What is the role of principles? Are principles just luxuries one can talk
about but have little to no effect on how a person leads his/her life? Yes, one can give them lip service, but life
is just too complex, too demanding, and too unpredictable to languish by a set
of principles that simply get in the way.
In the way of what? Of danger, of
opportunities, of a whole array of realities that don’t fit a presubscribed notion
of how life or social settings should be or can be?
The successful businessman, Ray Dalio,[1] recently
issued a sort of biography that describes his success in the investment
business and how having and living – for the most part – by principles was
instrumental. The effect was positive. Mr. Dalio, through his book, videos, and
interviews, is dedicated to sharing what he has learned from his experiences. Should a civics teacher care? Well, if part of the message a civics teacher
promotes is for his/her students to behave in principled ways, then Dalio might
have something to offer that teacher.
This blog, with this posting, will begin
to entertain that possibility. Having
read Dalio’s account, this blogger thinks Dalio has something to offer. This is not a hundred percent endorsement of what
Dalio’s book prescribes, but the overall judgement is that that bio has
insights that a civics teacher can use to formulate his/her curricular choices. So, this blog chooses to report what this
businessperson has to offer that civics teacher.
And where does one begin? Well, one begins with a basic definition. What are principles, according to Dalio,
after all? If one doesn’t accept that
writer’s notion of principles, then his bio would be of little value. Early on – in the introduction – the
following definition is identified, “Principles are fundamental truths that
serve as the foundations for behavior that get you what you want out of
life. They can be applied again and
again in similar situations to help you achieve your goals.”[2]
This language separates principles
from being primarily concerned with esteemed qualities to the more
manipulative elements of life. It is
more utilitarian than honorific unless some nuance is added to this definition. For example, this definition does not, per
se, call on people to divorce themselves from such values as honesty, loyalty,
charity, or other similar values one tends to associate with morality. After all, one can see a common notion of morality
as the ultimate practical standard by which one should live.
If one equates morality with such values
as empathy and altruism, then acting in ways that advance those values tends to
garner the respect, admiration, and fondness of others. In turn, such a person is apt to form strong
and lasting relationships. One can more
readily sell a product to those who admire the seller than to a person the
buyer either feels indifferent to or dislikes.
Therefore, to the extent one’s success relies on a positive image, and
that’s just about everyone, being moral seems to be practical. This is such a simple notion, yet it seems to
elude so many.
Of course, being moral doesn’t always
lead to admiration. If the moral choice
happens to “step on a toe or two,” then those whose toes are hurting are likely
to view the “stepper” with less than admiration or, if admired, less then fondness. But then the practicality for the moral
person is to be able to identify the less than moral persons with which he/she is
dealing. And that would identify that
person who holds a grudge for an action that is on the right side of a moral
challenge.
A person might discover that key to
all this is timing. Morality usually
calls for long-term thinking, while immorality tends to be short-term thinking. People tend to deal with the immediate and
usually from what Jonathan Haidt calls the “elephant” – the intuitive,
emotional self.[3] The reasoned self – the “rider” of the
elephant – is usually sleeping on the job.
This rider must be jolted by some
situation that is deemed important enough to engage itself in what is going on
– after all, the rider is lazy, and reflection takes effort. The elephant tends to be short-sighted and
deals with what is before it with little to no thought. It knows what it wants and either the
situation before it offers what it wants, or it does not. “Yes” equals good; “no” equals bad; and the
elephant tends to react negatively to the bad – either internally or by some
demonstration of anger or disdain.
Unfortunately, such proclivities lead
to a lot of immorality. But strongly
held principles – something that needs to be learned – can be of help. Principles, even as Dalio defines them, impose
a longer time dimension to decision-making, especially when the fate and/or
interests of others are involved.
Yes, ultimately one decides to
advance oneself; that is baked into any situation. The question becomes what constitutes
advancing oneself. Again, short term analysis
of this question tends to render selfish answers. Long term, realistic answers tend to render
more altruistic answers. In this, Dalio
offers a useful analogy. One can view
principles as a collection of recipes.
Now, he calls them recipes for
success which can be self-centered concerns but – and Dalio seems to agree – they
can be mostly centered on others or on we-centered concerns. Immorality tends to side with self-centeredness,
morality with otherness or us-ness. He
goes on to point out that people vary in defining success – that’s good. But it leads to various sets of recipes and
one should be careful in advancing any recipe for others to follow. Having stated that, Dalio proceeds to do just
that with the proviso that what is suggested in his book is his recipes.
In “selling” this view, that writer
touts the functionality of principles.
If they are devised and followed, they assist in the challenge of being
consistent especially if the “elephant” is riled. He laments that most people fall short of
being principled – for the above reasons – and therefore do not meet with the
success for which they strive. His initial
advice for his readers is to devise their principles and be clear to themselves
and to others what exactly they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment