U NCOMMON V IRTUES #4: C AUSAL / E MPIRICAL
DESERVE'S GOT NOTHIN' TO DO WITH IT.
Unforgiven.
Unforgiven is my favorite movie.
It’s a Clint Eastwood Western, but, umm…
Hmm.
The movie starts with a random, stupid act of violence.
A bounty is put on the head of the man who did it – and also one of the innocent and decent cowboys he rode with.
And then, we’re at Clint Eastwood’s farm.
I mean, his character is “William Muney” but he’s basically Clint Eastwood.
But he’s not a flawless, powerful Clint Eastwood.
No.
He’s an old Clint Eastwood.
He’s running a small farm. He’s got two little kids. He’s a widower, he’s raising his little kids by himself.
He’s not a good farmer. But when he tries to see how his horse-riding and gun-shooting skills are doing, they’re rusty.
They’re not so good.
He can’t shoot so well or ride so well.
But he gets into it, and then – on the journey to go kill those two men and get the bounty, he gets the flu. Reflects on his mortality.
He’s very human.
All the violence makes sense, but is pretty sad. There’s no glory in it, no triumph.
At the final showdown – I won’t ruin it, watch the whole movie since it’s a masterpiece – but I’ll share one line.
The antagonist, a strange character who is a mix of uprightness and brutality, Eastwood shoots him down.
The rest of the gunfight plays out, and then it’s just Eastwood standing over this upright and brutal man.
The guy laying on the ground bleeding, he thinks he’s the good guy. Maybe he is. Eastwood’s character is a career criminal; the guy on the ground is supposedly the good guy. At least in his own mind.
Eastwood is standing over him with a rifle.
And then, perhaps the most perfect line from any Western –
Bill: “I don’t deserve this… to die like this. I was… building a house.”
Eastwood: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
Bill: “I’ll see you in Hell, William Muney.”
Eastwood: “Yeah.”
Bang.
***
THE 18-YEAR-OLD BEN FRANKLIN IN PHILADELPHIA
The year is 1724; Ben Franklin is 18 years old.
I’d like you to imagine that you are this young Ben Franklin for a moment.
In order to do this successfully, you’re going to need to forget most of what you know about Ben Franklin.
He is not yet the diplomat and spymaster fighting for the American cause in Paris.
He is not yet the thriving owner of printshops and capital.
He hasn’t written Poor Richard’s Almanack
and come to be known as one of the wittiest and most respected Americans.
The 17-year-old has obviously not been inducted into the Royal Society for his later-life experiments with lightning and electricity.
He hasn’t invented the Franklin stove, bifocals, or lightning rod.
He hasn’t built the first Firefighting Company, nor the first public library in Philadelphia.
No, when you imagine you’re the young Franklin, you need to forget all these achievements.
You’re merely a brilliant and headstrong young man who just ran away from his apprenticeship to his brother.
You took off to New York with only a few pennies in your pocket and some bread. Finding no work in New York, you get a lead that Philadelphia has some work and travel there.
So – you are 18. Talented, brilliant, headstrong.
No money, not much in the way of connections.
You need to make your way in the world.
So when the Governor of Pennsylvania agrees to sponsor you in going to London to buy printing equipment and set up your own shop, this sounds like a very good deal.
***
THE 18-YEAR-OLD BEN FRANKLIN IN LONDON
We can let Franklin speak in his own words now; we’ll quote from his later-life Autobiography –
“The governor, seeming to like my company, had me frequently to his house, and his setting me up was always mention'd as a fixed thing. I was to take with me letters recommendatory to a number of his friends, besides the letter of credit to furnish me with the necessary money for purchasing the press and types, paper, etc. For these letters I was appointed to call at different times, when they were to be ready; but a future time was still named. Thus he went on till the ship, whose departure too had been several times postponed, was on the point of sailing. Then, when I call'd to take my leave and receive the letters, his secretary, Dr. Bard, came out to me and said the governor was extremely busy in writing, but would be down at Newcastle, before the ship, and there the letters would be delivered to me.”
Again
,
imagine you are Franklin for a moment.
You are 18. What do you know of the world? Not too much, of course!
The Governor has offered you letters of credit and introductions in London, and you book passage on a ship there.
The letters are slow in getting to you. Well, so what? It’s the Governor
, one of the most powerful men in the Colonies, so it must be all right.
The letters will come soon enough.
And then,
“…I left Philadelphia in the ship, which anchor'd at Newcastle. The governor was there; but when I went to his lodging, the secretary came to me from him with the civillest message in the world, that he could not then see me, being engaged in business of the utmost importance, but should send the letters to me on board, wished me heartily a good voyage and a speedy return, etc. I returned on board a little puzzled, but still not doubting.”
“A little puzzled” – why can’t the Governor meet for a few minutes to give those promised letters? The ship is already moving.
But you’re still not doubting. Why would you? It’s the Governor
.
(You might already suspect where this is going.)
“Understanding that Colonel French had brought on board the governor's despatches, I ask'd the captain for those letters that were to be under my care. He said all were put into the bag together and he could not then come at them; but, before we landed in England, I should have an opportunity of picking them out; so I was satisfied for the present, and we proceeded on our voyage.”
This is, umm, still all right… right?
“When we came into the Channel, the captain kept his word with me, and gave me an opportunity of examining the bag for the governor's letters. I found none upon which my name was put as under my care. I picked out six or seven, that, by the handwriting, I thought might be the promised letters, especially as one of them was directed to Basket, the king's printer, and another to some stationer. We arriv'd in London the 24th of December, 1724. I waited upon the stationer, who came first in my way, delivering the letter as from Governor Keith. "I don't know such a person," says he; but, opening the letter, "O! this is from Riddlesden. I have lately found him to be a compleat rascal, and I will have nothing to do with him, nor receive any letters from him." So, putting the letter into my hand, he turn'd on his heel and left me to serve some customer. I was surprised to find these were not the governor's letters; and, after recollecting and comparing circumstances, I began to doubt his sincerity. I found my friend Denham, and opened the whole affair to him. He let me into Keith's character; told me there was not the least probability that he had written any letters for me; that no one, who knew him, had the smallest dependence on him; and he laught at the notion of the governor's giving me a letter of credit, having, as he said, no credit to give.”
Well – ouch!
You are 18 years old, you are in London away from your home continent, you have no money, and you have been thoroughly lied-to about your promised letters of introduction and credit.
Ouch.
***
LEARNING THE HARD WAY
Later in his life, at 65-years-old, a more world-wise Franklin would reflect –
“But what shall we think of a governor's playing such pitiful tricks, and imposing so grossly on a poor ignorant boy! It was a habit he had acquired. He wish'd to please everybody; and, having little to give, he gave expectations. He was otherwise an ingenious, sensible man, a pretty good writer, and a good governor for the people, tho' not for his constituents, the proprietaries, whose instructions he sometimes disregarded.”
But if you imagined you were
Franklin and walked yourself through his logic, wouldn’t you have made the same error?
How could you not? How could you know better?
You couldn’t; of course you couldn’t; you would have made the same mistake.
Again, I would like you imagine that you
were
the 18-year-old Benjamin Franklin.
If you can do so, there are lessons and profit in it.
Would you have taken the Governor at face value?
Yes, likely.
Why would that lead you into error?
Because people are not necessarily reliable.
Did you do anything wrong?
From a 65-year-old’s perspective, of course yes. There would have been many ways to verify that Keith was unreliable.
From the 18-year-old runaway’s perspective?
No, of course not. How could you have known?
***
UNCOMMON VIRTUES #4: CAUSAL AND EMPIRICAL
In this chapter, I want to explore with you two very related virtues that are far more rare than they ought to be these days.
Causal Mode: Seeing everything as a result of causality.
Empiricism: Diligently studying the world to find out what actually happens.
Both of these sound like very un-radical virtues on a surface glance, perhaps even common and normal.
I would contrast them against,
Moral Mode: Thinking that if you are a good person, everything will work out.
Idealism: Starting from theories and ideals of how the world ought to be, and extrapolating reality from those theories.
This is, as a writer, somewhat difficult ground to cover. The obvious version of these truths are obvious – banal – uninsightful – they won’t serve to change our behavior.
And while the truths of these matters are incredibly insightful, they’re somewhat… hmm.
Before we extrapolate these points, we need to a ultra-quick pass through history from the Fall of Rome to Niccolo Machiavelli and Martin Luther, the Protestant conversion of Henry VIII, and the founding of America.
We’re now going to try to tackle 1000+ years of history in a few paragraphs; stay with me, it’ll be worth it.
***
ROME’S FALL? GOD’S WILL
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” was published in 1532. It was rapidly translated and circulated widely.
This was a monumental event in history. How monumental, it’s hard to put into a short bit of writing.
For about 1000 years prior to the writing of The Prince, the original form of the Roman Empire had been destroyed and it had become something very different.
The various German sackings and conquest of Western Rome happened in the 500’s. The last great chance to reunify Eastern Rome (Constantinople) and Western Rome (Italy and surroundings) passed when the great commander Belisarius barely
failed to unify the two Romes.
There’s a lot of theories of why Rome fell.
In this amateur historian’s opinion, the largest reason is this – the original Roman Empire did not win by superior “hard technology”; it was “soft technology” in having better officers, training, preparedness, and unit cohesion than the barbarians they faced.
Over time, Rome started to rely more on recruits from their outlying border states – Germans most notably – and often, these officers retired to their original homes when they left military service.
Gradually, the Germans learned the Roman system of command under officers and centurions, unit cohesion (fighting together vs individual acts of bravery), battlefield engineering, training and drill, readiness, and so on.
Once these “soft technologies” had spread, the original chief Roman advantage – fighting better together as a group
– this was diffused. The Roman swords and shields and armor were never very much better, if at all, than the weapons of their adversaries. Once the German tribes became as organized as the Romans, the Romans had no more military superiority. Western Rome would thus fall.
But from a Roman perspective, this was not obvious that it was happening. It wasn’t like the invention of gunpowder or the emergence of elite horse archers on the frontier. There was no single thing
to point to that let Rome be overrun.
Around the same time, Christianity became the official Roman state religion.
(It’s still called the “Roman Catholic Church” – that’s why.)
It’s very hard to see slowly emerging patterns over hundreds of years. When Western Rome falls, no one can quite understand why.
To greatly oversimplify things, a lot of the Europeans of the day thus threw their hands up and said, “Well, it’s God’s will.”
***
PROVIDENCE
A word you don’t hear much of these days – Providence.
It was obviously an important concept in early American life. I would venture a guess that the majority of early settlers of the American Colonies believed in Providence. Even the capital of Rhode Island was named Providence when it was founded in 1636.
Providence was the idea that everything was, to a large extent, divinely foreordained.
It’s hard to understand now, in our secular and scientific age, what this concept would have meant to those early settlers.
I can’t do it justice in a short piece of writing. You need to immerse yourself in the writings and memoirs and diaries of people of this earlier age.
In the 1000-year period from 500 AD to 1500 AD, more and more thinkers dove into this concept of Providence, trying to make sense of the world. So many seemingly random events happened – the fall of Rome did not quite make sense.
Towards the close of this 1000-year run, the Black Death – the Bubonic Plague – killed around 100 million people in a mere ten years
from 1346-1353.
There was no rhyme or reason in who lived and who died.
The default inclination – again greatly oversimplifying – was that God’s Will
determined these things. Providence
. All you could do was be a good person, and things would largely work out how they did. God would adjudicate the final judgment upon one’s death.
***
MACHIAVELLI RETHINKS THIS CONCEPT; LUTHER RETHINKS AUTHORITY; WORLD GETS SET ON FIRE
And this brings us to 1532’s “The Prince.”
Machiavelli, a disgraced and exiled diplomat from Florence, starts sitting down and trying to figure out the cause and effect of why rulers rise and fall.
You really ought to read The Prince
. For all its reputation as a “shocking” text, it’s pretty tame by today’s standards. Machiavelli examines a cause-and-effect relationship on governing regions.
He comes up with some basic, obvious, true observations in his broad studies of history and governance.
“You can’t trust mercenaries. They take your money when things are good, but flee immediately when bad things happen and you really need them.”
“It’s harder to emancipate or conquer with a small and loyal group of one’s own followers – like Moses did – but once you did, your position is infinitely more secure than if you’re relying on powerful allies who could abandon you due to the fickleness of politics, or merely a death and succession of a new ruler who is less favorable to your cause.”
These are the type of observations Machiavelli made.
Martin Luther and Niccoli Machiavelli, of course, were contemporaries and alive at the same time. (Many people do not realize this.)
Luther’s core idea was that authority was unnecessary to understand God’s Will. Luther believed in Providence – I’d argue Machiavelli didn’t, but more on that in a moment – but you can see how these two ideas would combine.
Luther said – greatly oversimplifying again – that people and rulers should just read the Bible and decide for themselves what to do for themselves to get into Communion with God. “The Pope is just a guy, and not a very good guy, at that” – says Luther, greatly oversimplifying.
All of the European leaders in the late 1500’s and 1600’s would have read or at least heard summarized versions of The Prince
, as well as Luther’s interpretation of Christianity.
You get Henry VIII breaking from Rome in the 1530’s, and a lot of wars and succession crises in England following the break…
… which brings us the founding of the American Colonies in the early 1600’s.
***
GOD HELPS PEOPLE WHO HELP THEMSELVES
We have three strains of thought that are dominant in Franklin’s time –
The first is that concept of Providence
, God’s Will, fate – which has dominated European thinking from around the 500’s onwards. If Providence
is ruling the world, then the only thing we can do is be as good of people as we can, and things will shake out as they will.
Meanwhile, we have Luther’s thought that everyone ought to interpret the Bible and Christianity for themselves; direct communion with God; no need for authority to intercede between Man and God.
And finally, we have Niccolo Machiavelli arguing that a very logical cause-and-effect relationship and a known set of factors determines who comes into power and stays in power.
We return now to the young Ben Franklin.
I don’t think it’s a reach to say that through all of history
, younger people are more likely to believe in what I call Moral Mode
and what I call Idealism
.
Likewise, people who are poorer and less educated/learned tend to believe more in fate, moral mode, and idealism. This again de facto includes young people; you tend to get wealthier and more learned as you get older. As you learn more about the world and have more access to various lessons and teachings, you can start to make greater sense of the chaos of the world.
In later life, Franklin would famously write, “God helps people who helps themselves” – bridging the gap between Providence
and the Machiavellian type cause-and-effect thinking.
***
AMERICANIZED THINKING, I: CURRENT UNIVERSALITY
We have readers across the whole world. Whenever a new issue of The Strategic Review comes out, or I publish a new book, a flood of nice notes come in from Americans yes, but also Europeans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Middle Easterners, Indians and Pakistani, Argentinians and Mexicans, and many more.
I think it’s not so much of a stretch to claim that you’re somewhat Americanized
in your thinking, even if you’re not an American. America is home of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the most prestigious newspapers, the most prestigious universities, and many of the top scientists and social thinkers.
This is not a rah-rah pro-American judgment (though I do quite like my native country), but rather it is a statement of fact – most people around the world don’t know too much about Turkish culture or Chinese culture or Argentinian culture, but who doesn’t know about American culture?
So these next points will apply doubly-true to Americans, but I contend they apply to you, even if you’re not American.
***
AMERICANIZED THINKING, II: FRANKLIN
It’s widely referenced and well-proven that pretty much all the American Founding Fathers studied both Luther and Machiavelli; likewise, they inherited the European thought of the day.
Franklin notably read both.
You can see in Franklin’s writing and life, then, an evolution – he starts off trusting people and trusting fate and aiming to be the best person possible, but gradually he comes to understand that cause-and-effect dominate the world.
I remember the thing that most stood out to me in Franklin’s Autobiography
– Franklin was a non-drinker in London, since he wanted to save his money to buy equipment and get back to Philadelphia.
The print shop he worked at had a ritual where new members needed to buy some beers for every other current member.
Franklin at first resisted this – he didn’t drink and thought it a waste of money – but he faced sabotage and undermining at the hands of the other people in the printshop, who treated him badly.
His naive idealism – “I’ll just do the right thing, and it’ll be fine” – eventually gave way to him accepting the state of affairs, buying the beers, and then having a more cooperative relationship.
I don’t want to overstate the point, but I dare say that’s the first instance of the “First American” (as Franklin is sometimes known) acknowledging that living solely by his own morality and judgment might lead to failure, whereas navigating cause-and-effect might lead to his success.
***
AMERICANIZED THINKING, III: HARMONIZING THE CONTRADICTORY STRAINS OF THOUGHT
The idea of Providence
combined with personal direct interpretation of the Bible, I dare say, is at odds with Machiavelli’s realpolitik
, cause-and-effect analysis.
Stop and ponder this for a moment.
The vast majority of early American settlers – people who got on very dangerous boats to go to an unknown land in pursuit of religious freedom and opportunity – required an immense faith in God and God’s will.
Meanwhile, as the American settlers became more educated and wealthy, and as books gained greater circulation, the leaders of the Colonies started thinking about the nature of power and how things happen.
Naive-young-Franklin merely trusts the Governor; he does what seems the right thing, but is proven wrong about the Governor’s trustworthiness.
Naive-young-Franklin refuses to buy beers as someone who assesses that non-drinking is correct, saving money is correct, and wants to opt out of the system – but finds hardship and useless strife in that path, and forsakes that policy in favor of cause-and-effect.
And yet, Franklin has some sort of idealism around him – he acts in pro-social ways that are not just immediately beneficial to himself, working to found universities and a fire department and a reading library. He does not abandon his morality, but refines it and channels it through cause-and-effect.
***
DESERVE’S GOT NOTHIN’ TO DO WITH IT
It’s again uncontroversial to state that the Americans during the Revolution fought in a way that the British Redcoats called “savage” and “ungentlemanly.”
Guerilla warfare, fighting from cover, refusing direct battle, harrying the British forces, and so on.
The British thought it dishonorable – immoral – and yet, the war was on.
Pure idealism loses to idealism-channeled-through-cause-and-effect.
For me, “Deserve’s Got Nothin’ To Do With It” might be the most true
line in all of American cinema.
War is won by winning; business is built by building business; stable political coalitions are built through stable political coalition building; and so on.
And “Deserve” has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps the good, the kind, the moral person deserves
to win the war; and yet, the side that wins the war
is the one that wins the war.
***
INSTRUCTION: ALL ANALYSES IN CAUSAL MODE
I want you to dig deep into your thinking.
Don’t just read; reflect.
Causal Mode states that winning the war wins the war.
Moral Mode states that being a good person wins the war.
Moral Mode states that being a good person leads to business success.
Causal Mode states that successfully building the business leads to business success.
I think there is very much a place for being in moral mode
on a philosophical level; it lets us devote ourselves to figuring out what could be the highest service we could make.
Likewise, Moral Mode might constrain us from certain actions. The United States, which oscillates between modes, still operates in a deeply moral mode much of the time. The continuous American support of the Geneva Conventions to make war more humane, and making political assassinations illegal are examples.
And at the same time, I would contend that moral mode
has absolutely no place when doing causal analyses.
There is no doubt in my mind that the British forces during the American War of Independence both (1) thought they were acting more morally than the American revolutionaries, and (2) also believed that acting that way would lead to winning the war.
Thinking (1) is fine, maybe even terrific.
Thinking (2) is disastrous.
***
EMPIRICISM AS THE FOUNDATION OF PLANNING AND ANALYSES
Pre-Machiavelli, much of the dominant public thinking was that being a good person
led to being in power, to the extent that anything did (Providence,
fate, etc).
Again, I would suggest you read The Prince
; it is short and very insightful.
Machiavelli actually sat down and explored many historical and contemporary cases of revolutions, civil wars, international wars.
He came to some startling and counterintuitive conclusions.
The point most bothersome to me in its truthfulness is how excessive generosity can lead to downfall – earlier generosity does not do enough to generate long-term loyalty and gratitude to make up for all the evils that happen when you lack monetary reserves during a crisis.
The key point is that Machiavelli actually studied the topic.
He found that rulers who were excessively generous would later be forced into large amounts of debt, or to burdensome taxes, when a crisis hit. The danger and unpopularity of these measures greatly outstripped any value of earlier generosity, and the leader would be overthrown.
This is no idle theory, nor does it apply to princes alone – observe many otherwise great companies who let their spending get out of control during boom times, and then bust when the capital markets are dry. Some of these businesses had a fundamentally decent product, served their customers well enough, and might just have become enduringly great companies if they’d preserved sufficient reserves.
To modernize it a bit, lavish and excessive benefits during boom times won’t be remembered enough if you ask for pay cuts or do a round of layoffs during bad times. The moral desire to really be generous is fatal if it leads to insufficient cash reserves.
But don’t get caught up in the specifics; note instead the formula –
***
FURTHER SELF-STUDY AND APPLICATION REQUIRED
There is always a challenge in seeing what’s right in front of us.
Unless you’re specifically from a family that’s already achieved a high degree of success in the field you’re going into, I think it’s very likely
that you have Americanized thinking
on the topics of Moral Mode and Idealism.
It’s so tempting
to believe we live in a world where “being a good person” gets rewarded; it’s such a nice idea, and the opposite is such an unpleasant idea.
And frankly, I would not want to live in a world where there was no morality and no idealism. The complete lack of it is not the answer.
But it must be fenced-off in its correct place.
Morality and idealism can give us broad aims, and can constrain our behavior so that we do not become wicked in pursuit of those aims.
But in absence of causality and empiricism, the typical end result is disaster.
You must – must
– divorce your moralistic and idealistic tendencies when doing study, planning, and evaluation.
And this is more rare and uncommon than you would think.
You want to see things exactly as they are
– observe the world empirically – and deduce the causality
of things from that.
Don’t lose the morality and idealism. Invent, build, celebrate, elevate people.
But the path to doing so is and must always be in harmony with the reality of things – cause and effect. Study the world to find those patterns.
These two oft-conflicting patterns between morality/causality and empiricism/idealism are not pure enemies, but each must be carefully put in its place.
Don’t just read this and nod; think through your own behavior. Where are you naively assuming that things will work out if you do the right thing? Where have you neglected doing the deep and hard studies of what will actually lead to success in your domain?
This is critical. The paths to success always go through cause-and-effect; the path to making great things happen can not be uncovered without studying the world and figuring out the cause-and-effect and navigating those.
Do please think on this. If you come up with anything interesting, I’d also love for you to write me with your thoughts.