Game of Change.The American Way of Life is so strongly entrenched that it seems impossible to change within any reasonable span of time—even for any reasonable reason. But could that be an illusion? Perhaps the status quo is not quite so strongly entrenched as we think. And appreciate that change rarely happens with adequate warning.

For the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: 'If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?' And whenever the answer has been 'No' for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Steve Jobs

---

I have often said that if ever I get reincarnated in reasonable form—which I guess means human for the purposes of this exercise (I’m far from sure being an academic python would cut it. How would you hold a book, let alone turn the pages?) I’ll study cognition.

I jest, of course. We both know I’ll become a writer all over again.

It frustrates the hell out of me that we don’t really know how we think—let alone how other people think. However, that eminently reasonable goal has competition. Another subject fascinates me also—and that is change. I would really like to understand how the process works—and how to achieve it.

I have been endeavoring to change things for most of my life—and my track record is mixed. Perhaps trying to change both the Irish and U.S. economies (consecutively not concurrently)—not to mention the U.S. Army—set the bar too high. Failures have scarred me—and yet I have had successes. But, being human—and not a python—I’d like more.

As you read this, you probably think I’m making this up. Feel free to believe just that if it fits your mental model of how the world works—but you would be wrong.

I used to think that the sheer logic of an argument supported by the balance of the evidence would result in a change in direction—but clearly that is not so. Why not? Because we are much more emotional than rational animals—and we are extremely vulnerable to propaganda. That means that vested interests—who benefit from the status quo and who are prepared to spend enough money—can seem to stop even the most eminently sensible reforms even if the majority support them.

Let me proffer Congress as an example. It has an approval rating of under ten percent—and yet we already know that most members will be re-elected.

Let me put forward Big Business as another example. Polls demonstrate that a significant majority of Americans are concerned that corporate power is excessive—and yet it seems to increase by the day.

And yet, there are faint signs that the Maginot Line, that is the status quo, is vulnerable.

And, by the way, the Maginot Line really was a formidable barrier to invasion—so much so that the Germans went around it.

Think of these signs as the slightest of the kind of tremors that may—or may not—portend an earthquake of epic proportions. They are the kind of manifestations that most of us will rarely notice—unless directly involved.

In fact, they appear downright inconsequential.

In that spirit, let me put forward a current Time magazine story on

10 Things Americans Have Suddenly

Stopped Buying

• Cereal
• Soda
• Gum
• Guns
• Cupcakes
• Chef Boyardee
• Golf Gear
• Razors
• Bread
• Convertibles

Doesn’t mean a thing? I think it might.

---

July 27 2014: Tiny weeny things that fly and spy—and what such development signify. Incidentally, this nano drone isn’t American. It is the British PD-100 Black Hornet. Before long, it could equally well be Chinese or Iranian. So where are we going with all this?

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

The trouble with weapons technology linked to globalization is that it seems to be becoming increasingly difficult to retain a technological advantage. No sooner do you come up with a new widget than the other guy seems to have it too—or, if he hasn’t quite got it yet, he soon will.

The key point is that you don’t retain a competitive advantage for long. Back in the days of the longbow, you could be ahead of the game for hundreds of years—as the English were with the longbow. Today—where some technologies are concerned—you’ll be fortunate to be in front for much longer than a year, and it could be merely a matter of months.

The next logical development from this trend is that the other guy will have the development first—and we’ll be playing catch-up.

All of that should be a strong argument in favor of world peace—but if you look at the Middle East, it seems fairly clear the locals haven’t got the memo.

Have we? Based upon our behavior since 9/11, it would seem not. In fact, we’ve been engaged in more military adventures than ever—with not much to show for it except a vast increase in our National Debt, and considerable political advantage for our enemies.

War has a close companion called Unintended Consequences we really need to get to know better. 

Where the U.S. is concerned—nuclear weapons apart—our military dominance is based upon the strength of our economy (which allows us to maintain a more powerful military than anyone else) linked to airpower. True, we have strong land forces and a formidable navy as well, but our edge comes from the air.

The not so good news is that we are losing our economic advantage at a fairly rapid rate—and doing very little about it—and our aerial superiority is no longer something we can take for granted. We will certainly retain air dominance in terms of aircraft for a considerable time to come (I won’t comment here on the cripplingly expensive and technologically challenged F-35), but that may well be of limited advantage if missile technology continues to improve. Consider what the Chinese are achieving with missiles. Consider what both the Russians and the Chinese have already achieved in space. Consider what military progress a slew of other unfriendly nations are making that we don’t know about—but can imagine.

Imagine what we can’t imagine.

“Make love not war” seems to make more and more sense to me. My books, being thrillers, tend to feature both.

---

Does technology affect your cognition—and specifically your ability to write? That’s something I think about.

Even if you’ve shunned all distractions, you still won’t absorb information you read online as well as you would if you’d read it in a book. And you can blame hypertext for that. Those colorful little links scattered throughout online articles (including this one) make your brain work harder than it would otherwise, leaving less brain power to process what you’re reading. Even just reading on screens, like a laptop or iPad -- links or no links -- has been shown to diminish comprehension.

Research has shown that reading linked text “entails a lot of mental calisthenics -- evaluating hyperlinks, deciding whether to click, adjusting to different formats -- that are extraneous to the process of reading,” Carr wrote in “The Shallows.” And giving your brain more work to do makes it harder to absorb information. Text that’s peppered with photos, videos and ads is even worse.

---

It’s strange—to the point of being destructive—how we classify and grade occupations. It is my observation that most human activities require more cerebral involvement than we normally credit. Overall, I don’t like the division between the respect we give manual as opposed to cerebral work. There is an assumption of superiority there which owes more to class superiority than to merit. I was brought up to believe in it implicitly. I no longer do so, and now regard such attitudes as destructive.

Be that as it may, writing is generally considered to be an almost entirely cerebral activity—and I certainly pay great attention to anything I see regarding cognition.. Firstly, I know I rely on my mind to write; secondly, I am acutely aware of both my mind’s strengths and weaknesses; thirdly, I am decidedly uneasy at the effect of the barrage of propaganda we have to endure 27/7; fourthly, I am even more concerned at the possible consequences of how we currently communicate.

Where the latter is involved, I am referring to everything from the phone to the internet, to tablets, to the Smart Phone—and, in particular, to texting. We seem to have evolved a culture of interruptions—the last thing a writer needs. As for multitasking, it is best left to helicopter pilots (who have no choice).

I have never flown a helicopter though I have spent a few hours in simulators. I flew a Blackhawk adequately, but the Apache blew my mind. Flying a helicopter is hard enough, but gunship crews have to shoot and communicate as well—and control drones. Now, that really is multitasking (while people are shooting at you). 

I salute you guys.

I am absolutely sure that technology has an impact on cognition. As for one’s ability to write—I’m not sure I can tell. It is certainly vastly helpful in many ways, but I’m equally sure it can be destructive to focus—if you let it. Getting into the zone and staying there is a discipline which requires work. In particular, you have to make a conscious effort not to be distracted—not an easy thing in the context of our current culture.

The 2011 book The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains, by Nicholas Carr includes the claim by neuroscientist Michael  Merzenich that technology is causing our brains to be “massively rewired.”

This led the Huff Post to put together a provocative piece on the negative effects of technology. I’ll just list the headings.

1. Tech is screwing up your sleep.

2. You’re easily distracted.

3. You can’t remember much...

4. ...so you’re relying on the Internet to remember things for you.

5. And you're much more forgetful than you used to be.

6. You can’t concentrate on what you’re reading.

7. You can’t find your way around without GPS.

8. You have the brain of a drug addict.

Good grief! If that little lot is a consequence of utilizing technology, the prospect of becoming a real drug addict has singular appeal. Clearly, many Americans agree with me since half of us are on legal drugs already.

I’m not, as it happens. I’ll take meds in extremis, but I find they dull the brain—and who knows what multiple meds do to you. Very few have been tested in combination.

Now to make a confession: People apart, the most distracting influence—as far as I am concerned—is the radio. I love it so—and turn NPR off with the deepest regret. But if I am to get into the zone, it has to go.

You don’t want to know what I feel about texting—except that I rate it along with leaf-blowers—and it’s the strongest argument I know in favor of capital punishment.

---

Monaco is not the way it used to be—but I remember it fondly. We used to vacation there when I was growing up—and it was where I had my first writing assignment. It also featured more stunningly beautiful topless women than a sex obsessed teenager should really be exposed to. I did not complain.

I pay a lot of tax, and I feel, one of the reasons I stay and pay why I'm not based in Monaco... I think my country helped me.

J. K. Rowling

---

Yes, I do blog ahead sometimes. If the words are flowing, I keep going. I should not really post the result immediately—one a day is more than enough—but, once written, I like to see them up. Yes, I should (perhaps) be more patient…

I'm never, I hope, stupid enough to believe that Twitter or blogging or any of this stuff is a substitute for actually doing the work or writing a book.

Neil Gaiman

---

Another reason I post blogs ahead of the due date is because they look different—and better—once posted. Once up, I’m very reluctant to take them down. Call it pride of authorship. I also want to get onto the next one—or something else. I work hard to limit the time I spend on blogging. I regard it as an important discipline—but absolutely not the main event.

As far as I am concerned, a blog is officially posted when I put its date in the title. Up until then—while it is undated—it is only there unofficially. There is a date above it at that stage put there automatically by Blogger (the web service) but you will notice it is not in the title. In effect, an officially posted blog is dated twice—once in the title and once above it.

Confusing? I hope not. It’s just my system to ensure I have one blog a day.

I find I am switching much of my blogging to the weekend to keep my main working days clear for more serious tasks. The exceptions come when an idea grabs me by the throat (ideas will grab you anywhere to get your attention). Then I find it makes most sense to write the thing there and then.

I tend not to get blog ideas when I’m in the middle of something else important. Being in the zone is all about focus so it has an insulating effect. However, when I take a break, or do a chore, ideas have a habit of infiltrating.

Ideas are wonderful, and I’m driven by them, but they are also fickle, elusive, unpredictable—and ruthless. You can have an idea—yet you can never own one. If so inclined, they will do anything to get your attention—yet they will betray you in a heartbeat. Once gone, you don’t know quite what you are missing—but the sense of loss is palpable.

But, they are the stuff of life—and fascinating

---

Many of us don’t seem to know it, and most don’t want to think about it—but yes—Americans are getting poorer. A little poorer? No, a lot. The typical household has suffered a decline of 36% over the last 10 years. The decline of the U.S. is happening now—and it is happening frighteningly fast. At the same time, it is quite true—the rich are getting richer.

From the 1970s, there has been a significant change in the U.S. economy, as planners, private and state, shifted it toward financialization and the offshoring of production, driven in part by the declining rate of profit in domestic manufacturing.

Noam Chomsky

---

I don’t particularly like writing about the economic decline of this genuinely Great Nation. I prefer writing about creativity, or exploring technology, or talking about my books. Above all, I prefer humor. I get enormous pleasure from interjecting some wit—even if it is only a twist at the end of a piece—the kind of remark that will make you chuckle. I’m a great fan of the chuckle. Laughter is a wonderful thing, but I grew up in an environment where the chuckle was more common and dry wit the thing. It was also de rigeur to have a sense of the ridiculous—and, of course, it still is. Real life is more Monte Python than Plato.

The reason I do write about U.S. economic decline—and the economy in general, from time to time—is that I have some expertise in this area and I am genuinely concerned. I care.

I am also delusional enough to hope that I will get through to a few people who will initiate some remedial action. I have learned from experience that you don’t have influence a lot of people directly to make a difference. You merely have to connect with the right people—and “light the fuze.”

If that seems an impossible task, reflect that mass movements normally start with one person. You may feel like an insignificant ant in a country with a population of 316 million (and climbing) but you are not. You can make a difference—if you are so minded.

The frustrating thing about this current decline is that it is unnecessary. My research shows that there are solutions for just about every single problem this country faces—and most are proven. We also have more than sufficient resources to implement all of them—and at speed.

We have opted instead to be a nation of ostriches. The tag line below reads: “The motion has been made and seconded that we stick our heads in the sand.”

It seems to be the one and only thing we can agree on.

The following is an extract from the NYT of July 26 2014.

The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation. Those are the figures for a household at the median point in the wealth distribution — the level at which there are an equal number of households whose worth is higher and lower. But during the same period, the net worth of wealthy households increased substantially.

“The housing bubble basically hid a trend of declining financial wealth at the median that began in 2001,” said Fabian T. Pfeffer, the University of Michigan professor who is lead author of the Russell Sage Foundation study.

The reasons for these declines are complex and controversial, but one point seems clear: When only a few people are winning and more than half the population is losing, surely something is amiss.

So one might think.

---

July 26 2014: Book writers are entrepreneurs—especially these days. Well, let me introduce you to Chris DeVore, a startup and seed-stage investor of exceptional insight.

Founders aren't born but made, first by the hurt the world gives them, and then by their lifelong fight to forge that hurt into something beautiful and strong.

Chris DeVore

---

I have never met Chris DeVore—though we have spoken on the phone (which he answered himself). I was very impressed by our conversation,—he was empathetic and generous with his time—and have been reading his blog ever since.

He rarely fails to impress, but this time—see below—he has excelled himself.

His business is investing in technology companies, but his insights could equally apply to thriller writers such as myself—and, arguably, many a driven creative person.

Let me show you a sample. This is a particularly brilliant piece. The man gets it—and what he says is both important and true. We entrepreneurs are as described—and we are damaged goods. But, with luck, we are constructively damaged.

It takes a particular talent to detect the latter. Chris clearly has it. He writes well too. He is, as they say, a man of parts.

His blog is called CRASH DEV and his company is FOUNDERS CO-OP

The one thing you can't teach an entrepreneur

Posted: 24 Jul 2014 11:38 AM PDT

Startup founders are like sponges.
You basically can't be an entrepreneur if you aren't relentlessly curious about people, technology, business and culture -- constantly remixing those ingredients in your head to find new and better ways of doing things.

Because they're so intellectually agile, founders can learn almost anything if exposed to the right vectors, whether it's high-performing peers, experienced mentors, academic environments or direct trial-and-error.

But there's one thing that can't be taught—and I know because I keep hoping to be proven wrong about it and making the same mistake over and over.

My work as a startup investor isn't focused on companies, but on founders: helping extraordinarily smart and creative people reach their full potential as creators, builders and leaders. Whenever I meet someone with the intellectual and emotional capacity to be a founder, I want to do whatever I can to help them realize that goal.

But there is an awkward truth about successful founders—awkward because it can manifest in decidedly ugly and antisocial ways. At the deepest levels of their psyche, often hidden even from themselves, they have a hunger that they can't control.

This hunger goes by many names—ambition, competitive drive, the will to win—and it's hard to talk about because it is formed around a hard kernel of insecurity and shame.

For every successful founder I know the story is the same: somewhere along the way someone important to them told them they weren't good enough and would never amount to anything. The anger and self-doubt embedded in them by that searing experience becomes a nuclear core fueling their relentless drive for the rest of their lives, long after they have proven the doubters wrong.
Founders who learn to bank and control this fire are among the most productive and effective people in the world. Those who fail to master it self-destruct as their hunger for domination leaks into their personal relationships and poisons their capacity for empathy.

But no matter how brilliant a founding team is, if one member of that team doesn't carry this uncomfortable burden, that startup's odds of success go from low to infinitesimally small.
It can't be taught—in fact it would be wrong to try, because it would require inflicting deliberate emotional damage on another human being. Though risky, it can be added, by bringing in additional founders or early hires who carry necessary the emotional scars. But if it's not baked into the culture at the most fundamental level, no amount of investor, mentor or board support can infuse a startup with the unstoppable force needed to overcome the indifference, hostility and scorn that the world piles on anyone who dares to try something new.

Founders aren't born but made, first by the hurt the world gives them and then by their lifelong fight to forge that hurt into something beautiful and strong.

---