Well, its not my idea really.  It belongs to Ayn Rand.  In her most famous book, Atlas Shrugged, she imagined a scenario when the wealth-creators of the world would go on strike in order to free themselves from exploitation by the less talented.  This strike was lead by the mysterious John Galt, who considered it a matter of justice that he should enjoy the full fruit of his own labour.

Those in favour of taxing the wealthy today use words like ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ in order to describe their belief that the rich should pay for the poor.  I call it stealing.  It is theft to force someone to part with their own property against their will.  But this is exactly what tax is.  If you don’t pay it, you get punished.  Did you agree to pay tax at that rate?  No.  Do you have a say as to how it is spent?  No.  How is it just that people are expected to pay different rates of tax for the same service, simply because their earning powers differ?  Any why do they differ?  Hard work and creativity, that’s all.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t give to the poor.  But first off, who is really poor in this country?  Second, giving should be voluntary, to charities of your choice, so you can see how it will be spent.  Giving should not be enforced by the courts and police.  Third, the richer the rich get, the more money flows down to the less rich and society as a whole.  This is called ‘invisible hand’ economics.  Fourth, the social responsiblity of business is to increase its profits, not to right societies so-called ‘inequalities’.  There are and always will be inequalities of  talent, effort, skill, and luck between human beings, and it is immoral to try and level these.

No, Green was wrong to threaten to go abroad with his money.  Instead, the whole private sector should go on strike!  But I don’t suppose this will happen.  Capitalism is an unknown ideal in this country.  We’d rather compain and decline and let everything remain the same.

Image credit: shoops.

Ireland needs a hero. Like superficial Superman, the recent economic bailout may have saved the day, but it hasn’t solved any deeper problem.  I’ve spent the last few weeks working ‘down south’ and its people are angry, worried and at a loss.  Maybe an Irish superhero is required?

News reporters and local bloggers alike have made the call recently for a just such a hero.  Unfortunately, the best they could come up with were ancient warriors or their modern comic-book equivalents.  Good for escapist daydreaming, bad for fiscal policy.

I have another suggestion.

His name is John Galt.

Who is John Galt?

The hero in a novel called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.  He brings about the collapse of an already corrupt Western economy by persuading the world’s creative leaders – including inventors, artists and businessmen – to go on strike.  He fights against “parasites”, “looters” and “moochers” who demand the benefits of the heroes’ labour.

One writer in The Wall Street Journal put it like this:

“In Atlas Shrugged, Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?”

Rand’s heroes are interesting.  They aren’t crime-fighters or warriors.  They are entrepreneurs, engineers and architects.  These are skilled professionals who bridge the gap between theory and practice, ideas and action.  They have a vision of what they want to create and they bring it to pass.  On their own.  Without government subsidies; despite government interference.

Ireland needs what the rest of the world needs.  (1) Incredible individuals who raise themselves above the herd by their own creativity and resilience. They are the motor of any sustainable and growing economy.  (2) Everyone else to get out of their way.

If this hero remains the stuff of fantasy, then it will take more than a Superman to save us.

So you know my view that comics are smart and that animated superhero movies like The Incredibles can be used to teach philosophy.  Well it seems I’m in good company.  For a change.

William Irwin, a philosophy professor at King’s College in Pennsylvania, edits the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series, which includes titles such as Batman and Philosophy, and X-Men and Philosophy.

The article gives examples of how he and other teachers like him do this.  For instance, what can Batman’s refusal to kill the Joker illustrate about complex ethical dilemmas?  Or what can Dr Manhattan’s musing on physics add to the free will debate?

And in case any of you are aghast at this example of university-level dumbing down, be careful to let the man speak for himself.

“We are not saying that the canon of Superman comic books is equivalent to Homer and Dante and you can study them for their own sake. We’re not suggesting that comic books replace Plato and Descartes – not at all. The goal is always to get people interested in philosophy by speaking first in terms that people are familiar with.”

Comics are a recruiting tool to get people interested in life’s deeper problems.  They can also serve to illustrate those problems as a kind of artistic thought-experiment.  But they neither solve them, nor replace the study those thinkers who have tried.   They aren’t supposed to.

Comics or graphic novels have their greatest educational potency as portals for higher thought.  Especially for young males – like me – who hated everything to do with school.  I would also want to argue that some graphic novels – Watchmen for instance – contain more depth and complexity than 90% of the trash in your average second-hand bookshop.  Heck, you can even use them to teach career guidance.

That’s one comic book every high school kid should read.

PS  This year in the Queen’s University Open Learning Programme there is a course I’m thinking of attending called Investigate and Create: Comic Book Illustration by Duncan Ross.  I’m no artist but Duncan has assured me that this isn’t encessary.  See you there?

Image credit: audiinsperation.

As business people, we’re all used to reviews, testimonials and are aware of their power when displayed online or in print media.  We proudly display them on our LinkedIn profiles, our website widgets, inside the cover of our books.  However, how should we respond when someone posts a negative comment?

If the reviewer is wrong…

• If the review is factually untrue, and this can be demonstrated, then write to the reviewer and politely ask them to take it down, stating those facts without emotion, blame or threat.
• Prepare yourself for the possibility that they will refuse.
• If they refuse, decide whether to remove the review yourself, or not.  (Beware that many public review and testimonial sites do not offer this facility, and there are many that do not offer you any control over the content at all, or any recourse (such as posting a follow-up comment, or refutation).

If the reviewer has a point…

• If the review is partially or fully true, then write to the review and politely ask them to amend the part that is untrue, or remove the review altogether.  Prepare yourself for the possibility that they will see things differently to you.
• Regardless of the outcome of this request, offer to make a clearly defined restitution (preferably in kind, though not financial) to the reviewer, by way of an apology for their bad experience of your organisation. Some organisations publicise this restitution, for PR purposes.
• NEVER make the mistake of offering restitution on condition that the review is removed.  This will only make things worse, and damage your reputation further.  Restitution should make the customer happy, and be of no immediate benefit to you whatsoever.  (We all know that this will benefit us in the long term though.)
• Statistics show that complainants whose complaint is resolved quickly will most often remain with a supplier, and may become advocates.

If the reviewer makes a personal attack…

Online

• This type of behaviour can only serve to condemn the writer.  There is one correct way to communicate when making a criticism: truthfully, briefly and factually.  Resorting to personal attacks is the way of the emotional abuser, a person who is lacking in self-esteem.  And, it is lazy.
• Remove the review immediately, if possible.  (This is especially important if someone uses your website to attack another person.  Avoid being viewed as someone who allows personal attacks on your sites and profiles.) If it is not possible to remove the review, respond quickly, asking for constructive feedback in order to deal with the issue.  This places you in the stronger, positive, assertive, proactive position.
• If you receive constructive feedback, follow-up quickly with a thank-you and a brief outline of what you have done to improve things.
• Avoid carrying on a slanging match online.  It makes everyone look stupid.

Offline

• Tell them what they’ve done. Keep it factual.
• Tell them how it makes you feel.  Keep it short.
• Tell them what you’d like them to do instead.  E.g. replace the personal attack with some useful suggestions on what the problem really is, and how it can be resolved.
• Tell them what the consequences will be if they don’t do as you ask.  E.g. you won’t begin to work on improving something, if you only receive a vague personal attack.  Make sure you carry through with the consequences.  That may be, for example, to avoid association with that person, as personal attacks are designed only to harm, not help.

I hope these simple strategies help you to understand what happens when someone reviews your product or service.  And, that you never have to use them.  ;)

Image credit: lavverue.

Comment below on how you have dealt with negative reviews or testimonials on and offline.  I’d love to hear your thoughts, and whether you have tried the suggestions above.

Readers of this blog will know my interest in lies and how they relate to body language in particular.  I’ve even delivered a workshop called Lies and Damned Lies: How to Become a Human Lie Detector.  I want to use this blog to flag up some general development and stories in this area.

“Researchers are testing how people judge honest behaviour because they are worried jurors could reach a verdict based on the way a defendant looks.”  In connection to this story, check out a link to The Honesty Lab, “the first ever international study to explore public concepts of honesty”.

Just to counterbalance the gender bias in the first story, read here how one in four British woman admit they would lie when it comes to trying to conceive without their partners consent.

Doctors are among the professionals that expect to hear lies from the public.  One doctor speculates that this is “because the NHS is free at the point of delivery [so] its worth is not fully appreciated”.  Interesting…

Priests, politicians and psychologists from Northern Ireland all discuss the pros, but mostly the cons, of lies in society.  It seems there are few of us in this country who tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

From a scientific rather than a social perspective, brains scans seem to provide a way forward in lie detection.  “Brain scans could be useful as lie detectors to show if a witness lies when identifying a suspect in a crime investigation, US researchers believe.”  Perhaps they are even reliable enough to detect criminals and those who lie under oath.

And what about politicians: can they be honest?  Can they give a straight answer to any question?  And could we take it if they did?  I’d be lying if I said I thought we could…

P.S. Related “curve ball” story: Toddlers who lie ‘will do better’ in later life!