On the topic of love and hate

I recently read the following in the feed of my good Twitter friend Dondi Scumaci:

When your hate for something drives you harder than your love for something, you have lost your way.

And I do not in any way disagree with Dondi - far from it, because there is great truth in this. But still, it made me think: actually, whenever I feel that my hate is driving me anywhere, it's time to stop and reconsider what's going on. And at this point, it is surely worth considering some other driver for my actions.
Normally, I am a great supporter of reframing problems, and many will probably think that this would be an obvious case where reframing is in place - for isn't it just that easy: let the hate for something be replaced by love for the absence of this something? An obvious example: no, I do not hate the noise - I love the silence. Or the sounds of birds that I can not hear for traffic noise. Or...
And that might all be very good - many times you will find that you are not really driven by hate, but by the love of an opposition. The above example is an excellent one of the kind - only few people hate the noise because it's noise, but rather because noise makes enjoyment of silence or tweeting birds impossible.
But be careful not to blindly let irrational hate be reframed as the love of the opposite. If, for example, I suffered from arachnophobia - I'm not at all certain that it would be constructive to replace my hate for spiders with a penchant for killing them. It might be better to look closer and understand what is the basis for my arachnophobia. And perhaps I would even realize that there are also good things about spiders that I can enjoy - and get ideas to arrange my daily life so they and I do not bother each other quite as much?
(Translated from Noget om kærlighed og had)

The first casualty

It's said that "The first casualty when war comes is truth" - meaning that when a war breaks out between two parties, it is no longer to be taken for granted that the truth about the war and the things happening in its wake is reported objectively. Unfortunately, this is quite predictable when you consider what war is all about - it is hard to justify that the flower of the nation's youth is about to depart in order to kill the same part of the population of another country, if it is accompanied by elaborate stories underlining that on some points, the opponent is not entirely wrong.
This is bad enough. But what's even worse is how the same tendency can be tracked all the way down to very small situations close to us, far away from the borderless consequences of global politics.
Think it over: how many times haven't you experienced two parties, both of which you value highly, who have come on bad terms with each other? Two parties, who - if you get either of them alone face-to-face - are able to relate such different stories about what has happened and the motives of the parties that you cannot help but think: is it really the same basic train of events that is the basis of both of these stories?
And here, it is quite okay to be puzzled. We might not be able to make a difference when nations fall out and beat the drums of war - but on a personal level, where "only" personal interests are basically at stake - shouldn't we become a bit better to use nuances in our expressions? to see the world from the opponent's point of view? To walk a mile in the other party's shoes, so to speak (without falling prey to Jack Handey's ironic statement)?
Of course there are people who have gone so far without thinking like this, that they end up in a situation from which it is difficult to return. But most of us would do ourselves - and other people - a favour, if we were able to accept that the world is not solely black and white. If we became better at understanding matters seen from the side, from which we do not normally see them. And if we were able to have a rational conversation about our differences, with respect for the opponent's reality.
As I read it the other day: "Sometimes, the best we can do is to admit that our opponent has a point."
(Translated from Det første offer, originally published January 21, 2018)

The opinion on the other side

I was recently referring to my old elementary school science teacher who would always play the part of the Devil's advocate against the pupils' point of view, just to make them see the other side - and in that context I found it interesting that I stumbled upon a quote from Charlie Munger, who is perhaps best known to be Warren Buffet's partner in the investment firm Berkshire Hathaway. The quote says that:

I never allow myself to have an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do.

An attitude which, despite the fact that it sounds ambitious, is very good to have - as the knowledge it talks about is good to have. If you get to know the arguments both for and against so well that you would be able to argue for both at one and the same time, you also have in your conscious mind had the internal discussion that allows you to have an opinion.
This does not have to mean that you form an opinion which in carved in stone for eternity. People change, times change, and it's a very bad idea to hold on something just because you once thought it was the best way.
(Translated from Meningen på den anden side, originally published February 2, 2017)

Another one of my weaknesses

People who know me will know that I have a passion for languages ​​that goes far beyond my ability to put foreign languages ​​to practical use - a very good indication is that at the time when I first wrote this, I was the proud owner of the first volume of J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - in no less than eight languages, of which I am totally without abilities to get understandable meaning out of at least half of them. But then I at least have the books on the shelf if one of my kids should take an interest in one of the languages ​​in question, and think it might be fun to use the young wizard as a companion venturing into it.
One of the more stressful side effects of my language obsession is that I just have to have a shallow exposure to a language before I get an unbearable desire to learn more of it. Initially just greetings, courtesy phrases and such stuff - and a similar urge to learn a new alphabet if there is need for anything but the one I normally use.
And now it has happened again. With the usual acquisition of basic textbooks, dictionaries and the like. Not that I think I'll ever master this language either. One can ask oneself if I will ever become any wiser.
And frankly, I do not really hope so.
(Translated from Endnu en af mine svagheder, originally published February 25, 2018)

The (not so) diabolical teacher

At a later point in time, I was told that one of my favorite teachers in elementary school once by parents in a meeting was asked about his attitude towards nuclear power - the subject was highly controversial in those years - and to this question he replied: "The pupils will never get to know my opinion. Unless they have an opinion themselves - then they can rest assured that my opinion is the absolute opposite."
At a time when one of the other major buzzwords was "indoctrination", and where several teachers could have a hard time leaving their personal attitudes in the teachers' room, it was one of his good personal traits that he was so willing to to play the devil's advocate - or the devil's science teacher, if you want to.
I think it would benefit all of us if we were more able and willing to engage in conversations challenged by opinions that differed from the ones we actually have - rather than being confirmed in our own opinions to the extent that they eventually become the only acceptable truth.
(Translated from Den (knapt så) djævelske lærer, published January 17, 2017)

Mistakes or fear?

One of my favorite quotes goes as follows:

A few mistakes made by a person working productively cost far less than a person paralyzed by laziness or fear.

The quote originates from a place that one might not have imagined. Some would probably expect some management guru, but the originator is Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, who as his job titles have ruler of Dubai and vice president and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.
I think it's an excellent quote - as laziness and fear are so powerful opponents, it's crucial to fight them with all possible means. And one of the essentials is that we are all being made aware that what the quote says.
With this background, it is completely irrelevant whether it's a manager, an emir or ourselves expressing a willingness to accept mistakes, rather than what we are able to come up with when we fear making them.
(Translated from Fejl eller frygt?, originally published May 15, 2017)

Kindness is not weakness

I am of the firm conviction that kindness is the best policy - the one which will bring us furthest in life and as a species. Yes, in fact, I think the world will become a better place if we let kindness be our favorite reaction pattern when we interact with the world.
There is only one problem in this. There are people who confuse kindness with weakness, and some of these people will do their utmost to exploit such weakness for their own benefit.
And as such, there is only one way to meet that kind of people. They must be kindly, but definitely, be told that the exhibited behaviour is kindness, not weakness. And furthermore, that it must be considered most reasonable that we invest our kindness in people who recognize it as kindness and who therefore will not attempt exploit it.
(Translated from Venlighed er ikke svaghed)

On the topic of individuals

Over the last couple of weeks, I have had the pleasure - if you add stopovers to the count as well - to have visited six different countries, and in this context, I am saddened by how easily we tend to generalize: people who come from the country X, behaves in a way Y.
Of course, we can look at things as statistics and add up percentages of people from different populations who have given characteristics, but there's one thing that's important to keep in mind: when face to face with a another person from another country, it's extremely important not to generalize. Basically, you do not face "a person from the country X", which is why you should not form the assumption that "this person behaves in the way Y". No, you are faced with an individual, to whom you owe the common courtesy to assess her based on her personal characteristics - not based on statistics for people who come from the same country as she does.
And there are many other contexts in which the fact that a person belongs to a group of people does not automatically justify us categorizing her as belonging in a certain basket - as long as we do not know the individual person, we have no basis for categorization.
(Translated from Noget om enkeltpersoner)

The Tribe

Recently, it dawned on me that in my digital universe, something best described as synergy has suddenly emerged; a synergy between an old idea that I have been toying with for years and a phenomenon that is just on the brink of emerging.
After a long time, I started looking into what Twitter basically is and what can be used to, and I have become aware that on Twitter, there's a potential to find some interesting people. People, whose creativity one could appeal to and ask them to come up with their wild thoughts. People, who would be able to inspire each other with their posts and to develop each other's wild ideas with constructive comments.
I am well aware that maybe one out of 100 Twitter followers might be interested in participating in such a project. Might be ready to enter into such a tribal community, to stay in the jargon that surrounds the medium. But it is also not a project that will initially need dozens of people - so actually, it may just work. Once the critical mass is reached - and initially, it just needs to be a couple of people or so doing ping-pong with each other's ideas - it is "just" to set up a forum for communication and get going - and eventually, the snowball effect might just do the trick.
(Translated from Stammen, eller: The Invitationals, part 6, originally published October 12, 2017)

Excuses and ways

At some point, I was faced with a quote by the late American author and speaker Jim Rohn - a quote that, in all its scary simplicity, goes as follows:

If you really want to do something, you’ll find a way. If you don’t, you’ll find an excuse.

It's scary because it's so obviously right - and because we are all able see it if we look at ourselves in the mirror. It's so easy to find an excuse why something will not succeed, and therefore why I should just as well spare the effort making an attempt. But maybe, we should rather become better to look ourselves in the eyes and ask whether this this thing really is something we want to happen. And if we want to - well, then it is just find the way to go, and make it clear to oneself that excuses are no longer on the agenda. And it goes for everything - from jogging on a daily basis to the really great choices in life. (Translated from Undskyldninger og veje, originally published June 21, 2013)

Innovation and busker bands

I appreciate creativity and innovation in all its forms - and sometimes you'll see it in the funniest places. On a recent vacation, I saw it in a band of street musicians who had taken the stand on the main street.

Street musicians are probably seen in most places, but this band - to be found on YouTube under the name of Camachophones, if anyone should be interested - distinguishes itself by bringing - in addition to trumpet, tuba, saxophone and two "regular" percussionists - a somewhat distinctive instrument - which is easiest to describe by recognizing that an image says more than a thousand words.

Add to this that the musicians certainly seem to enjoy what they do, and all of it actually sounds really great - then it's hard not to be happy with the experience - and put 10 € for the CD sold from the instrument box in front, and some coins in addition.

A souvenir that might cost more than the average postcard. But on the other hand, it is also more unusual than the average.

(Translated from Innovation og gademusikanter)

Why? No - Why not?!

One of the most terrible phrases I know is "toxic relationships". The worst thing about it is that the phrase covers something that is at least as terrible as the expression itself. That is, people involved in relationships with other people without any positive contribution. Rather, it is the opposite; they only drain each other for energy in a non-constructive way. At worst, it is directly harmful to those involved because it harms their mental well-being.
Ideally, when we relate to other people, we do it to make a contribution to each other. To make each other better, as they say in the world of sports. We bring our diversity, enjoy the fact that others are not identical to ourselves, and together we form a unity larger than the parts that it consists of. As in the world of sports, thus also in workplaces and in relationships.
But sometimes things go wrong. Typically, it is in relationships that were originally good, but where the parties forgot what it was that back in the day made their relationship better than the parts it consisted of. Where people have found (as we say in Danish) the holes in the cheese, focused on them and let them grow so big that it is impossible to see what one once saw. Colleagues, who once worked well together, are now stuck in a psychologically bad work environment that they basically created together. Married couples who promised each other to love and to cherish each other until death did them part, but now live together as cat and dog, where people around them hardly remember when the fighting parties recently exchanged a loving word.
And you can ask yourself: why? Why do colleagues insist on ignoring that the salary they earn is expensive money to pay for the lack of psychological welfare that the get in return? Why do couples stay together for the sake of their children, but do the children no good by letting them experience Mum and Dad treat each other in a way that has nothing to do with loving relationships?
But maybe you should rather ask yourself: why not? Why do they not get together, look at each other and one self and consider what in the world they are doing? And start getting back to what initially made them know the other party as someone who could contribute to a relationship that was larger than its individual parts?
See, "why not" is probably the better question. And it should not be harder to ask yourself or others than "why?"
(Translated from Hvorfor? Nej, hvorfor ikke?!, originally published February 22nd, 2018)

A necessary uphill battle

The other day I encountered an interesting quote, attributed to Arthur Koestler.

Conforming to a deformed society creates deformed individuals.

It is worth remembering, when we sometimes think that everything goes wrong in the community around us. It's so easy to give in to thinking: When other people seem to think of their own interest only - why should I think of others than myself? When other people cheat with their taxes and the government hardly is able to get hold of the money people owe- why should I pay what I am obliged to? When others find loopholes to contribute as little as possible to the common best - why should I not follow their example?
The quote gives the simple reason. There is no good way of adjusting to the distorted norms that seem to prevail in the surrounding community - it is just distorting yourself.
Instead, we must do our utmost to behave, as we feel citizens reasonably should, exhibit a good example and hope, with this example, to contribute to the development of society in a sensible direction. Although it may sometimes feel like an uphill battle.
(Translated from En nødvendig kamp opad bakke, originally published March 18, 2018)