals. Goals can be developed for each of the 5000+ KPIs found at the KPI Library link below.

For each of these broad goals, more specific sub-goals can be developed, which frame, research, [a]nalyze, [d]esign, [d]evelop, [i]mplement, [e]valuate (ADDIE), innovate, and reevaluate the sub-goals in a [s]pecific, [m]easurable, [a]chievable, [r]ealistic, and [t]imely manner (SMART goals).

To facilitate the behaviors that follow the valuation of change (or purpose, vision, mission, strategy, or goals), consider the following organizational development tools, internal and external stakeholder analyses, PEST analyses(political, economic or environmental, social, and technological), SWOT analyses (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), GAP analysis (where you are compared to where you want to be), 360 feedback, learning organization modelling,  structured decision-making, and opportunity-cost or risk-benefit behaviors. For anyone who would like an Excel template for goal setting that shows how all of these tools mostly overlap, please email me.

After the valuations of change, and after the behaviors following the valuations of change, the performance of the behaviors need to be assessed, to identify and keep behaviors that further purpose or mission goals, to identify and modify or discard behaviors that don't further purpose or mission goals, and to identify and acquire new behaviors to further purpose or mission goals.

PERFORMANCE OF THE BEHAVIORS

Performance studies examine the success of change valuation choices and the behavioral choices that follow, by assigning the behaviors a value, using numbers and words, collectively known as key performance indicators (KPIs).

Organizations and individuals can use KPIs to construct scorecards to measure the accomplishment of goals around each purpose or mission center. These scorecards for each goal concerned with each purpose or mission center can be used to construct dashboards, ideally one page visual goal status summaries.

Accordingly, a dashboard composed of KPIs for each organizational and individual center can help organizations and individuals actualize their goals, centers of interest, missions, and purposes.

The dashboards allows the organization or individual to understand where they are in the achievement of their goals, purpose, and/or mission.

In order to develop a single page scorecard for each center, organizations and individuals need to research and analyze their external and internal political, economic, social, and technological (PEST analysis) change environments, and then analyze their strengths (competitive advantage), weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis), and then plan, implement, integrate, and innovate their goals to actualize their purposes.

In addition to internal and external PEST KPIs, some major KPIs to consider for measuring the performance of organizations or individuals include Balanced Scorecard Model KPIs (marketing [organizational and competitive geographics, demographics, and psychographics of products/services, prices, places, promotions, persuasion, positioning, people, portfolios, processes, and packaging]; finance [opportunity cost decision-making]; lean operations; and innovation [business and technology models]); the Star Model KPIs (organizational strategy, organizational structure, organizational processes, people, and rewards); the Structured Idea Management (SIM) model KPIs; and KPIs for models which develop learning organizations.

Coupling the analysis of these KPIs, and/or the 5100 KPIs provided in the link below, with a statistics-driven Six Sigma, Kaizen, TQM, and/or Hoshin process improvement program(s), is proven to increase organizational and individual performance.

Depending on their unique centers, missions, and purposes, organizations and individuals can analyze, plan, implement, integrate, and innovate their way to success, by using this information to develop and implement high performing dashboards for each of their centers.

Fantastic websites for increasing performance and developing dashboards, http://www.changingminds.org/, https://secure.kpilibrary.com/login?site=library, and http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com/sample-kpi/.

The latter two website provide free access to over 5100 key performance indicators by industry and process, but require the user to sign-up for a free membership. The first website provides access to information tools to help people perform better by understanding their mental models and the mental model of others, as per UK influence guru, David Straker.

His amazing book, Changing Minds: In Detail, is rich with knowledge on the workings of the human mind and mental modelling, excellent for developing marketing, sales, customer services, negotiation and other influence solutions, and equally excellent for developing and implementing vertical, horizontal, geographic, and external boundary solutions for organizations.

ASSETS ARE MADE OF ENERGY, HAVE A USEFUL LIFE, THUS HAVE INHERENT POWER TO AFFECT HOW THINGS CHANGE 

Here it is important to note that de Chatele's and Einstein's energy equations result in the fact that assets are inherently made of energy or have an equivalent mass, also have a useful life, and so every assets has an inherent amount of "power" to affect how things will change, based on the equation for power = energy/time.

Accordingly, the more assets an individual, family, group, organization, and/or interorganization has, the more power they have to affect how things will change. 

Happiness research has proven that more assets make others happier if they don't have enough access to the assets required to survive and grow, but once others have enough assets to survive and grow, more assets doesn't make them happier, instead the quality of their relationships is what makes them happier. The same is found in animal behavior research and incel research, where those with little to no access to a resource they believe they need to survive and grow will make them more aggressive, violent, and to the point of risking their lives to acquire that or those assets. All of the same is in part explained by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, where human animals first are motivated to survive, then to feel safe, then to feel loved or included, then to seek higher social ranking, and finally to seek self-actualization.

Accordingly, all animals need a minimum amount of access to certain assets or power to change their happiness or aggression towards other animals. Without the same, there is crime, civil war, world war, and general human misery.

The exception to the same is mental illness and networked mental illness, for example the corporate culture of the failed billionaire experiment, which leaves some people, sociopaths (unable to follow the law, the rules, or social convention), malignant narcissists (unable to empathize with the needs of others and thus are driven by self-interest first and foremost), sadists (unable to stop themselves from harming others), Machiavellians (unable to stop themselves from deceiving others to serve their needs), kleptomaniacs (unable to stop themselves from stealing assets or resources from others), and/or obsessive hoarders (unable to stop themselves from constantly seek more access to assets or power than they need to be happy, in a manner that makes them and/or others unhappy, and/or unsafe).

Here, an individual, family, group, organization, and/or interorganization will first engage in ongoing organized crime, alone and/or with others, to access more and more assets, regardless of who they harm or kill on the way, unable to stop themselves.

This progresses into kleptocracy (stealing assets, resources, rights, offices, or obligations from the government and/or the people), then oligarchies (stealing a "critical mass" of assets, resources, rights, offices, or obligations from the government and/or the people to be able to operate above the law, and/or with minimal consequences), then monarchies (stealing a "critical mass" of assets, resources, rights, offices, or obligations from the government, oligarchs, and/or the people to be able to operate above the law, and/or with minimal consequences, as the top oligarch in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), despite already being in a position of self-actualization (get to do what they want, but that isn't enough to ease their mental illness), and so the same turns to theocracy, (when the top oligarch forces a new religion on those they can manipulate or control, so that as many people around them as possible will worship them, their family, and their proxies as divinities, divine, God, and/or gods, for as long as they can manipulate the same with the assets they stole and hoarded, in hopes the same becomes "cult"ure, manufactured by cult of personality resulting in imperial cults -- the end stage of malignant narcissism.

As George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, what breaks the cycle of these imperial cult cultures is another malignant narcissist on the rise to a cult of personality, oligarchy, kelptocracy, monarchy, theorcracy, and imperial cult -- influencing others to reject the old culture of worship of old narcissists as monarchs or God(s), and to embrace their savior, the solution to all of their problems and the world's problems -- the newest generation of malignant narcissists on the rise towards a cult personality, oligarchy, kelptocracy, monarchy, theorcracy, and imperial cult -- in a cycle that is as old as almost all known written history (his story) -- is a reasonable inference or observation.

In Animal Farm, the pigs are the first on a farm to question the culture of their oppression, by their farmer, who is their monarch, and part of a networked cult of personalities of oligarch farmers, and so the pigs influence animals on their farm, and then everywhere, to revolt against the unequal treatment of animals in constantly laboring to serve the needs of the narcissist farmers, eventually leaving the pigs in charge, who then by the end of the book become the narcissist monarchs and oppressors, supported by their oligarchy, under a cult of personality, and/or imperial cult. 

All of the same is really an example of dominance hierarchy in animal populations, where the most deceptive and vicious animals take their unequal share of the resources required to survive and grow, each alpha male or female later replaced by younger alphas on the rise. The same may explain why some human animals aren't able to control themselves in their dominance needs over others, which puts them at the top of the hierarchy in the animal kingdom, but at the bottom of the hierarchy in civilized societies, making them more beast than human, who overall have the ability to survive without harming other animals, but who have cultures that struggle to do so, in a manner best described by the Stanford Prison experiment, where if you provide some personality types with the opportunity to dominate, exploit, or harm others, then they will jump at that opportunity, like a child on a chocolate bonbon, unable to stop themselves from doing so.

Doctor Matha Stout summarized the same in her book, The Sociopath Next Door, also presenting the world of Stanley Milgram, whose collective works propose than 1/25 people is an altruistic (motivated by helping the group and others in a mostly selfless manner), and 1/25 people is a sociopath (motivated by helping themselves in mostly a selfish manner), and that 23/25 people can be swayed either way depending on scarcity of abundance mentality, and where the same is also true in other social animals. 

This is where and why the failed billionaire experiment employs scarcity and fear-based deception, active measures' weaponization and polarization of natural differences in populations, and other techniques, including but not limited to DARVO, the principles of influence, and the techniques of neutralization -- to sway 23/25 people towards the shared mental illness of the failed billionaire experiment's sociopathy, to manufacture the "critical mass" required for them to remain in power, above the reach of the law, in order to expand their ongoing organized crimes towards kleptocracy, oligarchy, monarchy, and finally theocracy.  

In Darwin's On the Origins of Species, it was the strongest animals who survived all of this, but in human animals, deception in the use of currency and assets, allows among the weakest animals to become the alphas, but only if they wield their assets or powers stolen by deception to manufacture the "critical mass" required to defend them from being removed from power. 

Otherwise, without that "critical mass" of deceived supporters, revolution by stronger and more human animals remove them from power.

As H.G. Wells once observed, civilization (of privatized socialists -- the failed billionaire experiment -- who advocate against socialism or the sharing of the resources required to survive and grow) is the race between education (the deception of the masses by way of propaganda, control over communications, mail, internet, artificial intelligence, social media, and new outlets) and catastrophe (of the privatized socialism reserved for only the failed billionaire experiment, and their proxies).

This can be used either way by the failed billionaire experiment and/or those the overpopulation they exploit and/or murder for profit, "Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us 'learn' the 'truth' and 'spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow'. For the truth [and/or its self-serving opposite] is 'the greatest weapon' we have."

To balance, UpRights News also explores how this moral relativism and social Darwinism (the richest survive) of the failed billionaire experiment is a poor solution to the real threat posed by overpopulation in the long-term, relative to other better population control measures, which result in less human suffering, better allocation of non-renewable and renewable resources, but which don't feed the respective and collective/networked mental illness of the failed billionaire experiment, who resist innovation to serve their mental illness -- primarily because they, like the overpopulation they murder and exploit for profit to keep overpopulation in check by organizing serial murder -- are unable to stop themselves.

All of the same could be remedied by better leaders in top government positions, better laws, better policies, education, and innovation.

Just like an obsessive hoarder or kleptomaniac can't stop themselves from stealing and/or hoarding more assets than they could reasonably need or use, in a manner that harms themselves and/or others, for which government, legal, and medical/behavioral intervention is justified and employed, the failed billionaire experiment which suffers from these and other mental illnesses, need government, legal, and medical/behavioral intervention, to prevent them from making the rest of the world as sick as they are with their failed corporate culture, mirroring and facilitated by their respective and collective mental illnesses.

The solution to the world's problems is to end the failed billionaire experiment. To provide them the mental health treatment they and their victims need. To humanely-reduce the world's population to a sustainable level by advocating and employing a one child policy via education, policy, and cultural reforms, and to develop an approach to living that almost exclusively depends on renewable assets or resources. 

Otherwise, humans, who have already engineered the 6th largest massive extinction event on Earth under the mentally-ill and failed billionaire experiment leadership and culture, are sure to kill themselves and most other life on Earth -- which will rebound thereafter (as it has in the past) -- best summarized by Robert Oppenheimer's Hindu quote by Bhagavad Gita -- "now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".

Regardless of bribes, and regardless of mistakes, and regardless of deceptive propaganda -- government intervention is required to stop those who can't stop themselves and/or others from harming other people. That is the central role of government, to prevent preventable harm for the greatest amount of people, not the least amount of people, orchestrating and/or benefiting from that harm.