NUANCE

The N-word We Should All Be Using

---

I do not consider myself to be particularly smart or clever or unimpeachable in my thoughts, words or deeds. I have learned to hold my beliefs loosely, always trying to be respectful of other’s opinions and willing to engage in reasoned, respectful debate with those who might be open to doing the same. I’m ashamed to say that hasn’t always been the case. Although I might like to think I have always been at one with my empathy, that’s not really been true and it has taken many difficult and painful experiences to understand the need to meet people where they are at and not where I’d like them to be.

The seeds of this approach though, were sown in my school days. As someone who has certain reservations about the efficacy of our educational system, (Nuance nod #1: This does not extend to those on the front line, who, just like those in the medical profession, I hold in the highest regard.) I can’t fault this part of my teaching. In a world were the focus is increasingly of the STEM subjects, it was the humanities I was particularly drawn to and where I was introduced to the skills of debating and critical thinking.

To be honest, at that age it was probably lost on me and my performance may have reflected that, yet the foundation was laid and it has remained ingrained in me throughout adulthood, and once I was able to detach myself from the most harmful elements of my ego it has served me well. Being asked to take on a position, particularly one that you don’t agree with and present reasons to support this stance was particularly useful in learning how to view situations from both sides of the divide. At the surface level it certainly seems to be a skill that is lacking throughout the world today, regardless of the participants age, wealth or social standing. (Nuance nod #2: I’m not suggesting that this is the only reason for the division that is so prevalent in modern times, however I am saying that the inability to walk a mile in someone’s else’s shoes is certainly one of the main contributing factors.)

Despite the furore around the cancel culture these days the truth is that it is nothing new. There have always been people in society who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner, regardless of whether or not they themselves resided in luxuriously elegant glass houses. There is usually a hidden agenda, some profit to be made, a benefit to be gained by diverting folk’s attention from the really spurious shit that is going on. (Nuance nod #3: In many cases this can actually be a subconscious attempt by the perpetrator themselves to distract from their own issues which they are unwilling or unable to address.)

What is different today though, seems to be the noise level, due in no small part to the fact that it appears to be so equal opportunity and open to all. Previously only the media really had the power to shine a light on perceived injustices toward something or someone and when that came in the form of quality investigative journalism, holding those in power accountable for its misuse was a great thing. There has always been a need to keep those who might abuse their position in check and whilst social media is certainly a tool that allows us to do just that, there does appear to be a section of society who have become so drunk on the autonomy provided they now feel like it’s fair game to go after anything or anyone. (Nuance nod #4: Don’t get me wrong. Putting a tool in the hands of the oppressed and downtrodden which allows them to air their grievances raw and unedited is a wonderful thing.) The power is most definitely with the people and that can only be celebrated. What a responsibility it is though. To drive, to bank, to invest, to vote, all of these things require some level of testing or certification yet to target someone’s life, their reputation or their livelihood, you need only an internet connection. It doesn’t quite add up.

Social media has weaponised the conscious and the unconscious alike.

In turn the media, having found themselves frozen out and disempowered to some extent, have joined the party. More and more, quality journalism is becoming a thing of the past and shocking clickbait headlines are becoming the norm for large conglomerates as well as the plucky start-ups. In an ideal world the media should be there to keep us informed, to share insights they have gleaned, to speak truth to power and public alike, and while there are still some journalists out there to be lauded, Matt Taibi and Matthew Syed to name just two who I admire, it is really only the bloggers, podcasters and the independent thinkers who are free to speak truthfully, whilst the rest tow the party line and whip up anger and division to feed the media machine. (Nuance nod #5: There are still plenty of quality journalists out there who entered their profession with that admirable mission of speaking truth to power but meeting the basic human needs of food, water and shelter have a tendency of cowing even the most idealistic, intrepid reporter.)

With all this in mind, can we really blame them then? They are trying to make a living in an attention economy and attention will always focus in the first instance on the negative aspects of humanity. This is known as negativity bias and exists for a very specific reason. We evolved to always be on the lookout for threats and danger and whilst that may have served us well in days gone by, today our relatively comfortable existence has blunted life’s more extreme attacks, leading us to look for danger in less obvious places. (Nuance nod #6: This does not mean there are not real threats still out there, only that by degree there are less things likely to kill us around each corner.)

To accept this reality requires an ability to see beyond the shine and unfortunately, as a species, we’re more Magpie than third eye. We don’t do well with nuance. It seems to hold that same ethereal quality as irony and satire. Tantalisingly beyond reach for those who struggle with subtext and shade. And of course, the more complex the issue, the more fear will compel us to attack or retreat from it, making it easier to ridicule and reject than to explore and interact.

This is not a criticism, simply a statement of fact. In the Information Age we produce so much data, consisting of so many conflicting views and theories that it would be impossible for any one person to be able to hold a fully informed and comprehensive view. In fact a recent article on Big Think references a paper released by Theoretical Physicist and Senior Lecturer Melvin Vopson relating to his theory, "The Information Catastrophe," which posits than in the most severe scenario, it could take just 130 years for all the power generated on Earth to be sucked up by digital data creation and storage.

If a system built for storage could end up struggling, what does that mean for us? Studies have consistently shown that whilst we are capable of absorbing massive amounts of observational and emotional data, we can only cognitively process between 4 - 7 pieces of that information at any given time. NLP refers to the filter used for this process as the Meta Model, by which we distort, delete, and generalise through the prism of our own deeply held convictions and experiences, regardless of whether they are objectively right or wrong. Similar concepts in psychology reinforce this line of thinking, such as confirmation and actor/observer bias. In the former we both consciously and unconsciously seek out information that reinforces our own viewpoint whilst in the latter every interpretation we make comes from a position where we believe ourselves to be the more highly evolved human while those who disagree with us are obviously of a much lesser intelligence.

Ridiculous I know but it brings us back once again to the topic of nuance or lack thereof. There are so many things out there that deserve our protests and attention, yet we consistently allow ourselves to become distracted by lesser evils. We have not been taught how to cultivate the ability to see what’s under the cover and as a result spend too much time chasing the wrong spectres.

We appropriate and present ideas and perspectives of others into a way that fits the narrative we prefer and then set about cancelling those who misappropriate or misrepresent our own ideas and perspectives.

Conspiracy theories abound yet are we really taking the time to sit back and consider the logic behind them? No matter the country you live in do you really think your frontline government officials with their ever-revolving support cast of supporters and sycophants are capable of concocting and executing such complex schemes? In a world where money talks of course it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that there is a shadowy cabal of rich and powerful people out there leveraging everything to their benefit, but do we really think Donald Trump or Boris Johnson might be the brains behind it all? (Nuance nod #7: That is not to say that they are not highly intelligent people in their own right, far from it in fact, but I think it’s fair to say their ‘gift’ lies in self-promotion rather than strategic planning.)

Jeff Bezos, for example, is the richest man in the world, worth more than the GDP of many countries, yet we seem to think that he can be controlled by elected officials. I don’t know enough about the man to talk about his personal politics or what he truly stands for yet it would be easy to make assumptions simply based upon the constant stream of complaints that pour forth from his warehouses or the culture that seems to operate within, however, if we’re honest, it’s hard not to admire what he has accomplished. No doubt that is due in no small part to a huge dollop of ruthlessness, but it would be naïve to not take some lesson from the sheer efficiency by which he operates. That is hard to replicate and if you’re reading this thinking you may just be one of the few who can, then I would suggest you might be in the grip of some actor/observer bias right this very second. Unless of course you are Jeff Bezos…in which case…shit, I’ve said too much already…

Those who operate with such efficiency embrace pragmatism much more readily than perfection which is the reason they achieve in the way they do. They hold their positions loosely and possess a flexibility that allows them to pivot with ease. (Nuance nod #8: The danger here is that pragmatism, when so deftly held, can eventually lead to the abandonment of principles when the sweet taste of power and position has been experienced.)

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. - Harvey Dent: The Dark Knight

That said, I digress. This was not intended to be a meditation or exploration on conspiracy theories. Simply a continuation of my thinking on the need to step away from black and white absolutes and embark on more shades of grey sojourns. About the need to check our emotions and opinions at the door and embrace the core skills of debating and critical thinking, which lie in developing the ability to inhabit the mindset and origins of opposing viewpoints. The first step, and always the most important, is to ask yourself how you would react to someone challenging your deeply held belief in a confrontational or dismissive manner rather than by entering into calm and reasonable discussion. Would it encourage you to change your opinion or would it simply lead to you doubling down on your starting position?

Being able to control the narrative is a power we would all like to possess (likely why some of the richest people on the planet own large media empires. Shit, sorry Jeff, there I go again…) but, in as much as it is possible at all, it begins by being able to consciously curate the stories we tell ourselves in order to find the truth hidden within. Only then can we hope to have the skillset necessary to interpret the tales woven on the tapestry of society. There are so many examples that could be used to highlight just how egregiously and how often duplicitous or purely ignorant tactics are utilised on a daily basis that it becomes depressing in and of itself. However, since we seem to have decided that the real danger to the world is posed by celebrities rather than corporations, I’m going to explore one that doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon.

I am a father, measured by metrics of my own and those of my kids. As both a father and an uncle to an exclusively female cast it would be fair to conclude that I am also a fully paid up member of the Women’s Rights Movement. (Nuance nod #9: As much as any man truly can be of course.) Yet I am not a perfect father by any means. Like any parent I have made multiple mistakes and have had to learn on the fly. Mistakes I have made with one child I have tried not to repeat with the next, but it is an imperfect science and I am learning constantly and will continue to do so until my dying day. My youngest daughter, like so many of her Gen Z contemporaries, is an avid supporter of the LGBTQ community and believes fervently in equality for all. She is also a massive Harry Potter fan and so she has been having her first experience of how it feels to have skin in the game when cancel culture comes calling. Feeling it is incumbent upon me to help her navigate these unfamiliar waters for the first time, so that she can develop the skills necessary to come to her own fully informed conclusions, we have discussed this on many occasions, because even I, as an adult, have had to make adjustments to my perspective on the topic.

Initially, my stance reflected my general approach to life, which is one of a live and let live variety. I support the right of anyone to live as they choose so long as it is not at the detriment of another and herein lies the issue with practically every opposing belief in the human canon. It becomes ridiculously difficult to accommodate everyone without compromise. Whilst I have no issue with living your life as you choose, I have also held the opinion that it is hard to argue with the science and the threat that bad actors would pose to vulnerable women in certain circumstances. Two things became apparent through our discussions. Firstly, she was only getting full exposure to one side of the story and more importantly, when all perspectives were on the table, she simply looked at me with incredulous awe that neither side could make provisions to accommodate the other. (Nuance nod #10: She, like so many of her generation, are already way more emotionally mature than we give them credit for. They may be raw and naive in certain aspects of their thinking but is that really such a bad thing? Yes, they are powered more by ideals than by practicality but the condescending nature by which we tend to react to this teaches them more about subjugation than empowerment and leads to them doubling down on their beliefs or worse still, abandoning them for a life less vital.)

We have a responsibility to do better and so I continued to ponder the topic and employed the approach to nuance that I am promoting by attempting to view this scenario from the perspective of a transgender person. How could I identify with an identity of which I know nothing about? I found a way to filter it through what might not at first glance have been a comparable experience, but in actual fact subtly nudged my position in ways that I might not otherwise have considered.

As I have said I am a father, by my own metrics and those of my kids yet if I were to feed you a little more information you would see that there is more to the story. By many other metrics, biology in particular, you would not be inclined to agree with me at all. If you were feeling charitable you might refer to me as a stepfather but considering their mother and I never married and are no longer together, even that may fall foul of technicalities in the eyes of another. This, however, is family life in the 21st century. I know I am not alone and there are many men and children out there who find themselves in a similar scenario. In the past, when asked if I had kids, I would go through the whole convoluted backstory so that it didn’t appear as if I was trying to claim to be something I wasn’t. I no longer do, simply because I wasn’t a fan of either of the responses I typically received. The first, a blank stare which betrayed the cry, “well that would mean you’re not a dad at all you crazy freak,” or the contrasting celebration and praise for ‘sticking by’ the kids, as if my responsibilities toward them were severed when the relationship ended. Neither of them was true. Nuance was and is required. So, the question then became, would it be true to say that biology trumps all and defines that I am not and will never be a father or do my actions, responsibilities and commitments counteract that?

For me, the answer was simple. I am a father because I love my kids. I am a father because that love is returned. I am a father because my commitment toward them takes precedence over the limiting notion that biology would declare I am not. It is not possible to simply turn off the feelings I have toward them. I have no choice in the matter. I am a father because my lived-in experience makes it so. (Nuance nod #11: And this is the most important one of all…this does not mean that I get to ride roughshod over the rights of their paternal father. I don’t get to have my cake and eat it. They share DNA which I do not, and should I be so inclined, no amount of feet-stamping or protesting could ever change that fact. The truth though, is that it doesn’t matter. By displaying the adaptability that typically only the younger generation possess and which we downplay at our peril, the most important choice is the one that provides the most benefit for all. Progress over perfection. Principled pragmatism that serves the needs of all no matter how imperfect that may be for you personally. Everyone has a right to be heard, everyone has a right to be recognised, everyone has a right to be respected.)

Our kids have had to learn to live with the uncertainty that we, their predecessors have created for them and their argument is that they have had enough. We, in response, argue that it was no different for us, but it is our grandkids who will inherit an even greater mess if we continue the trend and fail to learn to live together in a way that is more respective of our differences. That is not to say that the younger generation have it all worked out. They are still fallible and have much to learn about nuance. It is our job to teach them, not by telling them, but by showing them.

Every good thing that J.K. Rowling has ever done, for charities, for women’s rights, even for the LGBTQ community has been thrown out by a percentage of young people who we have failed by not teaching them about the power of perception and the importance of critical thinking. As the accusations increased, she published an essay clarifying her own views and the genesis from which they stemmed, revealing the past abuse that she has experienced. Proof that for all her money and success, she’s as human as the rest of us, driven by her own confirmation bias. This message was not heard nor acknowledged.

Of course, the fears she has may be attributable to a simple minority but isn’t that what the positions of both sides are all about? Putting in place systems that protect the vulnerable? If you refute the rights of those who might be at risk doesn’t that make you part of the problem? Can we truly bin J.K. Rowling’s lifetime of achievements simply because she has a position that we don’t fully agree with? Does this mean that we should pay no mind to the indisputable fact that were it not for her philanthropic endeavours she would be the only billionaire author on the planet? Have Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint or Emma Watson, who made their careers and fortunes through the opportunities afforded by the universe she created, donated an equivalent percentage of their worth to similar causes? And does it make their stance less noble if that is not the case? Of course not. In most cases people differ by degrees rather than huge distances yet we allow emotion to dictate that the space between us can never be reduced by logical means preferring instead to silence or cancel the supposed offender.

So what you might say? It’s the way it’s always been and it’s the way it will always be, yet I simply cannot accept that. For better or worse, Jeff Bezos and his contemporaries are the proof of that. In all civilisations it is the mavericks, the rebels and the renegades who looked at a problem and decided that it didn’t have to be that way. That if no-one else was willing then they would be the ones to solve it. They reframed impossible as simply improbable and set about reverse engineering the solutions. There are independent thinkers and entrepreneurs out there today who embody this approach but have set their target toward a higher aim than that of power and position. Their focus is on humanity enhancing disruption and their method for change starts with you. Each and every one of you. At the individual level, which is of course the only level at which we can ever truly hope to affect the narrative.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. - Gandhi

Don’t try to burn it down. Set about reshaping it in ways beneficial for all by leveraging the two most valuable commodities you possess, your attention and your wallet. Vote with both. You are a shareholder and a consumer therefore you can decide which direction business, government and society moves in. Demand better standards from old and new media alike. From politicians and peers to industry and education. Seek out conscious companies and give them your trade and support. Look for those who embody the Humanity Plus model championed by Vishen Lakhiani, Founder of Mindvalley. Those in power can only stay in power by giving us what we want so we must be more discerning with our dollars and learn to ask for more. Their basic human needs are no different from ours so if you threaten their bottom line, they will respond more quickly than you might ever imagine.

Yes, change takes time, but this is not for us. This is for those that follow. For our kids, our grandkids and the many generations to come. In an era where there is much ado about realising one’s own human potential, (Nuance nod #12: I’ve been known to rant about this on occasion too.) the originator of the self-actualisation theory provides a fitting example of intellectual flexibility. Late in life, Abraham Maslow came to realise that he had made a major omission in his thinking. He might have said nothing and left his legacy untouched, but his authenticity saw to it that this was not a choice he could make peace with. He saw the merit in rising above one’s own needs and aiming for loftier, higher goals and this was personified in the modification he made to his most famous accomplishment. He recognised that the true actualisation of human potential created collective, long lasting benefit for all, a process he named self-transcendence and that is and should always be the true aim of humanity.

I encourage you to follow this same path. To embrace flexibility in all your interactions, allowing ideas and perspectives to breath and accepting the fact that if you, in all your complex complexity can’t be summarised by a simple tweet or a few lines of copy then why should we apply that same flawed metric to another human being?

Let’s lean into this complexity by celebrating diversity and practicing inclusion in all forms. In a world that is moving ever closer to personalised solutions, from medicine to advertising let us both embrace and subvert that model by encouraging individuality while also acknowledging the sanctity of society. It will never be perfect but with patience we can make it more progressive, in the most practical application of the word. By learning to live together in a manner that respects the rights of all. There will always be bad actors on both sides utilising deletions, distortions and generalisations to further their own causes but we have the power to reject these old tropes and lay the foundations for a new direction by making nuance the North Star by which we enter every interaction, for the good of one and the good of all.

Take Aim…Transform…Transcend…

Skywards…