001: Welcome to APEX- The basics of using perspective to change your world

Host Mark Gleason:

[00:01:00]    Apex Level to Power, episode one, change your level, change your life, change the world. Escape the herd, rise above the pack. This is the Apex Level to Power Podcast, the only place on the web that teaches you to identify and control the invisible strings that dominate all human interaction. We teach sheep to become wolves, a challenge to be sure, but one that we answer and answer with vigor. I am your faithful host, Mark Gleason. I welcome you to the program and I invite you to visit our little corner of the web at LeveltoPower.com for more information and to support the broadcast.

[00:02:00]    Now we live in a society of individuals and the human power dynamics are all around you. Unless you’re listening to this broadcast from a desert island and even there you are probably with your imaginary friend Wilson locked in some power struggle. It’s important to understand that we live in a tiered society of those who are empowered and those who are not, so all around us, in the government, the church, the corporation, the platoon, the sports club, the dance academy, the terrorist cell, the zoning board, the prayer group, each of its masters and servants, its hosts and its parasites. In every human tribe there exists these two tiers of humanity; the leaders and the led, the masters and servants, the alphas and betas, the pack and the herd.

Now while many people have tried to explain how these human hierarchies form precious little of the literature and information available to you explains a step-by-step guide as a goal-oriented individual how one can advance one’s particular goals within society. This leads intelligent people like ourselves to wonder how do I know whether I’m a leader or a follower. If I’m a beta how do I become an alpha? How do I escape the herd and join the pack? What are the rules that govern the advancement of individuals within a human society and why haven’t I received this information before?

[00:03:00]    To answer the last question first, most individuals who seek self-empowerment are left with a huge amount of self-help guides and well-meaning advice that are big on platitudes like buck up and early bird gets the worm, but are woefully short on actual plans of action. Now this disconnection not surprised the astute observers among us. When working towards a broader group goal the world is full of people giving insightful and effective advice. One need only question at a dinner party the need for vaccination and you will have people coming out of the woodwork to explain to you why perhaps you should vaccinate your children. Try lighting up a cigarette in the lobby of a kindergarten and you will have many well-meaning people coming out and explaining to you the dangers of secondhand smoke.

[00:04:00]    If one voices an individually-based goal to empower oneself in a social context the throngs of well-meaning people disappear and broad platitudes replace any hope for cogent advice. Given the zero sum nature of intertribal competition which means every individual has to compete against every other individual this makes a certain amount of sense. It makes sense that your boss wants to help you, but doesn’t want to train you to take her job. Your priest wants to help you, but not to the point where he’s instructing you how to open a rival church across the street. Oprah wants to help you, but not to the point where you’re able to compete successfully against her media outlets. In general any tribe is willing to help an individual reach the tribal minimum, but then is unwilling to invest additional energy in increasing competition to their own power base.

[00:05:00]    Decades ago even I probably would only want to pass on my insights to my own children. This option no longer seems optimal and it’s important I explain why. I’m not the first to note that the drawback to modernity, to modern times, to technology, is that we enjoy an increase in our ability to destroy ourselves. Our tribal natures that used to spar [inaudible 00:05:27] border skirmishes now can devastate continents. Small time leaders of even smaller movements that used to only distress the local police force now threaten to pull the world into tribal war and global conflict.

[00:06:00]    With the survival of our species at stake now does not seem to be the time to me to hold back the tools of individual empowerment because it’s my profound belief that a net increase in empowered individuals is a net positive. I welcome you my dear listener as an honorary member of my tribe and I suggest that you and I now collaborate toward your personal empowerment. Welcome to Apex Level to Power.

[00:07:00]    Years ago I was walking with friends through the main square of a European capital when I was approached by a middle-aged woman speaking in hurried tones in her native language. As I knew only a few phrases of her language I followed the international code of travelers everywhere. I gave her a big smile and gave her a wide berth, but she singled me out from the group and continued to follow and filibuster our rather one-sided conversation. I did not understand her words, but her body language seemed to convey to me she was in no immediate distress. In fact, she seemed quite cheerful, so I assumed that she was perhaps trying to sell me something.

[00:08:00]    My bemused companions later marveled at my ability to stand fast and not give the woman the money that she was asking for on behalf of her needy family. They assured me that her pitch, her charity was just the right mix of practiced, proud, and pathetic. My answer to my companions was that it is easy to be a steely-eyed negotiator when you are oblivious to what is being communicated to you. Although we certainly had a means of communication which was audio visual clues and we had a possible mutual interest which is helping her family we lacked sufficient understanding for me to be swayed to her perspective in any meaningful way. My paradigm or subjective view of reality was just a bit too far for our brief and limited communication to bridge.

The barriers between me and my would be benefactee are instructive to examine. For one the social clues were all wrong to grant me understanding or suggestibility to her cause. To my eye she looked far too well-dressed, upbeat and joyful to be asking charity from strangers on the street. In my city of New York the begging follows different rules of social behavior where the beggar is dressed as one in dire need and may communicate a range of resignation, distress, anger, entitlement, but rarely cheer.

[00:09:00]    Lest we begin to judge this woman with smugness we must acknowledge that we constantly experience the same barriers she did only in our native language. We try to sell technology to the manager whose department it will replace. We request a raise from a boss whose business is losing money. We ask attractive people on dates even as they send out signals that would turn away a honey badger. We loudly invite our coworker with a bad back to join the company 5K run. We shamelessly flirt with the spouses of our friends. We ignore our clients’ budget guidance and cheerfully propose expensive solutions that would get them fired if ever they were to implement them.

[00:10:00]    In every one of these cases we are inviting another person to adopt our way of thinking and leave their existing paradigm behind. Like the woman in the town square we send the wrong signals to recruit anyone into our way of thinking unable to overcome the barricades erected both in our mind and theirs. We could only watch helpless as a smile and go into the cold night leaving us nothing to show for our efforts.

[00:11:00]    To peak behind the curtain of the dynamics of human power let’s discuss a parable. This is the parable of wise King Solomon and Smith Barney, two women, Delilah and Rebecca came before wise King Solomon dragging between them a young man, Smith Barney, dressed in a three-piece suit. “This young man agreed to marry my daughter,” said Delilah. “No, he agreed to marry my daughter,” said Rebecca. They argued before the king until he demanded silence. “My sword, bring me my biggest sword,” said Solomon. “We shall cut this young man in half and each of you shall receive a half.” “Fine, sounds good to me,” said Delilah. Rebecca said, “Oh, King Solomon, do not kill him. Let this other woman’s daughter marry him.” The wise king did not hesitate for a moment. He said, “Indeed, the young man must marry Delilah’s daughter.” “Delilah was the one willing to hack him in two, “ explained the King’s court. “Precisely,” said wise King Solomon. “The fact that she was willing to have her son-in-law cut in half shows she is the true mother-in-law.”

[00:12:00]    Feel free to have a good chuckle. As is the nature of all comedy these sudden and unexpected shifts in paradigm evoke some amusement. Far more interesting to understand for our purposes is if anyone was actually in control of the outcome of that conversation. Was wise King Solomon actually in control of the conversation as the main line interpretation suggests? Perhaps Delilah loved the boy and realizing Solomon’s intent agreed to cleave the boy in two as a tactic of reverse psychology. Perhaps Rebecca divined the intent of the king and decided that she did not want her daughter to marry this boy. Maybe the royal court knew enough about their king that they had to deliver the straight line, so Solomon would go for the hilarious punchline.

[00:13:00]    Finally, perhaps Smith Barney himself knowing all the players concocted the entire scheme to attain the virtue of two maidens while blamelessly ending up with his intended paramour. It is impossible to know from the text which of these is true, but this podcast is dedicated to whichever Apex level three was actually in control of this conversation. Before we get into a discussion of the Apex framework and the pathway to increasing your level let’s stop and consider the importance of what we have just learned. As the parable indicated if we wish to be in control of a conversation or if we are trying to influence the outcome of a sequence of events we must dramatically increase our ability to understand all of the relative points of view that may impact the outcome.

[00:14:00]    To this end allow me to share another story. This is the story of Alice and Bob. As a thought experiment let’s imagine that two friends, Alice and Bob, both live in a building in the center of a small city. Alice is on the first floor balcony and Bob is on the tenth floor roof. A friend, Carol, calls from her moving truck and asks if she is close to the building. Alice from her first floor balcony is only able to see one block up and down the street. At best Alice can only answer the question with low certainty. Bob with his vantage point from the roof of a 10-storey building can see eight blocks in all directions and is thus able to answer Carol’s question with total certainty. Carol receives two answers that may differ. She doesn’t know Alice and Bob’s locations. Which one is she to believe?

[00:15:00]    A quick assessment verifies that it’s not Bob’s gender, race, nationality, religion, or any such characteristic that provided him a special means to knowledge. Rather only Bob has the proper physical paradigm, physical perspective, to answer the question with certainty. Of course, if Alice and Bob were to swap positions the reverse would be true. Now let’s alter the parameters of our thought experiment. Let us suppose Bob and Alice are both standing on the roof of the 10-storey building together. However, Alice is acrophobic, she’s afraid of heights unable to look over the edge. Bob would now be the only one with the psychological paradigm to answer Carol’s question with certainty.

[00:16:00]    Let’s say Alice comes from an entire society of acrophobics. She may have no conception that going to the roof of the building is even an option to see further down the street. In this case Bob would now be the only one with the intellectual paradigm to answer Carol’s question with certainty. In another scenario if Alice had accepted a religious teaching that had forbidden her to look over balconies Bob would be the only one with the philosophical paradigm to answer Carol’s question with certainty. If Alice was so distraught that Carol’s question didn’t even consciously register Bob would be the only one with the emotional paradigm to answer Carol’s question.

[00:17:00]    It is worth noting that in the first case the ideal vantage point was influenced solely by physical locality. In the latter cases Alice and Bob, psychology, philosophy, intellectual makeup, an emotional state were decisive. Unlike the physical locality these factors are likely influenced by one’s views on gender, race, nationality, religion, along with a whole host of other factors. In short, we might say that the individual identity of Alice and Bob creates a paradigm that acts as a filter of reality. Both Alice and Bob are wearing rose-colored glasses and both of them according to the filter they’re wearing will look at the same reality and perhaps see different things.

[00:18:00]    As it goes for Alice and Bob so it goes for our own minds. Sometimes we’re Bob, standing on the roof looking in all directions with 360 degrees of freedom. At other times we are like Alice, standing on the first floor with our view restricted to our immediate locale. Sometimes we are even Carol receiving from our friends conflicting versions of facts and trying to sort out the objective truth. Like our thought experiment the more floors in the building of your mind or the more ways of viewing the world that one has access to the better able one will be to find the proper paradigm to handle a given situation. Expanding of human understanding is much like adding new floors to a building.

[00:19:00]    Let us imagine that rather than looking for a truck Alice and Bob are asked to assess an incident to see if racial or gender bias has occurred. The floor that they can view the topic from or how blinkered or filtered their viewpoint will be heavily influenced by the clarity of their views on gender and race. Perhaps in this scenario Alice is on the top floor and is the one with the proper psychological, intellectual, philosophical and emotional perspective to adopt a paradigm which best reflects the objective nature of reality. It is our nature as humans to constantly collapse to the first floor, our most blinkered, our most filtered.

[00:20:00]    In some cases it is quite useful to inhabit the first floor. We are a streamlined version of ourselves when we are on the first floor and as we shall see sometimes that is quite useful, but this collapse to the first floor is when specifically for us we encounter an emotionally charged issue. The expression “so mad I saw red” and “lost my cool” denote the experience of being emotionally triggered to the point where our ability to perform cognitive empathy is significantly degraded. Cognitive empathy is our ability to understand what other people are thinking, the intentions of other individuals. That ability is known as cognitive empathy and will be the subject of later lessons.

[00:21:00]    As humans we tend to have one downgrade in our cognitive empathy when we encounter a conflict with a friend’s spouse and quite a different one when we encounter our own. It all has to do with the emotional energy for us around that particular issue. As an example, if my wife walks out of our guest bathroom and says, “What are you doing here, why are you doing this?” My reaction will probably be one of surprise and anger at being unjustly accused of something I have no idea what she’s talking about. If my brother’s wife walks out of the bathroom and says, “Why’d you do that, what are you doing here,” my first response will likely be one of more clarity which is what is wrong, what do you believe happened, how can I help you?

[00:22:00]    It’s important for us to understand our own emotional triggers. Poker players and stockbrokers know this best. To be put on emotional tilt in a poker game is to trigger someone’s emotions in a way where their ability to engage in cognitive empathy which is to read other people goes down along with their ability to make clear decisions and to strategize in a meaningful way. In poker the whole idea is to emotionally trigger your opponent. In negotiation the whole idea is to emotionally trigger your opponent. In sales the whole idea is to emotionally trigger your opponent in a good way.

I want to evoke warm feelings when I describe to you how you are riding in this BMW and people are looking at you like you’re important. I want to describe to you the fear of you showing up to your high school reunion in the jalopy in which you have arrived in the parking lot. All of human interaction is based around these triggering of emotions and the only way to be immune to these triggering emotions is to have some clarity, some intellectual clarity around the things that trigger you.

[00:23:00]    In the earlier example with Alison and Bob Alice was on the first floor and Bob was on the tenth. Even in this very podcast a listener would take offense at the first example where Alice was on the first floor and Bob was on the tenth. The idea of a woman automatically being on a lower floor than a man would have evoked an emotional response. Or in the second example when it could be assumed that Bob would be less qualified to judge on issues of gender bias perhaps that would provoke a trigger or offense from somebody who believes that not to be a fair example. Or perhaps you treated both examples as neutral, rational arguments to be critically analyzed.

[00:24:00]    The point here is which of those scenarios is optimal when you are strategizing how best to deal with the person you’re speaking with to achieve your goals. I would submit to you, of course, that while emotion can be very useful sometimes in the long run to be emotionally empowered and reduce your emotional triggers will make you a lot less susceptible to influence, persuasion, and manipulation. As we shall see our emotional energy on a given issue is a very strong predictor of whether we will deal with that scenario in a very empowered manner. This is chiefly because extreme emotion interferes with our cognitive empathy, our ability to project and understand the intent and thoughts of those whom we’re dealing with.

[00:25:00]    To continue our analogy of the building as a structure in your mind, buildings and your mind both require a deep foundation as carefully planned to sustain the added stress of floors being added on top. There is no specific depth for the foundation of a skyscraper. The ideal depth depends on the soil condition as well as the lateral forces acting upon the structure. In the same way the foundation for a human paradigm is necessitated by the conditions of its environment. A shallow foundation that is perfectly functional in periods of low stress will collapse the entire structure amidst a torrent of the right stress.

[00:26:00]    Allow me to give you an example. Let us say we have a cult member who was raised to believe that their family founded the United States 100 years ago. They are raised their entire life in their community. Now there’s a gap I would argue between objective reality and the subjective view of reality that this individual holds. He has accepted from his authority figures from the time he was a child like we all do that this is the nature of reality. Now there’s a gap between his understanding of reality, his subjective view of it and objective reality.

[00:27:00]    Now we all have a gap. There’s none of us who see objective reality for what it is. The great gap between his understanding and provable reality is a sword of Damocles hanging over his head. Now our young cult member goes to college where he’s introduced for the very first time to alternate theories as to how the world might work. The conflict in his head becomes a cognitive dissonance which is a conflict of ideas that need to be resolved.

In future lessons we will be examining how to strengthen the foundation of your own mind, how to add floors to rapidly see other perspectives and paradigms. Also, how to shake the foundations of others and collapse their paradigms when and if required. This is why perspective is indeed the true nature of human power. You change your level, you change your life, and you can change the world. Welcome to Apex Level to Power.