If you live anywhere on this planet, you’ve surely heard the news that the next President of the U.S.A. will be Barack Obama. The long presidential campaign that seemed as though it would never come to an end is finally over. First it was the democrats among themselves dueling it out, and then it was the red and blue states each vying for the upper hand, but no-one, not the news media, and not the political pundits, predicted two years ago, when he first announced his candidacy, the stunning victory Barack Obama managed to secure.

In this Special Edition, I will review some invaluable lessons we can learn from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

First and foremost is the initial move the Obama campaign made in establishing who their target audience is, and structuring their campaign around that target audience. Rather than trying to be all things to all people, and trying to reach 100% of the U.S. population, the focus was on the target audience and how to get 100% of those votes. That meant finding out what their preferred channel of communication is and using it consistently, and later, intense drives to get those voters to the polls — or as we’d say in business parlance: closing the sale.

Most importantly, they created a message and stuck with it from start to finish, and connected with people in the way people wanted to connect, making sure nobody was left out in this high-tech era of a ubiquitous internet and blackberry addicts.

Planning for success.

If you followed the Obama/Biden campaign, you’ll have noticed how well they had everything prepared. From preparing a massive arena to celebrate his victory weeks in advance, to the Thank You page for the winning ticket for their website (which was up the moment results were in), victory was written into the script — everything was planned, prepared, and in place for an eventual win.

Sticking to the message.

The Obama campaign started off with the message “Yes we Can – Change we Need” and stuck with that from day one. They used it throughout the primaries to defeat Hillary Clinton, and stayed with the message when they needed to defeat John McCain. Even when situations changed, issues changed and events around the world changed, the message stayed the same; expanded of course to address the issues at hand, but consistent all throughout.

Connecting with people their way.

The Obama campaign recognized the importance of introducing the voting process to the millions of young American who had never before voted. Their researchers established that the days of placing backyard signs were long over. In today’s day and age, young people are hooked on the internet, cell phones and social networking. The Obama campaign adopted those mediums very successfully. Some analysts say it’s what won him the elections. While McCain went on record stating that he didn’t know how to use e-mail, the Obama campaign was making millions of dollars from their website and getting millions of people to follow their message.

Here are some of the modern tools the Obama Campaign used quite successfully:

Website:

barackobama.com outclassed johnmccain.com by far. The Obama site was way friendlier and by far more informational.

Blog

Blog Unlike a website which is more formal and stilted, a blog is an informal, personal, and casual way to get in touch with people. It’s a simple way to get your message out in a friendly, conversational way, and no business or organization should be without a blog of their own.

My.BarackObama.com

A tool that allowed supporters to create their own webpage which highlighted local events, gave contact information of undecided voters in the local neighborhood, and provided a space for personal blogging. My.BarackObama had over a million members, exponentially increasing exposure of the Barack Obama “brand”.

YouTube

In the not too distant past, the only option for showing a visual message was buying ad space. Enter YouTube circa 2008. The Obama campaign uploaded 1,823 videos and at last count had 135,543 subscribers and followers. Contrast that with the McCain campaign which uploaded only 330 videos during the same period.

Obama even added a “donate now” link on his YouTube profile, which is a novel idea, and something I’ve never seen before.

MySpace

Myspace.com is a social networking website offering an interactive, user-submitted network of friends, personal profiles, blogs, groups, photos, music and more. In the narrow field of popular social networking sites, MySpace attracts the lion’s share of the teenage demographic.

Among other things, Obama’s MySpace page lists the colleges he went to which would interest teenagers who would soon be attending college themselves, but not his professional resume which is less relevant to a teenage audience.

LinkedIn

Obama posted a brief summary of his agenda and his full resume on this networking site for business owners and professionals. Linkedin.com offers members a way to broadcast a brief business or professional profile, find acquaintances and potential colleagues, and connect with other professionals.

Facebook

Facebook.com is a social networking site similar to MySpace. The website is popular with college students and has a slightly more conservative member base. Obama amassed more than 3 million Facebook supporters!

Twitter

One of the newest of social networking tools, twitter allows members to update ‘followers’ throughout the day with small blurbs of information called ‘tweets’ which are sent to followers’ cell phones. Barack Obama had more than 130,000 Twitter followers.

SMS

Text messages were used throughout the Obama campaign to broadcast messages. There were general text messages, and targeted ones adapted to different states and cities with localized messages creating a customized, more personal missive.

I don’t think you’re planning to run for office, but I know you are running your business, and the take-away from all of this is as follows: we need to stay focused, on message, and make sure we connect with our target audience the way they want to be communicated with.

Onward and upward,

Meny Hoffman

Although Earth Day has been commonly associated with U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, and Congressman Pete McCloskey of California, it has been alleged that the concept originated initially in 1969 with John McConnell at an UNESCO conference held in San Francisco. Whatever were the origins, it is clear that this event has deeply resonated with people across the globe.

The history of Earth Day holds that the first event happened on April 22, 1970, with 20 Million participants around the world. That number since since grown to over 500 Million, with the participation of numerous national governments and 175 countries. And perhaps what made even more impact than those famous demonstrations, along with the “teach-ins” and cleaning up of so many places across the country by the approximately 20 million people participating that first historic event, was the bipartisan political action which followed.

Many student leaders identified what they called the “Dirty Dozen,” members of the Congress and Senate whose environmental records were atrocious, and whose seats were vulnerable. These student leaders actively campaigned against the targeted legislators, not only holding letter-writing crusades, but also walking the precincts where the voters were who held the sway. By election day of 1972, seven of that ”dirty dozen” had been kicked out of office; those replaced were five Republicans, and two senior Democrats. To quote Mr. McClosky, “That just had an enormous effect. The environment had proved it could deliver votes.”

When Senator Gaylord Nelson was first elected to office in 1962, he was already deeply concerned by the fact that the environment was not on any political agenda, although normal citizens were increasingly aware of the disturbing effects that matters such as pollution were having on the environment and human health.

This environmental issue stayed on the back burner for seven years, making the history of Earth Day that much more compelling, until Senator Nelson invited people from all walks of life in 1969 to join him the following year to a grassroots demonstration raising awareness about environmental issues. April 22, 1970 marked the first day in the history of Earth Day.

The response was intensely overwhelming. Rallies were held across the nation, and by the time the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a poll in 1971, a full 25% indicated that protecting the environment was an important goal to them.

March 21, 1970 was furthermore declared by San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto as International Earth Day, celebrated on the March equinox, which tends to fall around March 20. The listed founder is John McConnell.

Earth Day 1970 launched the environmental movement across the country and beyond, by harnessing the energy and enthusiasm of college students. In 2003, former Congressman Pete McCloskey, co-sponsor of that first Earth Day, sees the need to do it all over again. Mr. McCloskey credits Mr. Hayes and Sen. Nelson with making Earth Day happen. He was recruited as a rare, like-minded Republican to co-sponsor the event in the House of Representatives.

The Earth Day Network is now is the coordinating group for the movement, and under its Canopy Project, saw 1 Million trees planted in 2010, with over 50 Million for 2011. The Billion Acts of Green campaign is still continuing.

Whatever the origins of Earth Day may be, the most striking fact about this global event is that it somehow managed to organize itself.

As the state seeks to cut crowding, voters favor sentencing modifications for three strike penalties and other non violent drug crimes. The economy plays a major role along with the awareness of a futile drug war and tough sentencing laws that didn’t work out as expected. Tough on crime political stances and tough sentencing laws that started in the 1980’s during the crack cocaine epidemic, and the three strikes law in 1994 has targeted non violent criminals for drug habits and crimes relating to petty theft and residential burglaries. The Supreme Court ruled the release of 33,000 prisoners due to cruel and unusual punishment concerning health and safety issues where inmates are stacked in triple bunks. One inmate death per 8 days that could have been avoided with adequate medical attention was the kicker.

With further awareness that non violent inmates, most for drug related crimes, are becoming institutionalized, where an addiction is bred into an affliction much harder to escape, where gangs and tattoos become the answer, spitting displaced, alienated inmates back into the neighborhood without any job placement or a new skill set, equals the need for more and more prisons. The public has had enough on both sides of the party lines with the majority of Democrats and Republicans voting more than 60% for sentence modification for crimes like shoplifting and other petty offenses, rather than increase taxes to build even more prisons. 70% said they would have no problem with early releases without sentencing modifications for non violent offenders a poll from Washington.

In California there are already 33 state prisons. The most in the nation. California also has the worst recidivism percentage in the nation with more than 70% of released inmates are back behind bars within three years. Nevada however, has the lowest rate of return for released prisoners because they have job placement into sanitation jobs upon their release.

Linda DeVill of American Viewpoint said, “Voters are looking for solutions that don’t raise taxes or take money from education.”

It is about time our politicians swing the other way. Smart on crime has to include redemption and common sense about sentencing laws that consider the prison system as a whole. It doesn’t make sense to send a drug addict without any prior violence to prison where the violent criminals indoctrinate them into gangs. With Nevada as the example leading the way with smart on crime placement programs for released inmates into sanitation jobs, the rest of the country, starting with California, has to catch up.

Outside of the academic environment, a harsh and seemingly ever-growing debate has appeared, concerning how mass media distorts the political agenda. Few would argue with the notion that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics. In the transition to liberal democratic politics in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the media was a key battleground. In the West, elections increasingly focus around television, with the emphasis on spin and marketing. Democratic politics places emphasis on the mass media as a site for democratic demand and the formation of “public opinion”. The media are seen to empower citizens, and subject government to restraint and redress. Yet the media are not just neutral observers but are political actors themselves. The interaction of mass communication and political actors — politicians, interest groups, strategists, and others who play important roles — in the political process is apparent. Under this framework, the American political arena can be characterized as a dynamic environment in which communication, particularly journalism in all its forms, substantially influences and is influenced by it.

According to the theory of democracy, people rule. The pluralism of different political parties provides the people with “alternatives,” and if and when one party loses their confidence, they can support another. The democratic principle of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” would be nice if it were all so simple. But in a medium-to-large modern state things are not quite like that. Today, several elements contribute to the shaping of the public’s political discourse, including the goals and success of public relations and advertising strategies used by politically engaged individuals and the rising influence of new media technologies such as the Internet.

A naive assumption of liberal democracy is that citizens have adequate knowledge of political events. But how do citizens acquire the information and knowledge necessary for them to use their votes other than by blind guesswork? They cannot possibly witness everything that is happening on the national scene, still less at the level of world events. The vast majority are not students of politics. They don’t really know what is happening, and even if they did they would need guidance as to how to interpret what they knew. Since the early twentieth century this has been fulfilled through the mass media. Few today in United States can say that they do not have access to at least one form of the mass media, yet political knowledge is remarkably low. Although political information is available through the proliferation of mass media, different critics support that events are shaped and packaged, frames are constructed by politicians and news casters, and ownership influences between political actors and the media provide important short hand cues to how to interpret and understand the news.

One must not forget another interesting fact about the media. Their political influence extends far beyond newspaper reports and articles of a direct political nature, or television programs connected with current affairs that bear upon politics. In a much more subtle way, they can influence people’s thought patterns by other means, like “goodwill” stories, pages dealing with entertainment and popular culture, movies, TV “soaps”, “educational” programs. All these types of information form human values, concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense, what is “fashionable” and “unfashionable,” and what is “acceptable” and “unacceptable”. These human value systems, in turn, shape people’s attitude to political issues, influence how they vote and therefore determine who holds political power.

As a Counter Part officer of FEEM (Finance for Economics and Economic Management) Course for Mid-level officers of Bangladesh Civil Service conducted by Financial Management Reform programme in collaboration with Financial Management Academy, I had an opportunity to visit Commonwealth War Cemetery of Comilla in 2006 in connection with a study tour. In my opinion, this cemetery inspires people to dedicate for the sake of truth, welfare and overall democratic hopes and aspiration.

Freedom is such a word with which a man can cherish to develop his lot in respect of cultivating mechanism of democratic institution as a faltering flow. If we look around the tomb, we will find the names of the world heroes of different castes and creed throughout the world. As a wordless bystander of world history, Commonwealth war cemetery is situated with its past magnificence at Mynamati of Comilla enthralling the ecstasy of loneliness under ever green natural beauties delimited by numerous plants, trees, grasslands and herbs. About uncountable attractions of the people, this memorial park has been engraved with respects and dignity. Even if, this world cemetery has added a new dimension of this glorified district towards heritage, culture and ritual of Bangladesh. Not only in Bangladesh, this historical cemetery has won the outstanding vision of the people all the way through out the whole world which whip the heart of the people in the sense that the heroes who had laid down their lives for the cause of egalitarianism and emancipation of the country are really the great men who have not well thought-out their self greediness rather they have dyed-in-the-wool their lives to run off with freedom from the despotic rulers.

Due to the gallant touch-wood of mammoth memories of World War II (1939-!945), the name of this historical cemetery has been spread far and near in due sense of honour and high esteem for such freedom fighter as they had dedicated their lives for the just cause of heroic deeds. They did not lag behind from the warfare thinking about their children, fathers and wives and their close kith and kin. They have never looked behind and never been deviated from their sacred duties to safeguard their mother land bedded on good faith, unity and trust with the creator. They have never made any breech of trust with the widespread people and their blood mixed with their reliance and philosophy of life. This memorial tomb is in times gone by momentous because the soldiers from different walks of life coupled together and fought in the battle turf. They died for the sake of freedom and success to establish democratic rights of the people. They are the symbols of national hero and the people from different countries of the world memorialize their painstaking life of war with acclamation bedded on praise and somber mood.

According to the accounts placed on the wall of the world cemetery, 736 soldiers have been buried here symbolizing their contribution in World War II for their courage, heroism and hardihood. The soldiers were from Russia, Japan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Burma and many other parts of the world. The carved names upon these necropolises are undoubtedly declaring their loyalties to establish equality and liberty of the people. We behold the tomb glittered with golden rays of the sun with cosmopolitan outlook and find unrestrained spiritual and eternal peace of life.

In politics people don't always keep their promises. In the 2010 election to the House of Commons, all the Liberal Democrat Party candidates took a pledge to oppose any increase in university tuition fees and to campaign for their abolition. However, after forming a coalition government with the Conservatives, 21 of 57 Liberal Democrat MPs voted to increase the fees.

Former US President Barack Obama vowed repeatedly during the 2008 election to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, but the prison remained open during the wholeety of his Presidency. I suspect most of us realize that election promises have to be later shaped by expediency and compromise.

But what about the serious promises we make in our personal lives? Those made to people we know concerning all sorts of matters. Is it okay to break our own promises?

Contractual promises
The law does not always enforce promises. I might renege on a verbal agreement to sell my house to you because a better offer came along. There is no easy way of you proving in law that you have been gazumped if I signed nothing.

However, usually a person, who is in breach of contract, is liable to compensate the other party. The fear of having to pay out a lot money may make one keep one's agreement.

But non-legal promises can also be difficult to get out of. Who wants to be seen as unreliable for not keeping their word? A reputation as an honest person is easily lost and hard to recover. The world is quick to judge.

Pragmatic considerations
The question about keeping or breaking one's promises usually relates to non-contracted promises. What is the significance for oneself and others and the circumstances in which one considers breaking them?

In his book How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time , Iain King suggests that promises should be kept 'unless they are worth less to others than a new option is to you.' He reckons this requires a relevant, unforeseen and reasonably unforeseeable change in the situation. A change that is judged to be more important than the promise itself. Rash promises made in a state of enthusiasm or on in the impulse of the moment are an clear case in point. On the other hand, some of us are experts in self-justification to suit our desires. Deciding the rights and wrongs about changing one's mind is probably often quite complex. What higher principles might help our decision making?

Implicit promises
We don't consider our social obligations as promises because they are not ordinarily spelt out. For example, most of us probably feel a strong debt to our parents and duty to our children. Many feel a responsibility to support their favorite charitable body.

We may vary in our sense of patriotic ties to our country. However, people usually have some level of commitment towards those they work, play and live with. For many of us reasonable feelings of guilt can arise when we go against this ethic.

In his book The Soul of the World, philosopher Roger Scruton has pointed out that many of the relations that are most important to us involve a kind of unconditional giving to the other person. An attitude of expecting something back but not demanding it. In other words, we behave as if we have made a promise to do good for people we know. And to do so not based on what we can necessarily get out of it. This implicit promise varies in strength according to how close we are to the person. We will want to think twice before breaking it. It helps protect society against the forces of selfish desire.

Oaths and vows as promises
Courts of justice expect special honesty from individuals giving testimony. So, they ask them to take an oath on say the Bible as a sacred object. Traditionally, what is sacred is connected to the idea of ​​God. For many people today, what is sacred might be the principle or ethic of say the life force in nature, virtue, compassion, truth, or beauty. In giving an oath, we call upon something sacred to bear witness to what we are saying to show our sincerity.

In contrast to an oath, when making a vow we are making our promise to and thus directly addressing some entity that we venerate. So, there is now a heightened commitment and risk of betrayal if we don't keep our promise.

"All I did was pray to God, every day. In prison camp, the main prayer was, 'Get me home alive, God, and I'll seek you and serve you.' I came home, got wrapped up in the celebration, and forgot about the hundreds of promises I'd made to God. " Louis Zamperini (World War II veteran, and Olympic distance runner)

People make what they consider as other sacred vows eg to uphold justice, defend their country, and some make vows of poverty, chastity or abstinence from alcohol. Breaking solemnly made promises of this sort might have huge consequences for one's sense of honor and well-being.

Marriage vows
In our secular times in Britain, 50% of marriages fail. Prospective partners are wary of entering into a commitment for life which could end up this way. And so, marriage vows have been starting to fall out of fashion. Instead prenuptual agreements are starting to emerge. You can re-negotiate such a contract. One might wonder if a society no longer insists on the vows of marriage, does it offer less security to the children of such relationships?

Conclusion about promises
The rights and wrongs of breaking a promise seems to me to hang on our motivation. Would breaking a promise to someone make good sense in the longer run, be in keeping with personal integrity or meet a higher need? Or would it merely meet the demands of the moment, destroy a trusting relationship, or be self-serving?

We’ve all come across people who just seem incapable of modifying their perspective based on new data being presented. Most of us still mouth the words that additional education (or indoctrination/propaganda as is often the case) is what is needed since surely this person will turn around if his/her consciousness is sufficiently expanded with additional data backing your perspective. However, all too often deep inside we know that some people are “hopeless”. This conclusion concerning failure of propaganda is reached from all over the political, cultural, and religious spectrum at one point or another. It thus becomes fashionable to outright dismiss “inconvertible” individuals and opposing zealots (on political and religious fringes of any given population) as nuts and crazies.

Personality theory in psychology allows us to better categorize individuals in society without resorting to name calling. Myers-Briggs typology in particular offers a better construct (compared to useless terms like conservative and liberal for example) to predict how an individual will act politically and socially. Myers-Briggs research combined with biology and brain scan techniques also offers us hints at understanding the underlining anatomical basis that predisposes a person to be either a disagreeable radical or a gentle follower.

There’s been little relative popular attempts to scientifically explain why the bulk of the population is always a warzone between the extreme fringes. It’s just assumed that it will always be this way just like there will always be criminals and extremely altruistic self-sacrificing givers. This assumption seems reasonable and obvious but gives rise to two other creeping and unsettling assumptions:

1) The human population is relatively fixed along a bell curve type continuum. Perhaps this is better visually represented by a sphere with a number of spikes extending from it. The moderate population is the bulk of the sphere and the zealous “radical” factions (whose opinions differ dramatically from the statistical average) are the spikes extending from the sphere’s surface (as well as into the interior to some degree which would represent silent sympathizers). It is irrelevant to label the spikes as extreme left, right, etc. All that is important is that a relatively fixed minority of the population (lets say 10-20% range) will be:

a) prone to modes of thought that are tangibly different from majority’s

b) prone to action and lifestyle based on these thoughts

Authors like Friedrich Hayek for instance, observed that in 1920s Germany roughly a million workers swung their support between communists and Nazis based on who was winning. It was noted that the two seemingly opposing ideological parties clashed with one another the most because they were very often competing for recruits in the same psychological pool of young people. Considering how many overexcited Americans called both Bush and Obama the new “Hitler” in recent years, we can easily imagine how an aggressive drooling at the mouth anti-war protestor from a big city could have been an equally excitable protester at a teabag rally if only he was born in a small town and into a different culture.

2) Since the ratio of intensely active people (prone to being perceived by population at large as “wingnuts”or criminals or radicals or genuinely informed and committed activists, etc) to more relaxed apathetic majority seems to be roughly fixed across all societies and globally as a whole, the explanatory basis for such a dynamic can only be biological. Just like there exist (and can further be bred) aggressive dogs and peaceful friendly dogs, there exist aggressive people, natural Buddhist-esque peaceful people, etc. A person who is an aggressive pit bull equivalent (and who wants to impose his views of the world onto others the most) would differ in his relatively extreme ideology depending on what part of the world he was socialized in. Psychiatry has shown us that people are born with different ratios of neurotransmitter production and quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the types of chemicals that affect their mood and cognition. We now understand that people differ a lot more in terms of brain architecture than they differ in terms of things like body type, skin color, fast twitch/slow twitch muscle ratio, etc.

The reason why these assumptions are unsettling is not because there is a degree of fatalism involved (“he will be a radical of one stripe or another no matter what” or “he will be socially lazy, shallow, apathetic, and uninvolved no matter what). Obviously with modern socialization methods and pharmaceutical modification (with psychological genetic and cybernetic modification to follow in near future), an individual can be shaped more than ever before by society and by himself. The assumptions are unsettling because if the broad direction of our views, opinions, and political/cultural/religious affiliations are largely physiologically determined at birth, then societal progress becomes enormously more difficult. Societal progress can be defined here as one zealot faction (that is seen by majority as the most “correct” in its socioeconomic policy perspectives and formulations of what humans should do next) dragging everybody else along behind it as has always occurred throughout history.

Obviously people will disagree on what constitutes progress (some actually thought arrival of Reagan was progress) but if majority of people are physiologically predisposed towards the status quo, progress of any sort becomes a lot harder in a democratic society. In the past, one intense dedicated fringe of the aristocratic elites dragged the other nobility along behind it (since majority of nobility would also have a soft apathetic bulk) and thus dragged the rest of the population behind it as well. We also had scenarios of power vacuum developing and one intense fringe political faction overpowering the others (as in the case of Bolshevik and French revolutions) and filling the leadership position to then drag the rest of the serfs behind it.

In today’s democratic structure however, protection of the status quo is a lot more preserved since the moderate bulk of the population has a political voice and thus a way to provide the ruling elites with legitimacy. The moderate bulk of the elites now also has ever more sophisticated consent and perception manufacturing methods to influence the newfound voice of the majority. For a small number of dedicated activists, pushing society along towards desired version of progress against the forces of social inertia is now harder than ever. The powerful activists now need to sway both the fellow elites and the people simultaneously.

Let’s finally get to the Myers-Briggs part of the article to see what we are now dealing with.

The most widely used way to get a glimpse of people’s underlining neural physiology has been the Myers-Briggs psychological questionnaire (one of the better versions found online for free can be found here). Over the past few decades, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been utilized to collect enormous amounts of statistical data on personality types found within the human population. The statistical type breakdown (I am using a combination of 3 different sources on the %. Don’t mind the catchy positive nicknames each type and group cluster has been given. What matters here is the number within a population.) so far has been as follows,

Protectors (SJ)

ESTJ – Overseer, supervisor = 11.8%

ESFJ – Supporter, provider = 11.7%

ISTJ – Examiner, inspector = 9.8%

ISFJ – Defender, protector = 9.9%

All SJs = 43.2%

Creators (SP)

ESTP – Persuader, promoter = 8.4%

ESFP – Entertainer, performer = 10.3%

ISTP – Craftsman, mechanic = 6.4%

ISFP – Artist, composer = 7.9%

All SPs = 33%

Intellectuals (NT)

ENTJ – Chief, fieldmarshal = 3.2%

ENTP – Originator, inventor = 3.7%

INTJ – Strategist, mastermind = 1.5%

INTP – Engineer, architect = 2.2%

All NTs = 10.6%

Visionaries (NF)

ENFJ – Mentor, teacher = 3.4%

ENFP – Advocate, idealist = 4.2%

INFJ – Confidant, empath = 1.2%

INFP – Dreamer, healer = 2.4%

All NFs = 11.2%

Each of the personality types (the well defined strong ones at least who haven’t self reported to be a mutt of 2 or more different personalities) can be seen as a specific brain type. As mentioned above, the physiological neural difference between 2 people of vastly dissimilar brain types is a lot more significant than how a person looks on the outside. That is because the brain type determines a mental and emotional predisposition of a person for the rest of his life. People classified as “bipolar” or “anti-social/sociopathic” for instance, have neural structures that will make them lean towards some things more than others during their entire lives.

We can see from the statistical breakdown that SJ (left-brained people with parietal lobe strength) predominate in the overall population. The second biggest group are the SP (right-brained with parietal lobe strength). Together they are almost 80% of the population. The SJs tend to be conservative, authoritarian in outlook, conventional, focused on concrete “what is”, and protective of the general society. They don’t rock the boat too much and defer to tradition. The SPs tend to be fun loving, crafty, entertaining, and have uncanny ability to focus on “what is” (with their parietal lobe) in order to fix and modify it.

If you look at the cute nicknames given to different brain types, you can see that the human herd pretty much needs all of them if it is to evolve and survive. Some types are needed more than others in the great scheme of things. The SJ and SP groups for example are conveniently numerous. SJ population provides a great amount of soldiers, policemen, social workers, self sacrificing charity givers, accountants, and status quo protectors. In other words they keep the herd safe even if it means stagnating the herd through using their positions in the executive to slow down rapid change. SP group provides us with artisans who improve quality of life for the herd through provision of entertainers, artists, dancers, singers, and resourceful improvising mechanics. SPs can be said to exist to entertain SJs and keep them on their toes by having more fun than them.

It’s easy to see how SJs lean republican and SPs lean democrat overall. The jokes that democrats have better sex lives than republicans begin to acquire an element of truth (considering the different approach left and right sides of the brain take in deciding on how to deal with the here and now). However, the two large groups are united by their concern with all things as they are in the now. That makes the two groups friendly and status quo leaning by default. An ESTJ born in Brooklyn may identify as a traditionalist democrat whereas an ESTJ born in West Virginia may identify as a traditionalist republican, but both are more likely to seek similar professions and get along if they hang out together. Brain type identification provides a lot more material to predict a person’s behavior and views on the world than simple political identification.

The overall theme emerges that people with neural computers that predispose them to either protect the status quo or be apathetic about it (since they are busy pursuing hedonistic adventures) are the supermajority that are not as interested in “what can be” (as the less numerous NP and NJ groups tend to be). A point must be made here that not one group is more important than another and that even their numerical breakdowns seem amazingly appropriate. It would be turbulent for the herd to have for example, more ENTJs/INTJs than ISTJs/ESTJs since the problem with authority that NJs have (due to their desire to be the authority themselves) would create unsustainable infighting and not allow enough people who follow orders. Each brain type has a very key social niche and function and over thousands of years there evolved an intricate genetic balance and ratio. There are of course also multitudes of physiological “mutts” who are a hybrid of all and can’t be “pigeonholed” (the most common complaint brought against psychological typology in general).

Interestingly enough, the Hindus have spent thousands of years evolving classification of human beings into 4 broad psychological varnas or classes. Each was considered as important as the other (all parts of the same body) with their own particular temperaments and duties.

Some brain types are literally made to create new theoretical constructs on how society should be organized and which steps it should take next (INTPs, ENTPs,). When balanced by the emotional consideration and input of INFPs and ENFPs (since strong T theorists are prone to being too rigidly rational and thus not take into consideration the emotional impact of their constructs) new paths for society can be developed that would be acceptable to SJs and SPs combined. However, as explained above, these people will always be outvoted and marginalized by politicians who mobilize the other more numerous groups. “Think of the children!” is a call to arms for ESFJs and ISFJs for instance whereas being tough on crime, national strength, and defeating foreign enemies is the bread and butter of ESTJs and ISTJs.

This dynamic reinforces the need for proportional representation in our system of governance. Proportional representation is practiced in most European Union countries to great effect. This way each brain type cluster can get a political party of their own. The marginalized 20% of the population can get representation and even serve as coalition kingmakers. New voices can be heard in the discourse. Today the 20% of population has to either join the big parties they don’t like and “radicalize” them (seen by the tail wagging the dog phenomenon of militants dominating today’s Republican party and driving moderates out of it) or abstain from the process thus depriving society of valuable input. In proportional representation, each batch of brain types seen as “radicals” can find a party to call home and really support. They would also have more political representation to vent out their frustration and to institutionalize their presence and views. Citizens can then pick and choose which vision of progress to support and which to leave behind.

Anyone who lives in Southern California and who travels the coastline from San Diego to San Francisco has seen the offshore oil rigs along the coast of Santa Barbara, Ventura and Long Beach. Anyone who lives in any of the other coastal cities such as San Diego, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, La Jolla, Del Mar, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Cardiff, Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Beach, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Pismo Beach, Morro Bay, Cambria or San Simeon sees something different – pristine beaches without offshore oil rigs.

In the midst of America’s financial meltdown and on the same weekend as Congress put together a $700 billion bailout, Congress did away with a 26 year ban on offshore oil drilling to the dismay of environmentalists.

Despite the ban on offshore oil drilling, it is believed that such drilling, at least off the coast of California is unlikely to occur for many years, if ever. Democrats in Congress are already vowing to reinstate the ban when a new Congress takes their seats in four months. And political opposition, marine protection laws and almost certain lawsuits by environmental groups in California make offshore oil drilling an unlikely event.

First, there is a general belief of Californians, including the Governor, that the California coastline is an international treasure, not to mention a draw to tourists from around the world. Few politicians in the state would dare to jeopardize that treasure.

Second, a law passed by former Governor Pete Wilson already bans all offshore oil drilling in California out to three miles from shore.

Third, there are 300 miles of national marine sanctuaries along the California coast which ban oil drilling.

Fourth, nearly every coastal county in the State of California has enacted ordinances banning new oil pipelines, oil terminals and tanks in the State.

Fifth, environmental groups are already vowing to file lawsuits, and they could be joined by the California Coastal Commission.

While California has around 30 oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara, Ventura and Long Beach that were built in the 1950s, no new oil platforms have been built in over 50 years.

It is estimated that California has at least 10.5 billion barrels of oil offshore – about a year and a half of the nation’s yearly supply. This is comparable to the estimate of oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

But if anything, despite the oil crisis and the financial crisis, in light of global warming and calls for investment in alternative energies, Californians are becoming more and more environmentally aware. Any politician running on any platform (oil or not) based on drilling offshore at a risk to the California scenic coastline, will have a hard time being elected.

I went to the internet today, before starting this article, to find statistics to support an idea I wanted to present. In the search bar I put “trust statistics in workplace”. I was hoping to find a data point or two to introduce the chicken and egg standoff of: “which came first – the lack of trust or inadequate communication?”.

The results were staggering! I didn’t even need to explore the reports, the headlines told the story:

• “Do Your Employees Trust You?” ~Gallup
• “15 Shocking Statistics about Engagement in the Workplace” ~Novarete
• “82% of People Don’t Trust the Boss To Tell the Truth” ~Forbes

Anyone who has worked in corporate America, and is familiar with the well-meaning employee satisfaction survey, knows that it is very typical to have both trust and communication surface as top issues when it comes to leadership.

Who is always responsible? The manager. This pivotal point in workplace structure holds all the cards. The manager is the person people trust (or distrust) the most. How this individual deals with people on his or her team, the tone that is set for sharing ideas, and how much the group can count on its leader to carry-through on what has been said, determines the organization’s ability to thrive. It sets the culture.

If you’ve got a great manager you can create a highly productive team in a lousy organization. On the other hand, no matter how good the organization is, if you have a crappy team leader, nothing works very well. How the person at the helm leads makes or breaks a team – formal or virtual. (By virtual I mean any formal or informal group that has someone in the manager / supervisor / boss role.)

Egalitarian Leadership

The manager role can be played out in one of four ways.

1. Autocratic. The autocratic manager gets “99” votes; the employee gets “1”.

In most situations, this leadership style is no longer preferred. But there are times when it is required. Some business situations certainly require a unilateral decision. That’s when autocratic leadership is at its best. Using this style sparingly helps to build trust.

2. Democratic. The democratic manager wants everyone to agree. Decisions are based on a majority vote. Using this style too frequently can drag down initiatives and stall action. But listening and working out a true consensus when possible is good for trust building.

3. Benevolent. “I know what is good for our employees; I don” need to ask them.” That’s what you hear from a manager in benevolent mode. While this style may have its place at times, it is not an inclusive approach. It’s not a great trust builder.

4. Egalitarian. Egalitarian managers know that everyone is equal.. that every worker’s role is valued… from the janitor to the president. Each has a unique contribution to make. This mutual respect approach builds the strongest trust.

Building Trust as an Egalitarian Leader

There are three ways an egalitarian leader builds trust.

#1. Have a core belief in MUTUAL RESPECT for every individual in the organization. Know, unequivocally that each person brings value, plays an essential role. This perspective is at the root of egalitarian leadership and a building block for mutual trust.

#2. Be someone who ACTIVELY LISTENS. Be willing, able and eager to hear the ideas and opinions of every individual on your team. Create a safe environment for suggesting out of the box ideas and disagreeing with yours. Make sure they have no fear of reprisal or pre-judgement. Give them, and their feedback, the respect they deserve. Make it possible so that they have no desire for anonymity. This builds trust that has people willing to give true feedback.

#3. An egalitarian leader CARRYS-THROUGH. Managers can’t commit to something and then ignore, forget or disregard it. Do what you say you will. Be truly committed to the success of each individual. That will translate into success for the team and the organization.

So which comes first… trust or communication? You tell me. In many ways, it’s a Catch-22. But the good news is, try a little of both and you can inch your way into a vibrant, trusting team where effective communications is the glue.

This year Governor Rick Perry and conservative Republicans triumphed in dominating the 2011 legislative debate on both fiscal and social issues. With a 19-12 majority in the Senate, and a staggering 101-49 super majority in the House, the most Republican Texas Legislature in history had enough votes to pass most bills without the need for any support from Democrats. In total, the legislature managed to pass 1,379 bills, fewer than 2009 but still within the state’s average. The following is an overview of the most noteworthy legislation passed in Texas this year.

State Budget

H.B. 1 enacts a two-year balanced budget with $172.3 billion in overall spending, an overall decrease of 8.1%. The budget does not levy any new taxes and relies solely on spending cuts. The largest budget cuts were made in public education, higher education, and social services.

Public Education

Public education funding was cut by $570 million overall compared with the current budget. S.B. 1 in the special session clarifies how much each district will be affected by the cut and S.B. 8 in the special session eliminated certain mandates in order to provide the districts with more flexibility in determining where to cut costs.

Redistricting

Due to significant population growth, Texas gained 4 new congressional districts. However, the new redistricting must still be reviewed by the Obama Administration before they become effective.

Small Business Tax Exemption

S.B. 1 of the special session continues the business franchise tax exemption for small businesses earning less than $1 million in annual revenue.

“Amazon Tax”

S.B. 1 of the special session requires online retailers that pay in-state marketers to advertise for them collect a tax from online sales that involve Texas consumers.

Abortion

H.B. 15 requires physicians to provide a sonogram to pregnant women 24 hours before performing an abortion.

Voting

Under S.B. 14 most voters will have to show photo identification to cast a ballot.

Traffic Laws

Applicants for a driver’s license must provide proof that they are lawfully present in the U.S..

H.R. 1353 eliminates lower nighttime speed limits. It also allows municipalities to raise speed limits to 75 miles per hour on certain rural roads.

A person convicted of driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of.15 or higher is liable for a Class A misdemeanor (1 year jail, $4,000 fine), instead of a Class B misdemeanor (180 days jail, $2,000) fine.

Use of radar-jamming devices is prohibited.

It is illegal to discard lit cigarettes or cigars on public roads or right of ways. If the act results in a fire, a motorist could faces fines of up to $500 and jail time.

Children

H.R. 358 requires that parents give written consent before a school may use corporal punishment on their child. The parent must provide a written, signed statement each school year prohibiting the use of corporal punishment.

A student must be removed from an athletic practice or game immediately if a coach, physician, or the student’s parent believes that the student has a concussion. The student cannot be returned until they have been evaluated by a physician, who must provide a written statement that the student may return, and the student’s parent consents.

Starting the 2012-2013 school year, a school district may not use a football helmet that is 16 years or older in the district’s football program.

S.B. 198 prevents a defendant who is 19 years or younger from having to register as a sex offender if he or she had consensual sex with someone 15 or older, so long as the defendant is not more than 4 years older than the other person.

S.B. 407 allows prosecutors to charge minors who text illicit images (“sexting”) of other minors with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

A child in the sixth grade or lower grade may not be charged with the criminal offense of disorderly conduct for acting out in class.

A school district may transfer a student who engages in bullying to another classroom or another campus within the district. Also, a school district cannot impose a punishment on a student who uses reasonable self-defense in response to bullying if, after an investigation, the student is found to be a victim of bullying.

Guns

S.B. 321 allows a person with a concealed weapon license to keep their gun in their car while on an employer’s private parking lot, even if their employer objects.

H.B. 25 states that the laws which govern guns in cars also apply to guns on boats.

Animals

S.B. 279 permits courts dealing with a domestic dispute to issue protective orders for pets.

Under H.B. 2189 Texans can now fish for catfish using their hands (aka “noodling”).

H.B. 1806 makes it a third-degree felony to cheat in a fishing tournaments with a prize of $10,000 or more.

H.B. 716 allows landowners to rent seats to hunters seeking to shoot feral hogs and coyotes from a helicopter.