A thousand ways of doing right and a million ways of doing wrong

The theory

Another email comment about my post on feelings said that they'd have liked to see something about play on it. My take on that is that play isn't just about feelings, it's more like a way of going through the wheel of life. For me, play means that you go about it flexibly, not always watching the same things, thinking the same thoughts, feeling the same feelings, making the same choices and doing the same deeds. It's deliberately introducing some playful randomness in the spin of the wheel.
When I was a child, my parents tried to instill in me a strong sense of right and wrong, and on the importance of doing the right thing. Then I got as a Christmas present a book on prehistoric life and evolution. For me, that was the strongest proof you could ever imagine that there isn't such a thing as the one right thing. The book said that all life you see around you, from oak trees to sparrows to butterflies to mould, evolved from the same root. Clearly, there isn't the one right way of living. There are millions of forms of life that are quite good at living their lives. And each of those forms of life separated from each other at some point: they were the same species at the beginning, but there was one change (called mutation), and since then, they have gone their separate ways.

On the other hand, the book said also that most mutations are harmful. Most of the time, a mutated living being is worse at staying alive than their parents, and is stillborn or dies young. Most innovations don't work well at all.

I thought the same principles surely applied to a human life. There isn't one right way of doing things, there are many opportunities to try something different, and many of those paths will be perfectly good. But even more of those paths will be dead alleys that aren't a good idea at all. That's when I thought my motto would be: "There are a thousand ways of doing right and a million ways of doing wrong."

Being playful is nothing but knowing this, maybe by instinct. Just because you have found one right way, it doesn't mean it's the best, there may be better ones. Keep trying and you may find them. But most of the time, being playful will mean that you fall flat on your face. If you can take it cheerfully and heal quickly, like the youngsters of every animal, you'll be fine.

The practice

Experiment 1

Watch a kitten, a puppy or a baby playing. How often they are doing something very silly? How often they risk hurting themselves? How often you notice that they've learned something they didn't know before?

Experiment 2

This is a classic from the sixties. You can do it on your own, but it's more fun if you do it with somebody else or in a group. Take an old piece of clothing that you don't intend to use any more. How many different things can you try doing with it? Anything goes, from trying silly ways of wearing it (can knickers become chic hats?) to tearing it to rags and finding new uses for it (you never know if you'll ever have to improvise a rope to escape from a tower...)

If you haven't discovered something new about clothes by the end of the experiment, you aren't really putting your heart in it.

Key concepts: The forest branches join at the top

The theory

For some reason, my readers have made the most comments about my post on feelings. One email said that they wished there was something about creativity on it. My first reaction to that is that creativity, whatever you want to say about it, is not a feeling! It doesn't really belong in a post about feelings.

But if it isn't a feeling, what is it, exactly? My best answer to that is: an emergent behaviour in a system. If that sounds like gobbledygook to you, let's take it slowly. First, let's remember that when we talk about systems, we could be talking about just anything that has many interacting parts: it can be a human being, a group of people, a computer network, an ecosystem, an ant nest, the solar system. "System" isn't any specific type of thing, it's a way of looking at things.

"Emergent behaviour" means that you know exactly what you put in a system, you know how the system works inside, and you know what came out, but you still are surprised by what came out. Something completely new and unexpected happened. Strictly speaking, it's just saying that you couldn't predict it in spite of having all the information. Maybe if you were a super-intelligent creature you wouldn't be surprised at all. For a cat, balls of yarn have emergent behaviour. They can't really tell which way they are going to go when they pounce on them, that's why they find them so entertaining. Children learn very young enough of how a ball moves that to be entertained by a ball they need far more complicated games.

Creativity is a great example of emergent behaviour. You tell a bunch of people exactly the same information, and some of them will come up with a solution that you wouldn't have thought of in a million years. Even better, you may give that information to a group of people, and the group may collectively come up with a solution that none of the individuals could have thought of on their own.

Some general properties of systems can tell you a lot about how the system is going to behave, including whether it's likely to be interesting - using the jargon: have emergent behaviour. These general properties put together a lot of the ideas about systems that we've seen before. That's why I put on the title of this post: "the forest branches join at the top". This was inspired by the description of a friend of mine of what it was like going to college: "You start by learning a lot of isolated things, like the separate trunks of different trees, and then you go up and up the trunks, and you wonder why you are climbing all these different trees... and then, one day, you discover that at the end of those trunks are branches, and the branches join at the top, and it's all interconnected."

These are the three main general properties of systems:

• Connectivity: This means how much each part is connected to other parts. For example, the transport system of rich countries and the different organs inside the body have high connectivity; beachgoers and tiger communities have low connectivity. Generally speaking, systems with high connectivity are more likely to have emergent behaviour.
• Complexity: There are many definitions of complexity, and one of the most common says that a system is complex if it has emergent behaviour. I don't like very much that definition because it's almost like saying: "A system is complex if you find it hard to understand" and that is really saying more about your intelligence than about the system. Another definition, that I like more, says that a system is complex if it's highly structured, in other words, if you can recognize a lot of clear patterns and configurations inside it. Highly structured systems almost always have emergent behaviour, so the two definitions are for most purposes equivalent. When an animal dies and decays, it goes from being very complex to becoming a rather simple system. Complex is often confused with complicated, but they are different ideas. A complicated system has a lot of different parts, but the structure may be very simple. Complicated systems are a challenge to your memory and patience, complex systems are a challenge to your intelligence - often a challenge you will fail. A city is complex and complicated; beehives are complex but not very complicated; the people on a beach and the sand and pebbles on the beach are simple systems; chess games and many gardens are complicated, but not very complex.
• Resilience: Resilience is the ability of a system to withstand external shocks and keep its main characteristics intact. In less fancy words, a resilient system is tough, you could stomp on it (literally or metaphorically) and it will cope. Most cities and living creatures have proven to be very resilient; many tourist resorts and most gardens (those that aren't designed by permaculturists) aren't resilient.

In future posts I will say more about these general properties, what they tell us about a system, how they relate to each other, and how to get more or less of them.

The practice

Experiment 1

Think of an organization you are part of (it could be your place of work or a voluntary organization you take part in). How well connected are the people within it? Is the internal structure simple, complex or complicated? How resilient do you think it is? Have you seen the organization behaving unexpectedly? Do you think any of these properties is affecting another?

Experiment 2

Go to the nearest garden to where you live. It could be a park or a vegetable garden, it doesn't matter. How much interaction do you think there is between different plants? Does it look simple, complex or just complicated? How long do you think it would keep its character if there were no gardeners? Do you think any of these properties is affecting another? Do these observations tell you something about what kind of training the gardeners had?

What's in a link? - or - Who are you?

The theory

A commenter on the post about feelings talked about leading by example. This takes me back to networks and the question that some people asked when I sent the first mail-out telling them about this blog: "Who are you?"

Whenever somebody asks me "Who are you?" I can't help but being surprised at how people can say Zen koans without thinking anything about it. "Who are you?" is fundamentally impossible to answer. My instinctive response to that is always to shrug, palms up, as if to say: "Well, here I am."

Of course, when somebody asks: "Who are you?" they don't mean it at all. You can tell because they are quite happy if you reply to their question by telling them who they are. What they are asking, actually, is: "What is the link between you and me?"

In networks, links are more important than nodes. In a social network, the type of link you have with somebody will determine all sorts of things, including whether they will take your example. In a food web, the type of link means the difference between eating and being eaten!

Usually, a link will mean one or several of these three things:

• Time dedicated to the relationship: It's easy to fall in the trap of thinking that if I spend this much time with you, you spend the same time with me. This is often true, but not always. For example, a person may spend a long time writing and composing a letter that another person only skims through. A hunting animal may spend a long time waiting for and watching the prey, but for the prey it's just a very fast moment of fleeing away. As a general rule, the link is always more important for the side that dedicates the most time to it.
• Material flows: All sorts of things may pass from one node to another: gifts, food, raw materials, money, etc. As a general rule, the link is more important for the receiving side, though often a link will represent an exchange of one thing for another. In that case, the link is more important for the side that needs most what they are receiving.
• Information flows: We often think that information usually flows in both directions, but that isn't true. If you listen to the radio, the information only goes from the radio station to the listener (unless they're taking calls from the audience). If you carefully watch a cabbage, you may learn a number of things about the cabbage, but the cabbage won't be any the wiser. When information is the most important element in a link, the link will be more important for the side that receives the most information.

Also, in social networks, a link may mean an emotional attitude, that can be positive or negative. The link will be more important for the person who feels the strongest emotions about it.

Put it all together, and it's clear that a link is often more or less important to you than it is to the other side. And the more important the link is for others, the more likely they are to follow your example.

If you want to look at it another way, being the important side of a link means more or less the same as being rich, talented and/or famous. I don't think I'm telling you anything you didn't know, when I say that those people are the most important and followed. But it doesn't happen because there is some grave cosmic injustice against the poor, the unskilled or the boring - it's just that when some people have a lot more to give to others, whether it's in the shape of money, gifts, knowledge, or happiness, the others will put a lot of value on their relationship with them.

The practice

Experiment 1

You can do this in a garden or an area of wildlife you can access easily. Pick two animals, or an animal and a plant, that have what you would consider a close link. One of them could need the other as food, as a refuge, as a pollenizer, as a symbiont, as a parent, or any other link you are interested in.

Try to figure out for which one of them the link is more important by observing the three elements described above: time, materials and information. Consider also emotion if it seems relevant (it is if you are looking at a predator and a prey!). If the link is much more important for one than for the other, you would expect to see that the one that doesn't need the other is often on its own, even trying to get rid of the other. If that doesn't seem to be the case, you have missed some important aspect of the relationship. What is it?

Experiment 2

In the experiment suggested on the post on networks I described three possible kinds of links between organizations, "red", "black" and "green". A red link means that there is at least one person working in both groups. A black link means that the two groups work closely: there is a meeting between members of both groups at least once a week. A green link means that the two groups collaborate in some way, but not closely. This is a classification based on time dedicated to the relation.

Make a list of links between an organization you work for and other organizations, and classify the links looking at all four elements: time, material, information, and emotion. Usually the four go together: the more time dedicated, the more material and information exchanged, and the more positive emotions. Are there exceptions to this rule? Can you see why this case is exceptional? Are you happy that this case is different, or would you like to change it?

Also, try to estimate which organization finds the link more important on each case. If there is a big difference, there will be a power imbalance between the two organizations. Is there anything you can do to reduce it?

Different kinds of motives

The theory

A commenter on the last post on feelings talked about envy. I didn't mean to give there a complete list of feelings, just a list of the most basic ones. Many feelings are a mixture of several basic ones, and I may have missed one or two of the basics (disgust, for example - I didn't put it there because it's so... yucky). There are also feelings that are rather a mix of emotion and thoughts associated with that emotion - envy, for example, is desire combined with knowing what your neighbour has and maybe a couple of ideas about your relative status in the world.

Talking of envy leads quite easily to think about motives. Motives are our guiding lights, those things that tell us in which direction to go. They aren't quite the same things as feelings. Feelings pass quickly, but motives are inclinations that stay with us for a long time. You could say that the difference between feelings and motives is similar to the difference between weather and climate: feelings are what drives you right now, motives are what drives you in the long run, what stays with you and colours all your feelings about something. Some things we call feelings we should rather call motives: love in a long-term relationship is more a motive than a feeling... of course, there are times you feel more romantic than others.

Whenever anybody is doing anything that takes some time to finish, you know that there is a motive behind it. Or two or three. When several people cooperate in the same project, they often assume that their motives are the same. This is often a mistake, and it can lead to endless problems. Once they realise that they have different motives, they may stop trusting each other. People with different motives can work together, but it's much easier if they all know from the start what is driving everyone else.

It was easy to find lists of emotions, and they are all fairly similar. Lists of motives are trickier. Everybody has their own opinions, and not always easy to match to what others say. This is the best that I can do:

• Short-term rewards and punishments:

Based on: Basic needs and emotions

Focus: Immediate activities

Good for: Watching

Relationships it creates: Competition

Basis for collaboration: Threats and rewards

Basis for giving something: Force or manipulation

Basis to keep a boundary: Fear

Loyalty to: Oneself

Reliance on: Oneself

Motive is satisfied when: You get the reward or avoid the punishment

Action will stop when: The threat or reward goes away

• Friendship/love:

Based on: Social relationships

Focus: Immediate results

Good for: Doing

Relationships it creates: Cooperation

Basis for collaboration: Unspoken agreements

Basis for giving something: Liking the person

Basis to keep a boundary: Sympathy

Loyalty to: Specific people

Reliance on: Friends and loved ones

Motive is satisfied when: You enjoy the activity

Action will stop when: It isn't fun for everybody

• Achieving a goal:

Based on: A specific goal

Focus: A plan

Good for: Thinking

Relationships it creates: Cooperation, competition, or independence, depending on what the goal requires

Basis for collaboration: Clear agreements or contracts

Basis for giving something: Requirements of the goal

Basis to keep a boundary: Requirements of the goal

Loyalty to: The goal

Reliance on: Others who share the goal

Motive is satisfied when: The mission is accomplished

Action will stop when: The goal is reached or it becomes clear it's unreachable

• Status, money or career advancement:

Based on: Fixed rules (laws, market rules)

Focus: A plan

Good for: Evaluating

Relationships it creates: Cooperation within teams, competition with other teams

Basis for collaboration: Contracts or fixed customs

Basis for giving something: Getting something in return of similar value

Basis to keep a boundary: Rules, regulations, customs

Loyalty to: Rules

Reliance on: Those who play by the same rulebook

Motive is satisfied when: The deal works as expected or better

Action will stop when: There is no money or the contract is breached

• Ideals:

Based on: What's right

Focus: The ultimate goals

Good for: Choosing

Relationships it creates: Cooperation or one-sided behaviour (giving without expecting anything in return)

Basis for collaboration: A sense of duty

Basis for giving something: What others need

Basis to keep a boundary: Justice or other ideals

Loyalty to: Principles

Reliance on: Those with the same calling/principles

Motive is satisfied when: You are proud of yourself

Action will stop when: Principles are betrayed

The same as it happened with emotions, you may not be sure about what kind of motives somebody has, but this handy list will give you some clear pointers of what may be going on in somebody's head. It's quite indicative if you note when they seem satisfied and when they stop or aren't keen. People seldom do things out of a single motive - but teasing out what are the main ones is often useful.

This can also help you to figure out your own motives, because we don't always know them clearly. If you find yourself procrastinating, it means that your motives aren't very strong.

The practice

You can do the same experiments you did for feelings, but this time round think about motives.

You may think that animals only have the first type of motive (short-term punishment and reward) but most pets are rather social and able to think in terms of goals. Dogs have a pretty sharp understanding of status as well, and that's part of the reason they are easy to train. They "get" that humans should be respected. And you may think that justice is a purely human invention - but actually, chimps will punish those among them that misbehave even when the effort involved isn't really worth it.

Feel - evaluate

The theory

A reader question, and one that crops up very often in environmental circles, is: "How do you avoid doom and gloom?"

The answer is terrifically simple: You don't. Giving out the negative messages is very important. People often believe that they shouldn't be negative because they have some very naive ideas about feelings.

Some people believe feelings are some kind of remnant of the time when people were monkeys, and that modern humans should be able to decide everything using their reason only. These people tend to think that negative feelings are a nuisance that should be ignored. The truth is, there are some specialised braincells, called spindle neurons, that exist only in humans and apes, and their mission seems to be to ensure that all our brain is well connected with our emotional centre - which means, in any case humans are more, rather than less, emotional than other animals.

Other people believe that feelings are very important, and are there to be experienced fully and override everything. These people tend to think that negative feelings are a very bad thing, that should be avoided at all costs, because they are - well, awful!!

Both views are very naive. The purpose of feelings is to move us, to tell us the difference between good and bad, to give us a clear indication of what we should do next. To feel is the same thing as to evaluate, but said in a shorter word.

Some feelings are very old, and just about every animal has them. Others have appeared more recently in evolutionary history. Let's go through the main emotions and what they mean:

• Desire: This is almost certainly the oldest feeling. Desire tells us what we want. Desire drives us towards everything we need: food, shelter, company, etc. The message of desire is: "Go towards this."
• Fear: This is almost about as old. Fear tells us the dangers to avoid: falling, predators, and anything that has caused us pain. The message of fear is: "Go away from that, or hide."
• Calm: This may be considered not a feeling, but just the neutral state when there are no other feelings. The message of calm is: "Rest, save your energy for another time."
• Anger: This is a feeling that doesn't seem to exist in the simplest animals, such as earthworms. Some insects seem to be the simplest animals capable of being genuinely angry. Anger tells us to attack when the boundaries of our territory are crossed. In the case of humans, this territory may exist only in our mind - for example, political parties have clearly defined mental boundaries. The message of anger is: "Attack."
• Joy: It may come as a surprise to some, but the simplest animals don't seem able to feel genuinely happy. This is because simple animals don't really have goals, so they can't feel positive about achieving them. Maybe the simplest animals that can feel happy are fish. Joy tells us that we are doing a good job of achieving whatever we intended to do, and we should keep on doing it. The message of joy is: "Carry on."
• Sadness: This is a feeling that is only seen in more complex animals, mostly mammals. Sadness tells us that something went wrong but it's too late to do anything about it now. The best thing to do after the danger has passed is to lie low and brood, because maybe reliving the memories of what happened will give us a clue to avoid this if it happens next time. The message of sadness is: "Lie low, remember and think."
• Boredom: Another feeling that is only found in fairly complex animals, birds and mammals. Boredom tells us that there isn't anything specific that needs doing right now, but we have spare energy, so we might as well explore and learn something new. Only animals that are complex enough that they can constantly learn about their surroundings can be bored. The message of boredom is: "Explore."
• Surprise: Surprise is an emotion derived from fear - that's why the expressions for fear and surprise aren't far from each other. All mammals can be startled, but it's hard to draw the line where startle ends and surprise begins. You need to be pretty complex to be genuinely surprised. Surprise tells us that something isn't as we expected - and only animals that have an understanding of the world good enough to try to guess the future can be surprised. The message of surprise is: "Look again, more carefully."

Going back to the original question, doom and gloom make people sad, which means that they feel more like thinking and ruminating the information they have just received - and that is definitely one of the things you would like them to do. But you would like them also to be driven to action - and for that, you need one of the active emotions: desire, fear, anger or joy.

Activist groups often use fear and anger to drive people to action - and it works, but sustaining these emotions for a long time saps people's commitment. Nobody wants to feel negative too often, negative emotions are fundamentally telling us that we are in the wrong path. And the easiest way of avoiding those negative feelings is to avoid the people who encourage them.

After seeing that fear and anger aren't working, many activists are trying to turn towards joy. At first blush, it seems perfect: Doesn't everybody want to be happy? But it isn't as simple as it sounds, because the message of joy is: "Carry on", or to put it another way: "Don't change". When you are trying to get people to change, joy won't get you very far.

That leaves us with desire. Desire can change people, and it doesn't make them feel bad. The only catch with desire, you need to have a clear direction to go to. Unfortunately, many activists aren't too clear about where they are going. Those who are will be the ones that change the world.

The practice

Experiment 1

This one is best done with a pet. You can also do it with wild animals, but observing them for long periods is usually harder.

Watch your pet carefully and take notes on what it's doing. What feelings can you guess it has? Look at the list above, with the messages that accompany each feeling, to make your deductions. Which feelings seem to be dominant in your pet? Are they normal for this kind of animal?

Experiment 2

Do the same experiment as above, but on somebody you know well. Maybe this sounds a bit silly, because you think you already know quite well how they feel! They tell you and you see it in their face.

The truth is, people often lie to themselves and others about their feelings. The best way of knowing somebody's true feelings is observing what they do and comparing their actions with the list above. They may say they are excited about something and happy to do it, but is it in fact fear what makes their heart pound? You can tell by what they do: are they going about it enthusiastically, like they would carry on forever? Or are there mixed signals?