Chris Hargreaves

Student of Life

Chris Hargreaves

About Trust, Not Trump

by

From my vantage point here in Australia, it’s interesting (albeit disturbing) to watch the rhetoric around the recent riots and violence at Capitol Hill.

This, it has been said, is the obvious and predictable culmination of a president like Donald Trump who is divisive and hate-filled, and of the political right’s narrative around the election results which has stoked the fires of insurrection.

While it’s possible – likely even – that those things added fuel to the fire I struggle to land on the conclusion that they were the primary cause.

In truth I think the recent (and, let’s be honest, ongoing) dissent is the by-product of a larger problem: people have no trust.

Specifically, people have no implicit trust in the institutions that used to command it. I use “institutions” deliberately broadly, to canvas both sides of the political spectrum and basically all organised media.

Most likely, of course, those institutions will continue their skewed approach to labelling and blaming others rather than introspectively pausing to consider whether their own behaviour, character and methods have played an important role along the way towards the recent chaos. No doubt they will consider themselves to be whiter than the driven snow, in pursuit of their virtuous objectives.

But why should I trust you, institutions?

Are the words from our politicians words that I can assume to be accurate, forthright, honest? Do we have candour? Do our politicians admit their mistakes? Can we really believe anything people in powerful positions say now? Perhaps more importantly: do we?

Does media boldly present the truth? Or does the media now devote its efforts towards willfully ignoring facts that don’t align with their narrative, and spinning the rest so that it does.

Why should I trust people who discarded a desire for the truth some time ago, and now seek only to promote a message? Why should I trust you when your approach to the people you agree with is so materially different from your approach to the people you don’t? Why should I trust you when your agenda takes priority over your humanity?

Generally what happens is fairly simple psychology: we believe that people who say things we already agree with are telling the truth. Whereas, things we don’t like or that we disagree with must be lies.

This is just another way of saying: we don’t trust anything.

Until trust exists, dissent will probably continue. It might not look like people climbing government walls, but it’ll be there.

Personally though, I have hope. Over time the problems will become apparent, things will shift, people will reflect, and change will occur. That is generally how it happens, after all.

The Politics of Hatred

by

I cannot recall a time in my life when people hated each other as much as they do now. Or, at least if they did, I didn’t have to hear about it quite as much.

Of course, to hear some talk about it they will blame the current state of things on Donald Trump – because they hate him.

Indeed, the Hate Trump Party has been in fine voice this week. Trump is, after all, the cause of all evil in the world and therefore it’s OK to hate him.

But just as important as hating Trump is ensuring that if others don’t hate Trump as much as they should, then those people should be hated too.

After all, if you don’t hate Trump then you’re a fascist. And because you’re a fascist, we can simultaneously ignore your opinions and feel vindicated about hating you all the more.

But it’s alright, because we can combat your evil fascim and create unity by implementing a system of laws and norms that require you to speak in a certain way, redirect your money in a certain way, tell you to act in a certain way, and we will silence you if you express different opinions than those which we deem to be OK.

Now some in the Trump Can Do No Wrong party will react badly to this. Trump is, after all, the President (for the moment) and TCDNWers should support him at every available opportunity. His words are taken out of context, and you virtue-signaling child murderers in the NewSpeak department haven’t a clue what you are talking about. You regularly lie and mislead the public, and with the helpful interference by their big tech and media puppeteers you get away with it.

You Trump Hater socialist psychopaths want to destroy freedom of speech and literally build monuments to a movement which rampaged through and set large parts of the USA on fire for 7 months under the guise of “peaceful protest”. Your goal is to systematically dismantle the foundation of the entire country with your crazy ideas and insane reinvention of obvious facts.

So you might hate us, but we gonna hate you right back.

And this is where we seem to find ourselves. The systems that exist for people now only exist for people we agree with – and everyone else can get stuffed. The politics and the politicians who are supposedly there to be a unifying force of checks and balances against each other, testing and weighing and presenting alternative views and solutions based on learned contemplation and wisdom – are now simply teaching us how to hate each other.

And, from the looks of it, we’re learning the lessons very well.

Dependent, Independent, Dependable

by

As infants, we mew and cry, wave our arms and make it abundantly clear that we are utterly dependent on our carers. This is as it should be since, after all, it is true.

As we grow we start to assert our independence. We want to do only we what have chosen to do, do it our way, and in our own time.

Of course, not everyone even makes it that far.

Despite the semblance of independence, many remain just as dependent as the infants they used to be. Dependent on parents, lovers, bosses, government and more. Sure, they might dress well and sound the part, but if you read their Facebook comments, complaints and laments it becomes quite clear that they are still just mewing and crying, waving their arms and waiting for others to solve the problems of the world. The wait for handouts in the form of money, work, opportunity, validation and more.

Others manage to climb out of that type of dependence but get stuck at independence. To read the many self-help novels that stack our digital shelves you’d be forgiven for believing that independence is the ultimate goal – that working on myself until I reach the pinnacle of success is the best that life has to offer.

It’s true, of course, that improvement is an important part of our maturity. Getting better, stronger, smarter, more informed, articulate and spiritually aware today than we were yesterday is an essential and meaningful activity of any normally functioning adult who desires a modicum of satisfaction.

But independence has its limits – after all, independence is only ever about ourselves. It’s about my goals, my life, my money, my brain, my achievement, my job. An over-the-top focus on ourselves, our own needs and our own success is usually a good ticket to a crisis.

Truly, a focus solely on independence isn’t the highest and best use of our gifts and talents.

Instead, we receive so that we can give. Our striving and success, our achievement and talent, our work and our reward are ours so that we can give to others. We master our craft not only because it is fulfilling in itself but also because it allows us to commit to more next time. We strive for excellence not just because that is right but because

With these things, we know that we can be depended upon. We can say “yes I can help with that” more often, knowing that we can. We have integrity and commitment, energy and the power to deliver on our promises. We say what we mean and we do what we say.

We start utterly dependent, needing others for everything.

We climb to independence, largely able to function for ourselves.

But our goal is to be dependable, not just functioning for ourselves but for others too.

So which are you?

Redefining Alpha

by

You don’t need to look very far right now to find the word “alpha” used as a form of condemnation. But what if we’re getting the idea of “alpha” all wrong?

What if being “alpha” didn’t mean what people think it means? What if we redefined alpha rather than smashing it to pieces?

“Alpha bullies” and, just as often, “alpha males” can “no longer be tolerated” according to some writers. Sounds pretty bad, although the number of things that can no longer be tolerated seems to be quite long at the moment, and I’m not sure whether my intolerance can keep up.

I do suspect I’m not what most people would call “alpha”, if only because I was once called “intimidating” by someone who was in a stressful situation and my colleagues thought it was one of the funniest labels ever to be applied. Plus my neck isn’t thick enough.

But as I read the swathe of commentary about how toxic, dangerous and generally unacceptable “alpha” culture is, it’s not always entirely clear that the authors of drastic opinion pieces have taken the time to define their latest entry into the pejorative lexicon.

And then I have to stop and think (always dangerous) – what if being “alpha” didn’t mean what people are saying it means? What if we redefined (or, perhaps, properly defined) alpha rather than smashing it to pieces?

What if aggression, bravado and dominance are actually just a side-show and not the main game? Perhaps true “alpha” bears no resemblance to what it has become known for, and our goal is not to condemn it but understand it better?

But what if alpha was less about aggression, and more about protection?

What if it was less about bravado and more about bravery?

What if dominance wasn’t the centrepiece, but rather provision?

For as long as our stereotype of alpha remains in its current form, all we can really do is tell people what we’re against. Young men and women with more forceful personalities will take away the message that they are inherently broken and evil, full of intuitive characteristics to be abhorred rather than shaped.

Perhaps we should be careful we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps the alpha role isn’t what the current rhetoric wants to sell us.

Perhaps it just needs a better definition.

Always Do the Optional Run

by

Despite my body mass index measuring close to the single digits, I sometimes engage in a bit of cardio.

A while back I was testing out different forms of digital running “coach” to see whether they were any good (spoiler alert: they were OK, but not great).

One of them would regularly have a run of X minutes/kms, followed by an “optional” run of about the same again.

So here’s my question: would you do the optional run, or would you stick with the essentials only?

One decision, made consistently over time, can make the difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary in our life.

Did We Get Too Smart for Self Discipline?

by

Not too long ago, self-discipline was the primary driver behind achievement. Knuckle down, work hard, see results.

And then we got smart.

We started talking about habits, neuro-plasticity and the science of behaviour – all great concepts and tools for self-development.

But as we explore these excellent tools, we can start to think that self-discipline isn’t relevant anymore – it’s somehow been replaced by a series of smarter, more modern life hacks that are easier to execute.

Nothing could be further from the truth.