Part of the problem with pretending to deeply understand numerous and complex subject matter is that it detracts from your credibility. That is, people begin to wonder if you really know what you are talking about because it always seems as if you have all of the answers. This is not to say that one individual does not have the ability to speak intelligently on numerous topics because some people are very eclectic in what they know and very articulate in conveying it. Yet such a broadly scoped knowledge tends to have people casting a squinty eye that is accompanied by suspiciousness.

                In others words, if you pretend or attempt to hold deep expertise in too many fields of knowledge, people will likely begin to think of you as a ‘jack of too many trades – master of some’.

                How then does an individual avoid such a label and become known and respected as an knowledge expert? While I will not over-answer this question, following are a few quick and simple  numeric suggestions;

1. Listen closely to what people around you are saying.

2. Don’t feel the need to make all-encompassing proclamations about your idealistic and romantic notions of what human perfection ‘is’. 

3. Ask a reasonable amount of questions even if you are in the role of professing (perhaps preaching).

4. Understand the interactive importance of humility and mild self-deprecation.     

5. Know that is it just fine to say ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I have no idea’.

6. Laugh if you feel like laughing.

                Hopefully the listed suggestions may help you steer clear of the jack of too many trades – master of some phenomenon. Who knows, maybe a few of the suggestions will save you from tackling projects that are outside the spectrum of your knowledge. And, as a result, your credibility will be enhanced and restored in the eyes of your peers while a very precious commodity is saved – time.

                Wouldn’t you love to work with someone who is going to save you time? I know I would I’d love to work with a person who loves to save time.

Matthew Polkinghorne

I recently heard a highly prosperous businessperson utter the phrase “Oh no, not another leadership book!” The uttered words kind of caught me off guard in the sense that I questioned in response in my own head “What would be wrong with another leadership book?”

                Has the topic of leadership gone so stale that people are starting to cringe at the idea of another publication release on leadership? Is this topic just being overdone to the point of creating nauseam for the everyday manager and employee?

                I don’t think so. Maybe hundreds to thousands of recent leadership book releases have just had dull titles and boring conceptual concepts.

                But yet the statement is a bit unsettling, especially for up and coming authors who think they got the next best book idea for the field of leadership. It makes an aspiring author wonder if their vested time will be thrown to the wayside and their ideas passed by like the casual observance of a mind-numbing freeway mileage destination sign.

                I, for one, thoroughly enjoy writing and reading about leadership. The topic of leadership often sheds light on a lot of frustrating and hard-to-figure-out human interactive behaviors, particularly the ones that are negative and destructive – leaving a person with a craving for ginger.

                If, however, there are credible rumblings amongst public voice that the topic of leadership has been written about every which way from center, rest assured that this writer has got a few topic tricks up his sleeves that are most certainly guaranteed to enliven to mind and spirit of avid, coffee consuming readers.

                What are your thoughts? Is the topic of leadership next on the chopping block?

Matthew Polkinghorne

Revenge is bad. Nothing good comes from it, only intensely charged feelings, shattered finances, and a heaping mess of problems. Any expression of revenge represents the worst side of any human being. Revenge, strange as it may sound, is expressed when a human mind is at its weakest and most desperate state or point.  

                As it applies to relationships between human beings, revenge it focused on another individual or group when emotional imbalance (however extreme it may be) is perceived or experienced by one person or one group of people. In essence, one person or one group acts on another based on the culmination of emotional transactions within the relationship. While revenge can be largely centered around how money changes hands, we will keep our focus on emotional imbalances and how to neutralize them or equalize them by nipping conflict in the bud and thereby averting interpersonal disasters.  

                Let’s say you are considerably unhappy with how a relationship is progressing with another human being. So unhappy and frustrated, in fact, that you are feeling feelings of revenge bubbling and circulating through your neural circuitry. You have had it with a certain individual and are ready for a heated conflict of gargantuan proportions, one that will have the scent of revenge poignantly wafting from the brim of your mouth as you utter out every last despicable syllable of hate.

                But wait…need you act like such a gruesome beast even if you feel it to be justified? Is there not a better way for you to resolve interpersonal conflict without having both of your eyes go flush red while plunging off the deep end? Certainly, as civilized creatures, there must be a better way to equalize emotionally imbalanced relationships without resorting to desperate revenge tactics, no?

                Yes, there certainly is a better way. It is called – nipping conflict in the bud to equalize and restore emotional balance in a relationship before it gets out of hand or reaches a point of no return. The simplest way to equalize emotional imbalance in relationships is to make self-assertive statements about how you are feeling to a person whom you feel is causing you some form of internal distress.

                For example, let’s say you are completely fed up with a person who likes to use the cowardly form of communication known as indirect communication. Instead of tolerating this meek behavior, it is simpler to make a direct statement to the person (i.e. – if there is something you want to say to me, have the strength and courage to look me in the eye and tell me what is on your mind). People have a tendency to have messengers convey their true feelings for them. This kind of emotionally evasive practice creates no value and muddles your personal and professional image.

                When dealing with a person who talks non-stop, not making room for anyone else to speak, an excellent self-assertive statement may be – please stop talking, take a breath, and let others contribute their thoughts to the discussion.

                There are many other human behaviors that can easily create emotional imbalance in a relationship. Identically, there are as many self-assertive statements to counteract emotional imbalances in a relationship. Whenever you feel as if an interpersonal relationship is becoming emotionally inequitable, nip it in the bud and remember that self-assertive statements (face-to-face or through electronic communication) are an excellent way to equalize and/or neutralize disquieting personal affect that so often accompanies an emotionally imbalanced human relationship.  

                You owe it to yourself to feel balance in your feelings. Orate self-assertive statements.

                What about you? Do you feel as if many of your relationships are emotionally out of whack? How do you attempt to equalize or neutralize such relationships? Are you nipping conflict in the bud? Or are you letting everything fester inside until the internal state of revenge turn your eyes a volcanic red?

                Equalize. Neutralize. Do your best to oust any internal fury associated with revenge, nip conflict in the bud, and successfully restore and moderate feelings of personal balance.

Drop me a line if you find the time,

Matthew Polkinghorne

 I am not going to go on a long-winded, intellectually exhausting escapade on why we crave the expression (s) of innocence from our fellow human beings. Mostly because I wish to hear from you and what you think about the topic of human innocence and why we, intermittently, do crave it so.

                However, I do want to share a few quick thoughts of my own in relation to this subject matter. In a way, human innocence can symbolically be represented by the hatching of a baby chick – an adorably cute furry creature with a little orange beak that longs to let out its first resounding quack.  You can’t help but want to pick up the cute baby chick, cuddle it, and bask in its pure innocence. It kind of creates a sense of oneness, stopping time while dulling the mind to forget the current agenda.

                An extended idea of human innocence may well be the notion of vulnerability. Vulnerability may be understood as a person’s internal acknowledgment that there remains a part of them that is untainted by the social experience of their interactive life and that acknowledgement can be authentically and openly shared with other people. Said differently, a person looks inside to realize and accept that their trust, on occasion, has been broken, their feelings have, now and then, been hurt, yet there still remains time and chance to find authentic relationships that will bring a sincere and non-threatening joy to their life. This means that there is more time for us to develop meaningful and fulfilling relationships with human beings, ones where we feel safe to share the vulnerable parts of our self and, at the same time, express innocence to another.

                When Edgar Allan Poe deliberated the structure, rhythm, and meaning of his poem ‘The Raven’, he perhaps conveyed the idea of human innocence and vulnerability best. I will paraphrase him here; “When creating ‘The Raven’, I chose a melancholic and mournful tone to try and best illustrate the concept of beauty in a human life. I chose this tone because there is nothing more beautiful as when another human being is authentically moved to tears”.

                With Poe’s words and representation in mind, herein rests an afterthought; Innocence, on its own, is not beauty. Vulnerability, by its self, is not beauty. Therefore, the merging of innocence and vulnerability is required for an individual to reach the heights of beauty. Embodiment of innocence is not enough. A person must embrace its pure form expression, vulnerability. Otherwise, beauty cannot be achieved and the individual will remain miserable – unfulfilled.

                Do you like poetry? Is the human experience of fulfillment dependent on the authentic expression of vulnerability? What does fulfillment mean for you?

Drop me a line if you find the time,

Matthew Polkinghorne  

This is a common mistake in perceptive judgment. When we decide to enter relationships with other human beings we naturally size each other up. This means, in a manner of speaking, that we do our best to get a feel for how another person ‘thinks’, ‘feels’, ‘does’, and ‘perceives’. Generalizing to the topic at hand, we try and figure out to the best of our ability if a person is easily swayed by their emotions.

                When we make an attempt to figure out if a person is easily swayed by their emotions or feelings, we are trying to discern how best to act around the other person – especially if we enjoy their company and want them to like us. In essence, but not the be-all, end-all, conducting our behavioral movements with tact so people feel comfortable and do not feel like they always being attacked.

                But wait a minute, what if your entire approach to understanding of interactive behavior is just way off? What if your ‘perception’ of someone being easily hurt, afraid, or anxious is completely misconstrued and off-base? What if you are forgetting a fundamental principle of physiology in your assessment of another person’s state of mind? What do you do then, particularly if you want to be a part of a relationship with another human being and actually understand that human being at the same time? What if you are not aware of the ‘physiological’ understanding of sensitivity? What if you are not aware of the ‘physiological’ understanding of ‘hypersensitivity’? Do you think it may be time, given the concrete reality of physiology, to withhold your hasty remarks and convoluted perception?

                I hope so. Many people, when they psychologically ‘label’ another as sensitive, figure that a person is just very susceptible to their feelings and may easily become anxious, feel guilty, feel afraid, or somehow slip into a clinical depression based on the actions and words of another. As stated earlier, depending on who you are interacting with or sitting across from at a table, this is a common mistake in perceptive judgment of respective human beings. This, however, is not to say that some people do not become easily enveloped by sadness – because some people do. What we are saying is that 10-15% of the human population is either sensitive or hypersensitive to the physical environment. Meaning, such individuals are perceived incorrectly (by conventional wisdom) to be afraid, anxious, or easily hurt.

                To keep things simple, this means that a small percentage of the human population perceives environmental stimuli that the rest of the human population likely does not. How else do you think the lead woman/man of a rock band effortlessly cruises around on stage checking in on all other members of the band while executing vocals and shredding a guitar simultaneously? The answer, without trying to sound pedantic, lies in the idea of individual differentiation. In this case, a person’s physiological level of understanding while being a part of the natural environment.

                Translated into terms of human interaction, a physiologically sensitive or hypersensitive person may ‘appear’ to be sad, hurt, afraid when being spoken to in a certain way by a non-sensitive person. This, however, is the sensitive person’s way of reflecting the internal state of the non-sensitive person back to them. It is like the sensitive person is saying without saying it to the non-sensitive person ‘why are you so angry’? Or, why are you so hurt? What is wrong, why are you not content with the way of how things really are in this world? When will you make peace with what is?

                Next time you preemptively believe that a person is afraid, hurt, or anxious when you are talking or needlessly attacking them, remember a fundamental principle of physiology; there are varying levels of environmental sensitivity across human beings. The more sensitive a person is, the more encompassing their perception of the physical environment tends to be. And hence, the more complete their understanding of how things really are, is.

                Why do you think loners become loners anyway? Do you really think it is because they are frail little pussy-cats or social misfits? Or , do you think it is because they quickly perceive an internal state and do not want to be around a certain kind of energy?

                Happy loners become happy loners for a very specific reason.

                That’s right, I said happy loners. Don’t let psychology fool you into incorrect assumptions and fallacious perceptions. Happy loners don’t like gregarious windbags. And, gregarious windbags are secretly infatuated with happy loners.

                What do you think, is too much value ascribed to physiology while psychology gets a bad rap as we do our best to understand interactive dynamics and the internal feelings of others?

Furthermore, if you had to choose, would you rather be a happy loner or a gregarious windbag? And, why would you rather be a happy loner or gregarious windbag?

Also, do you think happy loners enjoy seclusion and isolation because they have been provoked too often by gregarious windbags?

Don’t hesitate to voice your thoughts and share your authentic feelings.

More on this fascinating topic to come soon.

Matthew Polkinghorne

Before we get into any of the complex details related to this subject matter, it may be smart to postulate that a mutual interest in a specific subject matter is paramount for continued commitment and long-term success. Without mutual interest in a specific subject matter, it would be quite hard to get on the same page and forge a solid partnership.

                In addition to mutual interest, there is always the somewhat tense issue of finances (i.e. – does one of the potential partners enter the partnership with cash bursting out of their pockets while the other has to get a small hammer and crack open the piggy bank to scrounge some shillings?) Gross differences in monetary position does have the potential to throw a wrench in the works and rise the wafting stench of suspicion in the air. Greed and power differentials can make people a bit loopy.

                Let’s not ruminate too much over the greenback though, what about the personal relationship? How much does each partner in the partnership actually like the other? Is the clanking of glasses an occasional celebratory dynamic in the relationship? Or, is it a ‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy’ business mentality? While work-life balance is a fascinating topic of discussion, it is not necessarily the most imperative in the development of a meaningful interpersonal relationship.

                The other break-off piece of the interpersonal dynamic is the frequency of belligerent behavioral speech. Blue-collared entrepreneurial folk like to refer to this interactive phenomenon as ‘cannon-shots’. If you want a picture of what this interpersonal dynamic looks like; envision a thundering rhinoceros bucking and blasting everything in its paths into an oblivion with massive and uncontrollable head and horn thrusts. Needless to say, cannon-shots don’t sit well with others and tend to dissolve partnerships speedily.

                And, of exceptional importance in business partnering, is the complex issue of trust, transparency, and personal disclosure (which needs to not be confused with absolute personal disclosure). The expectation of absolute personal disclosure, in any relationship, is not only tyrannical, but a political doctrine of totalitarianism. If a partner in a relationship thinks that something very important has been left unsaid (thereby raising caution), an in-person, face-to-face meeting needs to be scheduled to resolve any feelings of uneasiness or distrust. During such an in-person meeting, all and any personal or professional agendas must be revealed by both sides.

                If such a scheduled meeting needs to happen and one of the potential partners has acted in a very indirect and shrewd way, that same potential partner is responsible for initiating a direct contact via telephone or email to get things underway with the other potential partner. If this is not to be the way, the other potential partner needs to maintain personal integrity/credibility and cannot make any further direct communication attempts. This approach has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with the reality of how a partnership develops.

                There are many more variables that are responsible for the shaping of a partnership, particularly one that is successful. Are you willing to share any other variables you can think of with me?

I’ve been workin’ on the railroad, all the live long day,

Matthew Polkinghorne

This is a sensitive topic. The many behaviors, actions, and motivations of our minds, tend to be guided by the subconscious/unconscious (these are very important concepts) realms that we cannot directly see or tangibly hold. Because of this, it becomes harder to accurately see into our self and what is going on inside of us – not just as an individual, but as an individual that exists within the whole of a family that usually has a fixed set of interactive patterns or ways in which people in a family act and speak toward one another. When a family dynamic is healthy – when each individual communicates with each individual in a constructive way – the whole of the family tends to function in a more fluid manner.

                At the same time, a family dynamic can be deemed to be unhealthy. That is, each family member or many family members within a family communicate with one another in a deconstructive way. In taking such a communicative approach, the family dynamic begins to emerge as degenerative – withdrawn, afraid to communicate authentic feelings with a keen eye toward avoiding conflict (even if it is healthy) by any measure and means necessary. Typically, this kind of family dynamic is built into the family system with subtle threats, explosive emotions (feelings), and the installation of fear.

                In the latter case, where the family dynamic is deconstructive and degenerative, each individual within the family has to evaluate whether or not the continuance of communication is worthwhile and really, healthy. In the absence of this kind of evaluation, each member of the family may continue to drag their self through an entourage of negativity and unsettling emotion. If, on the other hand, the family dynamic (pattern of communication) is positive and supportive, an evaluation by each individual may be unwarranted and completely unnecessary.

                But, what do we do when a family dynamic just won’t work or doesn’t seem to work over an extended period of time – let us say years of time or decades of time? What is a family to do? Or, what is each individual within the family to do to ensure they will continue to feel healthy about what is going on within the family dynamic?

                One option is for the family to do nothing, sweep it under the rug and pretend like nothing is going on – bad strategy because then the pattern of interaction is transferred to the succeeding generations of the same family who remain befuddled by rampant nuclear family tension. Or, another option is for family member (s) to speak up and voice their authentic feelings about what they feel is really going on. While this may be uncomfortable, creating the possibility for conflict and emotional strain, it also creates the possibility for there to be a resolution and a movement toward a more positive mode of how family members are talking with one another and affecting each other’s mental states.

                If the option of speaking up and expressing authentic feelings is rejected overall by the family, then one or two, or however many family members who will not align with the decision of rejecting authentic feelings may decide that it is ‘time to call it quits’ and commit to living a separate life (with very limited communication) that has more of a trajectory toward sustained positivity, growth, and more consistent feelings of happiness.

This line of reasoning, by the way, is also very applicable to organizational behavior and interaction.

What are your thoughts about family dynamics, communication, and voicing authentic feelings? Is all this talk just a bunch of hocus-pocus and taboo? Or, do you think there may be a grain of truth in what has just been said here?   

I, for one, feel the fragments of these realities and thus make a willing commitment toward positivity, playfulness, mutual respect, and collaborative growth.  

Until then, I’ll be listening to Near Fantastica by Matthew Good (sound vibrations of invincibility).

I am sorry for sounding like a know-it-all. I don’t like myself that much.  

Drop me a line if you find the time,

Matthew Polkinghorne   

What an odd, thought-inspiring title. Really, the title should lead you to a bit of chaotic thinking and chaotic possibilities. Double-think, triple-think, quadruple-think, the sky is the limit really and I don’t pretend to think I understand this line of chaotic reasoning anyway. At best, I am only certain it exists and is a part of war games (even the innocent kind of war games) and strategic thinking.

                In an effort to not over-think things, let’s try and expand this notion by considering a fun game like chess. Let’s say we sit down to a game of chess and it appears as if (after playing several games) we both have similar levels of skill. Sometimes you win, sometimes I win, but overall, neither of us asserts, through our respective moves, noticeable dominance and repeated victory. Because of this reality, we must now shift ‘the game’ to a new level and challenge the mental strategies of each other’s mind. What this sort of means is that we must now think about where the other person is moving next and how our thinking of that next move actually influences the move itself.

                This is where we get into the whole ‘I think you think you think I am thinking this, therefore I will think differently and you must think about what I am thinking you think you think about my thinking differently’. I know, it’s sounds absolutely crazy and ridiculous, right? Maybe, maybe not. I guess it really depends on who your opponent is sitting down on the opposite side of the table. Is your opponent someone just sitting there, moving pieces , counting squares and trying to avoid hazardous moves? Or, is your opponent someone who enjoys the idea of ‘warring minds’ trying to outmaneuver each other in a game of skill, rigor, and patience? Both questions, in of themselves, brings forth this 3rd question – how do you really who you are actually playing with anyway?

                But let’s not get too nuts, were just talking about a fun game of pieces and squares. One thing I am beginning to learn, however, is that when people want to win and are in a weak position within a current game, they will feign vulnerable facial expressions and create inferior-looking postural positions. While this may be quite true, it is another fantastic facet of the game – the temporary fluctuation of emotion that tries to incite an illogical response from a competitor and compromise their position.

                In playing with a friend of mine, I do know this; he is thinking about what I am thinking about his thinking about my thinking. Therefore, I must think again and, think differently. Otherwise, my thinking will likely not out think his thinking. Which, of course, would stink…

Do you think about what others think about your thinking? Or, do you think monolithically?

Matthew Polkinghorne

This may seem like a bit of a spoofy subject, but I think it is quite important. Throughout the last several years, cooking for my wife been has brought her a lot of joy (me too). Here’s are the 10 reasons why;

1.       It lets her know I genuinely care about doing things for her.

2.       It lets her know that I respect what she does for a living.

3.       I like surprising her with new cooking ideas.

4.       It really helps the overall situation when we are entertaining friends.

5.       I can cook on-demand (i.e. – when she has a specific dish request).

6.       I can whip something special together on a special occasion (i.e. – birthdays, anniversaries, and mother’s day).

7.       I love seeing the look on her face when I have made something very tasty.

8.       I love hearing her say ‘honey, you’ve outdone yourself again’.

9.       If I cook us dinner, she will always clean up afterwards so I don’t have to do it.

10.   **Most importantly – it helps build intimacy and respect in our relationship.

The 10 reasons just listed are just a brief glance as to why I love cooking for my wife. This list is not exhaustive and there are many other reasons that have been forgotten.

                Besides why I love cooking for my wife, the activity of cooking actually brings me a lot of joy. One of my favorite dishes to make is chicken stir fry. The chicken stir fry I like to make has many savory ingredients; peanut oil, soya sauce, thyme, oregano, sesame seeds, chicken spice, and, of course, a slew of scrumptious veggies (broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, red peppers, and yellow peppers).

                Now I can’t give all of my delicious recipes away, but I’d love to hear what you cook for your wife, partner, or significant other. Do you cook for the one you love? Or, do you refrain from such activities because you feel that they might be beneath you?

                I’d love to hear your thoughts, comments, suggestions, or questions.

Matthew Polkinghorne

Sycophancy and rump-smooching are at an all-time high. Everywhere you turn, someone is snuggling up to somebody else’s derriere and planting big wet ones. The presence of such nauseatingly noxious behavior is all around us – in the family, at the office, and as close as to the one you say goodnight to just before you noggin lands on the pillow, ready to count sheep.

                And while this type of behavior may be all fine and dandy (mostly because it keeps people’s egos healthy, not overblown by any means – yeah right), it will, without a doubt, dilute and weaken creative thinking and initiative, thereby moving away from the ultimate goal of attaining the ‘prize’. As such, let’s set our sights on how to better identify rump-smooching behavior that may be doing more harm than good. Keep a keen eye on the following behaviors, it may save you giant money bags of jangling coin in the long-term. Let’s have a peek-a-boo;

I) Big, Big Smiles – yes, I am afraid it is true, big-big smiles are the devil in disguise. While they may make you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside (feel really good about yourself), they will eventually turn your business upside down and have you pull your empty, lint-filled pockets out of your trousers as your eyebrows raise toward the sky at forty-five degree angles. Now and again, big-big smiles are just fine. But, be mindful of the frequency in which you are on the receiving end of big-big smiles. If it’s too much, especially from one person, don’t be shy in shooting back a scowl or grimace to that same person. It will keep them in check and help make sure their gums do not become dry and sore.

II) Edge-of-the-Seat Keeners – watch out for the people who look like they may leap at you like a leopard frog or pounce on you like a pit bull. While you may feel enamored by their positive looks and sickening enthusiasm, don’t be surprised if romantic gazes soon follow. When people have a drunk look in their eye they are probably drunk. But, a drunk look is just another indicator, perhaps caveat, of a rump-smoocher sitting on the edge of their seat waiting to get the big call to go in the game. Remember, people who sit on the edge of their seat for prolonged periods of time are likely to slip and bang their buttocks on the ground – it’s just the natural laws of gravity. And, when the natural laws of gravity take over, don’t be surprised if a big-big smile is, all of the sudden, missing. Bottom line? Enthusiasm is excellent, positivity is great, but you have to wonder what the heck is going on if keenness is continually being projected in your direction.

III) Unexpected Rubbing, Massaging or Touching – the calling card of the one who smooches rumps, excessive touching, rubbing and massaging should raise suspicion in your mind. I mean, it’s O.K. in the dugout before one of your teammates is about to step up to the plate and drive the winning run home, but if a person wants to be fondled that much, they’ll likely consult a professional masseuse or holler out to their significant other and plead for some kind of oily rubdown. A pat on the back is fine. So is a heartfelt hug. Just be mindful of individuals that always seem to be groping and probing you – both psychologically and physically.

                Relationships are very important. Camaraderie is imperative. Rump-smooching is suspect. Heed the gentle warnings associated with these 3 types of behavioral (interactive) cues mentioned above. By doing so you will build meaningful relationships, spark creativity, drive continuous results, and not delude yourself in a cesspool of grandiosity generated by the niceties of others. And, don’t forget to carefully weed out the rump smoochers. The big wet ones are nice, but come on, let’s face it, you don’t want to live in a false reality while being drenched in drool.  

Matthew Polkinghorne