3.5.5 ‘Hard’ And ‘Easy’ Problems For Humanity

All that talk about left-brain, right-brain thinking and rocket science and technology’s topmost perch in society has prompted me to challenge us to do a short quiz!

I take my cue here from former US President John F. Kennedy, who, when looking for support for the US Space Programme famously stated ‘we go to the Moon because it is hard’.

I find myself disagreeing with JFK, but his motivational speech at least got me reflecting on what are hard and what are easy for us humans – and how our perception of hard and easy informs our thinking – and then – where we spend our money.

Here is a list of Projects that the Pillars take on, set up structures (sometimes very big structures) to solve, spend a lot of money on, get substantial media coverage for, and recruit consultants, experts, and other authority figures to assist with, and yes, talk an awful lot about.

The quiz is to guess which Projects are easy, and which are hard for humans to solve?  I pick a timeline of my own life – i.e. from the 1950’s to today.  I’ll give a little clue here to help you along – if a good bit of progress has been made in solving the problem it is easier. (The relevant links are below the Table).

And, if you don’t know what reductive and holistic mean you will need to look them up prior to doing the quiz!

Links to references in the Table:

2. 1916 Proclamation. 3. Ireland. 7. Three Gorges Dam. 8. CERN. 9. Peace in Northern Ireland.

Now you will say that this is an unfair quiz, because I am not comparing like with like. 

No, of course, I am not – and that is the problem……

What does not comparing like with like mean?

Let me put it this way.  Despite what I said in a previous post about engineers using their intuition I’d say that everyone would agree that it would make no sense to build a relationship with an engine – and then hope that somehow it fixes itself.

The effective thing to do would be to diagnose what is wrong with the engine in a logical manner and then fix it by replacing a defective part or adjusting some malfunctioning process.

But despite overwhelming evidence positing the importance of relationship in healing, almost all Pillars thinking directs that we apply paradigms based on what would work with engines, (i.e. reductive type thinking) as solutions, even though the problems are holistic.  

And then we hope that they work.

To sum up, the Pillars try to solve the ‘breaking the cycle of inter-generational crime’ problem by using (largely) a similar paradigm to that which is used solving the ‘putting a man on the moon’ problem.

That is, using corporate values (such as hierarchical top-down systems, corporate human resource methods, competition and comparison, one way knowledge flow, even marketing) not to mention reducing the whole of the problem down into smaller problems that can be solved in isolation from each other – and then, maybe, putting them all back together – like one would an engineering problem.

The solution, however, needs to take into account the often-ignored cultural, non-linear, root foundation and systemic elements of the problem, (which are all enabled by sharing power) – if there is any chance at all of achieving successful outcomes – not to mention all the complex variables referred to in the previous Sub-Chapter.

Sometimes when I observe the methods used to solve difficult social problems I think that it is a bit like driving a car with the handbrake on.

There is so much effort, so much energy used, and expensive fuel wasted for so little return.

Or I am reminded of the saying attributed to Albert Einstein (that man had no end of highly regarded quotes); ‘if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid’.

Let us ponder further on hard and easy problems for humanity.

Of course putting a man on the moon (and the subsequent space programme) was/is technologically challenging and was truly a great achievement for humankind.

We will be looking at Myth vs. Reality in a later Section, and I believe that JFK put a lot of effort into promoting the myth that going to the moon was hard.

I don’t believe that it was really that hard.  It was a mega-engineering project.  The USA did it by pouring almost unlimited amounts of money into the problem, buying the best mathematical and engineering brains and paying them very well, acquiring as many material and human resources that are needed, solving problems that inevitably arise by pouring more and more money into them until they are solved, and (vitally important) harnessing all media/publicity resources to convince the taxpayer that it is far more important to spend billions going to the moon than to invest resources in, say, helping young men stay out of trouble in deprived communities.

Even the convincing the taxpayer bit was easy to do because of the bias that the population in general has against such young men and communities anyway.

They also conveniently forgot – and buried the fact – that some of the leading rocket scientists were ex-Nazis who never faced justice for their part in using slave labour in their development of the V1-V2 rockets during World War Two.

When firing up enthusiasm among the population of the USA for what was known as the Space Race JFK tried to make citizens believe that they’d be very proud if the country succeeded in landing a man on the moon.  Part of this national pride would come about from beating the much despised Soviet Union [1].

People would feel this pride even though the vast majority of the population would have no hand, act or part in it, or experience of it, other than reading about it or watching it on TV. Obviously, our need to identify with heroes that get one over a loathed enemy is greater than our need for togetherness – or even our safety and security. 

Strange – when you think about it!

(This is actually in direct contrast to hunter gatherer society where it is the opposite. We will revisit this in our discussion on Anthropology in a later Section).

But even more revealing is the mega-myth of the War on Drugs, [2] which I will also mention later (No. 5 in the Table in this post) as it has particular relevance for communities whose residents live with the realities of a high level of drug misuse among their population.

It says a lot about what we find hard and easy that we choose to solve such a basic, down to earth, useful to humanity, protection-of-vulnerable-children-from-being-involved-in-drugs goal by expenditure of billions on a high level of incarceration coupled with deployment of military and para-military forces utilising high-powered sophisticated weaponry.

We don’t have to think too deeply to see who profits from such action – once again – follow the money…….

[1]. Just as a little addendum to the Space Race – despite the fact that the USA landed a man on the moon some people argued that the Soviets were actually as advanced, if not more advanced, focusing on things that were more useful to humanity, such as building the Space Station Mir which laid the foundation for the development of the current International Space Station.

[2]. You may read that the term War on Drugs has fallen into disuse in latter years as it (the term that is) was deemed to be not helpful to the overall goals of reducing drug misuse. But very little of substance has changed really in respect of policies or practices despite the name-change.

Because, as I said previously, science and technology has knocked religion and superstition off the topmost what-we-hold-in-the-highest-esteem perch the temptation (in most human endeavours) is to use the processes that work with technology (that is, techno-fix) any problem that arises in a reductive manner until it is solved.

The Pillars have fallen in with this and generally look at serious social problems this way.

They typically propose and implement short term initiatives like, for example a ten week parenting programme or a six month pilot scheme for perpetrators of domestic violence without awareness of the necessity for parallel involvement of the whole of the problem, i.e. the benefits that would accrue from considering the problem systemically.

In other words, short term quick-fix solutions that do not take into account the holistic approach needed.

That is, the depth of the issues, their complexity and variability, the enduring nature of the problems, the length of time needed to address the problems, and of course their interconnectedness.

Crucially, in addition to ignoring the relevance of Systems Theory they generally ignore the root foundations mentioned in the last Chapter.

King of the quick-fixes, are, of course, the pharmacological solutions which are purely technological.

For example while the anesthetic was a great invention, (and I have no intention of going for a surgical procedure in the near future without one) the down side was the bolstering of the (long-held) belief that our ability to numb physical pain with drugs could be extended to emotional pain.

The last three posts have argued that what society generally regards as hard-problems-to-solve (like rocket science, space travel etc.) are actually a lot easier to solve than problems that we haven’t managed to solve (like young people getting involved in crime).

Now using the word solve in the context of an emotional problem is not the same as using it in the world of technology. That is because in our general meaning of the word, solving a problem in the world of the emotions involves growth, and growth involves the root foundations. It is a dynamic, circular process rather than a stepped, linear process. Outcomes are uncertain and unpredictable. It is facilitated by hope, inspiration, connection, love, self-belief and similar human characteristics.

So most of us (I imagine) would find it easier to solve a technical problem than an emotional problem. And most parents who are grappling with an acute emotional problem would give their right arm (as we say) to be able to solve it technically – and permanently!

Of course, society is just a collection of many individuals. So is it any wonder that society in general has the same attitude?

The Pillars think that fixed, time-limited solutions are good for people because they seem to work in mainstream health and education, but they do not really benefit our Focus Group that much.

In short, the kind of thinking that promotes such solutions is based on fundamental belief systems of our reductive, cognitive behavioural oriented institutions where problems can usually be solved, rather than the needs of children and families that are carrying a lot of pain and hurt.

Supporting children in their growth, whether it is through teaching, mainstream youth work, or in sports or adventure type clubs etc. who fall within normal development is relatively complex in itself, and involves utilising human relationship skills, that, being well-adjusted adults, most of us have naturally.

(I am making this assumption firstly on my own observations over my lifetime and also on the basis that we have evolved over thousands of generations to what we are today).

When we support children who are suffering, angry, traumatised, fearful, distrustful, and/or have special, sometimes acute emotional needs our rational, objective, logical techno-fix type reductive skills will need to be augmented by emotional skills such as intuition, love, inspiration and creativity.

These, of course, are the same emotional skills that we would use as a good enough parent.

Therefore, one of the central arguments of the website is that we include some of the characteristics of good enough parent (and good enough family) in our work.

And is parenting hard or easy? Well, as all parents know, sometimes it’s hard, and sometimes it’s easy.

I’d say that most parents would agree that the most difficult aspects of parenting are around the so-called terrible twos-threes and the teenage years. Both developmental stages are characterised by oppositional behaviour, temper tantrums, boundary-pushing, (and in the teenager) secrecy, furtiveness, and the ‘I wish I knew what was going on in his mind‘ thinking by parents.

I’d also say that most parents would agree that overcoming these challenges is hard and parents can often be exhausted and worn out when their children are going through these stages.

Anyone who has worked in family support or child protection will be aware that getting the balance between the norms of an organisation and family is not easy. Many of the challenges will be addressed in the Chapters on Person Centred Modality and the Family Support Shamrock which are following shortly.

However we do it, I’d like you to try and imagine the pride of a community, (even a nation) if, for example, criminality and imprisonment were substantially reduced by helping vulnerable parents in disadvantaged communities promote pro-social and positive traits in their at-risk teenage children.

This is something that a wide cross section of people in society could be involved in rather than an elite cadre of scientists, engineers and astronauts.

Yet in most countries (that I know anyway) work helping the most vulnerable is characterised by poor pay, insecurity in employment and generally not-very-high status. (I gave an example of this at the bottom of this post when I compared the status, pay etc. of people who work in crèches with that of other educators).

And I expand this theme in Section Five in the Chapter on Organisational Matters – Sub-Chapter on Security. 

The substantial differences in status, job security, remuneration and indeed usefulness to society bear no relation, in terms of complexity, to the differences between working in technology and helping people in distress.