Memory

 Last week I received a wonderful gift. A personal letter arrived in the post (how often does that happen nowadays?) from somebody I had not seen for nearly fifty years. When we were both twelve we shared a dormitory in a British boarding school that could have served as a model for Evelyn Waugh. He possessed the foresight to keep some form of diary and during the pandemic he dug it up and found references to me, so he looked me up. Four days after I received the letter we met up for lunch, so our curiosity had certainly been pricked.

 

Ever since the letter arrived my mind, specifically my memory, has been working overtime. It is quite extraordinary how something can trigger a lost memory from long ago. Then the real magic lies how the recollection causes a cascade of other memories to rush back like a flood. Now the process has started I cannot see how it might stop, especially since this former acquaintance seemingly has a large supply of diary entries to share.

 

One aspect of this that I am finding fascinating is how the memories come back from rather indirect triggers and following a strange maze. My former friend included a photo from one of his diary entries in his letter and it was somehow the handwriting, even its precise shade of blue, that contributed to the vividness of recollection of a whole series of incidents not mentioned in the correspondence.

 

To make the experience even more vibrant, after lunch on Sunday we happened to visit the Rubin Museum in Manhattan, where an exhibition explores a type of Himalayan mindfulness called a Mandala. This was all about finding peace and growth from turning negative emotions into things we can use in a positive way. One part of the exhibit asked us to experience a particular smell and to see where our associations of that odour took our minds. I have some familiarity with the concept: I associate Faro airport in Portugal with a particular smell which always makes me blissfully happy whenever I experience a similar smell or even whenever I think about it.

 

I was not the ideal subject for odour exhibit itself, because my sense of smell is so bad. If I lost it during Covid I probably would not have noticed it. It is a disability that I have always considered more of a blessing than a curse, especially living in garbage-wracked New York City. But I sat down and tried to smell the odour the computer was surely emitting and could hardly smell anything.

 

That called to mind one of my go-to cabaret numbers that I sing to the tune of Lloyd-Webber’s memory. I adapted it from somebody else’s skit. It always goes down well with any crowd over fifty years old (but not so old that they can’t catch the words of course). My favourite verse goes like this:

Midnight, not a sound from the pavement.

Well, no sound whatsoever, where’s my hearing aid gone.

I can’t see much, and nowadays I’ve no sense of smell,

And as for sex drive, (spoken in fierce New York accent) fuggetaboutit.

I leave it to the reader to discern which of the claims in this verse are autobiographical and which made up for comedy value.

 

The combination of the Rubin exhibit with the tsunami of memory only raised my sense level to an even higher plane. Now, a week after the initial stimulus, I still find myself recalling the strangest things, and I am usually unsure of where the trigger has come from for many of these memories.

 

One image might be a tree with a trunk and many branches leading to many other branches. The entire tree might be a model for our entire life experience. Most of can remember stuff that recently happened, represented by the lower part of the trunk, and things that had a profound effect on us and are permanently etched on our minds (perhaps inaccurately). But the flow from the trunk base to the outer branches has been cut somehow so the memory is lost. Then a trigger brings something from a small distant leaf into consciousness. That event somehow unblocks lots of other connections and branches all over the tree. More of the tree is richer as a result.

 

There must be a very effective branch of therapy in these insights, and probably many people already practising it. The full collection of possible memories from our life’s experiences is our available database of wisdom, and the more of that wisdom is available to us the better decisions we can make and the richer lives we can lead. Multiply this by the people in the world and the potential for human development is enormous.

 

My last week indicates a few possible approaches. Growing and broadening the triggers would be one promising avenue. Even without the diary, meeting somebody who crossed my path fifty years ago would surely have given plenty of ammunition to clear away the blockages in my memory tree. This approach has far greater potential now thanks to social media, which is making such unlikely connections more likely than ever before. But incentivising schools to host reunions might be a cheap way to unleash connections. Even cheaper would be to encourage the same schools to develop their alumni Facebook pages and to make more effort to find their lost sheep. Then there is the wonderful practice of writing diaries, and then really holding them for years and years. Perhaps the ever-growing supply of photos stored on mobile phones will have a true benefit in later years.

 

My first reaction on receiving my letter offers a different lesson. I was immediately reminded of my memory of my own character at the time, and that included a shameful tendency towards verbal bullying, something I have never been able to fully shake off. Now, I wonder if it is possible that many of those broken connections in my memory tree are because I have chosen to break them because of some traumatic association? That feels quite likely to me. So therapeutic tools to gently face up to the trauma before trying to fix the connections might be a worthwhile approach. That takes us right back to Mandalas, as well as to more traditional kinds of therapy.

 

Understanding dreams is another possible avenue. I used to experience déjà vu a lot when I was younger, and it still occurs occasionally. My own theory for my déjà vu is that an experience in real life is mirroring an earlier dreamt experience. Dreams can be sort of scenarios, where the mind starts with a likely experience and lets it play through. It should not be such a surprise if the dreamt scenario is so well-structured that it really occurs later. Whether my theory has any credence or not, dreams are a part of our wisdom that we could learn to benefit more from.

 

All of this is especially relevant because of the growing prevalence of dementia around the world, a consequence of so many people living to a great age. I see dementia at close quarters at the home where we volunteer, and, after an initial period where it can almost be funny like a comedy sketch, before long it becomes anything but funny. The suffering is acute and painful to observe, and there is little that can be done to alleviate it, only the expensive and depressing practice of sitting with sufferers all day every day: I salute the caring souls that do this, usually for pitiful rewards. Any medical or psychological advance that enables more people to live longer without dementia or to suffer less when it arrives would be a boon to humanity.

 

My erstwhile and perhaps future friend paid me a wonderful service this week. Long may those broken connections be mended.       

Cars have two levers for a reason

 I am astonished at how all of us struggle with the concept that there can be too much of a good thing. In these days of lobbyists and memes, the risk of pushing a cause to an extreme beyond all logic is more present than before. I have no idea how to guard against it, but it seems to be doing more and more damage around the world. It is especially dangerous in the US legislative environment, where incremental change seems to be impossible and where sound bites rule the discourse.

 

Examples abound. One is the idea of helping small businesses. Mentioning small businesses seems to act like a magic wand for politicians. We all call to mind a mom-and-pop store, perhaps selling books or old-fashioned children’s toys, and are minded to offer all the help we can spare. No package or budget nowadays is complete without copious reference to helping small businesses.

 

We should pause. Surely some large businesses need help too? What about businesses that are still dreams? There must come a point where the next tranche of help runs into diminishing returns, as a vast pile of inefficient money is wasted? There is a more fundamental point too. Why are these businesses still small despite all the help showered upon them? Perhaps they serve no economic purpose? It is large and growing businesses that provide jobs and consumer benefits. Are we targeting a load of perennial losers?

 

In the UK, the beloved NHS fulfils the same role. In this case demographic changes mean that it very hard to throw too much money at the institution, but we still try our best. This one is tied up with the political demon of privatization. Privatization is something we either love or hate, like Marmite. One faction wants to impose it everywhere it possibly can, following a dogma of free markets. The other side wants to hold it back. Surely there is a happy medium? In health care, some services, like parking, cleaning or maybe logistics, make much more sense when run by private contractors, able to be flexible and respond with agility to market needs. But privatizing the core parts of healthcare runs headlong into the risk that the primary purpose – keeping people well – becomes subsumed by a profit motive. The US demonstrates this very well.

 

But the UK health debate never seems to move forward, except that everybody wants to be associated with the national treasure and shower it with cash. Privatization becomes a tug of war rather than an assessment of merit. This is unhealthy for both the institution and for its consumers and paymasters.

 

It is like driving a car without the accelerator or without the brake. In the small business example there is no brake, and the car hurtles along without control or balance. In the privatization example, both levers exist but there are multiple drivers, none prepared to use both levers, so whichever power is in the ascendancy either stops the car completely or drives it into danger.

 

The whole debate between capitalism and socialism has the same pitfalls, and arguably the same can be said of democracy and autocracy. There is a happy balance between acceleration and braking, and it is contextual. Certainly, after forty years of acceleration, hitting the brake for a while makes sense. And after fifty years of stasis (cold war Russia), the first application of the accelerator should be gradual and careful.

 

In the US, the adoration of the military is another example of one pedal being lost. No politician makes any headway by questioning a budget for veterans or for military personnel hardware. The military have successfully lobbied themselves into the hearts of the nation, offered unattributed gratuitous mentions even by NFL commentators.

 

The result is downright dangerous. America takes on far too many campaigns brings a military mindset to most situations and is an exemplar of the insult of having more money than sense. There is no efficiency whatsoever in procurement, and one result of all the spending is merely to goad competitors into matching, thereby making the world more dangerous for all of us. Military drones are only the latest example of a technology the USA thoughtlessly developed in naïve hope of creating an advantage, but instead unleashing a cheap and scarcely controllable lethal technology into unscrupulous hands everywhere.

 

An almost comical example of the car with one lever was US Israel policy under Trump. The Israel lobby had succeeded in creating an unbalanced debate over generations, with Israel elevated close to the sympathy level for small businesses. But then Trump simply removed the brake completely, simply giving Israel anything it asked for. The Israelis themselves struggled to work out how to deal with this change.

 

This example illustrates how smart leaders handle the pressures of competing agendas. Life can be one long evolving negotiation. If a concession to one side is timely, use the moment to obtain a concession in return, fixing a stubborn iniquity that matters a lot to you but is less critical to the other side.

 

I used to do this all the time in business. One weapon was to develop an agreed charter for a team or project. As well as goals and approaches, a good charter lays down what team members have a right to expect but is also crystal clear about expectations.

 

In a functioning environment, this is how to achieve evolutionary progress in many areas. Unions and management can each have their agendas and preferred lever but give and take allows both to be used and a stronger overall outcome to be achieved for everybody. So can creditors and debtors, and bail reformers with law-and-order types.

 

Criminal justice policy, especially police policy, is a current example of lost opportunities. In 2020 the brake predominated, with the George Floyd case and other injustices fuelling a movement to defund the police. Then crime spiked and the well-funded police lobbies fought back. In New York, Eric Adams was elected and all talk now is of strengthening and supporting the police, especially when dead police bodies are all over the news.

Surely both sides can be right and an intelligent administration would take this chance to forge a grand bargain. The police do a critical and dangerous job and their service should be adequately funded and protected. But mental health issues would be better dealt with by other professionals, also adequately funded. Further, it is not just a few bad apples who are racist, violent and who fraudulently manipulate evidence. I have yet to have an encounter with the NYPD that did not feel like an abuse of their power. Their behaviour as above the law in petty areas such as placard abuse becomes endemic and spreads into their attitude in weightier matters.

 

It is laudable that Eric Adams leads a campaign to support the police where they warrant support. But surely that creates a moment to rectify abuse on the other side. A clear charter of rights and expectations, with strong enforcement, would be negotiable right now. The many bad apples could be progressively eliminated and the culture changed for the better. Instead we get a relentless pumping of one lever and nothing on the other one. What a waste.

 

Sadly that seems to be our fate in most areas of US society where politicians are involved, which is almost everything. Actually this becomes a powerful argument for autocracy. In China one leadership team, hopefully with the public interest top of mind, can impose beneficial evolutionary change via a series of charters. Both levers are used, apparently rather deftly.

 

Of course, autocracy itself is a single lever operation, and the time will come when some balance is required, yet it is likely that nobody will be able to find and apply the brake in time.   

Russia and Risk

 I love the way that board games become trendy again. I grew up with a tradition of a Sunday afternoon board game with my parents and sister, which usually ended in a tantrum from me whenever I did not win. The day I caught my mum cheating stands among the lasting traumas of my life. All good aides to growing up!

 

We didn’t possess Risk at home and in any case it needs more than four players to work well, but I remember a game of Risk from some point in my thirties.  One player, a very quiet lady, followed a strategy that differed markedly from everybody else. We were all frenetically gambling and fighting and conquering and suffering, while all she did was quietly build her resources. Then she chose her moment and wiped us all out within two moves. I was very impressed and took away more valuable life lessons.

 

I should have known better, because one game from my childhood was called “L’Attaque”. It was a great game, but should more correctly have been called “La Defense”, because the winning strategy was always to let your opponent do all the attacking.

 

I recalled many of these lessons, including the one about authority figures cheating, when reading about Russia’s military build up in Ukraine. There was a wonderful long article about the tangled history of Russia and Ukraine in the Christmas double issue of The Economist, followed up this week with a strong essay concerning the current situation. As always with The Economist, the first thing to do is strip away the MI5 propaganda: fortunately in this case that was relatively easy and the remaining content was still powerful.

 

Most of the article was spent trying to discern Putin’s motives. While more thoughtful than most such pieces, I was still left with the strong impression that the author was from the west, was schooled in the west, and thought like people in the west. When I worked in competitor intelligence our watchword was to walk in the shoes of the competitor. It is astonishing how poor we are at this in our complacent western bubble. Who, for instance, might think that taking out an ISIS leader would do anything but anger a new generation and act as a midwife for more ISIS’s? I was at least heartened by the self-awareness shown by quoting a recent remark of Alexei Navalny: :”Time and again the West falls into Putin’s elementary traps…it just takes my breath away”. What an indictment that is of eighty years of western intelligence!

 

So what traps is Putin setting? If we put ourselves in his shoes and think like Risk players we can find some answers.

 

First, Putin is a tactician more than a strategist. He probably does not know his endgame himself yet, he is simply building resources to give himself options. Hopefully he won’t be like that girl I played Risk with who devoured the rest of us.

 

Next, the long article makes clear that Russia has a unique view of its own history and role in the world. The bear is proud, defensive, fearful, vengeful, feels entitled and takes an expansive view of its own boundaries and role. Everything has to be seen in these contexts.

 

What this means with respect to Ukraine is manifold. Putin does not really accept that Ukraine is a different country, certainly not the parts of it (and there are many, and not just abutting Russia) where Russian is spoken and where there is Russian history. The frightening few weeks when the USSR broke up and an alcoholic Yeltsin and a few acolytes tried to reset the world order left a bitter mark, and we should remember that the west has reneged on many promises made at that time. Russia will see a western orientated Ukraine with military prowess as an unacceptable mortal threat. It is just as easy geographically to invade Moscow from Kyiv as it is to invade Kyiv from Moscow.

 

Most important, this is personal. A lot of politics is personal. 2016 is instructive. Putin did not interfere in the US election primarily because he thought he could outmanoeuvre Trump (though that was a big bonus), it was because he hated Hillary Clinton and bore a massive grudge against her. There are probably several people in Ukraine that we have never heard of that meet the same criteria.

 

Next, Putin is very comfortable with messiness. Most of us have a preference for clean solutions to problems. Indeed being uncomfortable with ambiguity is a limiting factor in many lives. Putin can tolerate a mess for a long time if it suits him. It is Risk all over again. Moldova has been a divided mess for 25 years. That is a lovely asset for Putin sitting ready for him to use when it suits. Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Georgia and now the Donbas follow the same pattern, as does Belorussia and now even Kazakhstan in their different ways. Russians love chess. Don’t look for endgames. They emerge, sometimes very slowly.

 

The Economist guessed that the main objectives of the troop build up might have been to shore things up at home via a manufactured crisis and to snub his nose at the west. Fair enough, and both have been achieved. But I don’t think it is as clean as that. Putin is ex KGB and will have a chessboard full of characters that he is trying to manipulate here, most of them in Russia or Ukraine. He doesn’t understand about communicating to an entire populace – the KGB just locked people up – but he knows how to structure a chessboard of powerful individuals. Many of the true targets here will be some oligarchs we have never heard of.

 

I wish we could analyse this more intelligently in the west. That probably starts by keeping anybody military out of the way. But if people believe what they say, they are so dumb that Navalny is proven correct on a daily basis. Take the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Somehow we are supposed to believe that this gives Russia extra leverage. That is nonsense. Europe has a shortage of reliable gas suppliers and supply routes. The new pipeline can only improve things. It does not have to be used. Europe can buy from elsewhere. The ones who lose by the new pipeline are the ones controlling the choke points, because adding a new supply line reduces their leverage. In practice, that means Ukraine, and it is the Hunter Biden’s and other overpaid parasitic consultants who are the ones peddling this nonsense. The sad part is how we continually fall for it.

 

My guess is that Putin will back down, unless he is provoked by something very personal. He is playing a long and messy game of Risk. Building up forces is cheap. Actually fighting is not, and usually ends badly. Putin is already lobbing jobs at the west saying it was us who created the crisis by stoking fear. There is truth to this (and also that there are a lot of troops surrounding Ukraine). Let him say it, and wait for him to withdraw and claim victory.

 

I find a clear parallel here with the west and China, most notably regarding Taiwan. Xi is not Putin: he is smarter, and actually cares for his people as well as his clos confidantes. He has a stronger hand, but is equally patient. I predict that Taiwan will be like Hong Kong. Within ten years China will have practical control, and they won’t fire a bullet to achieve it. The west won’t see it coming, at least won’t see how it is coming. A more detailed prediction is that TSMC, the world’s largest and most successful semiconductor producer, will play a key role in Xi’s strategy.