Living a Win-Win-Win Life
Ranked #1,641 in Culture & Society, #38,628 overall | Donates to Grameen Foundation
Life is no longer win-lose, nor even win-win, start looking for win-win-win.
When we consider diverse cultures, societies, tribes, or individuals as worthy of equal interaction, it does not mean they have overthrown their phobias, ethnocentricity, and deranged customs. It means we are finally overcoming our own.
Most of human history was a zero-sum, win-lose proposition based on scarcity and need. You can help create a win-win-win society, starting with yourself.
Historically, if one person gained another person or group lost. This inspired cultures of clutching, hoarding, stealing, and fighting so the chances of survival were greater for your tribe than their tribe. Sadly win-lose is still the modus operandi of the dominate but failing bureaucratic age. We so fear scarcity that we devour the seeds of abundance rather than share them.
When individual freedoms became temporarily available just over 200 years ago; security, wealth, health, and stability expanded as a consequence. Win-win-win is based on allowing expanding abundance.
It's axiomatic: A free trade is not made unless both parties believe they benefit. win-win
Today we logically realize what Bastiat postulated over 150 years ago; not only the parties in a win-win trade profit, but all of humanity benefits as total wealth increases, raising the standard of living for every free individual with each:
win-win-win
"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others." - C. F. Bastiat, 1801-1850
The biggest difficulty is that socially we still emote at a win-lose level, so our instinct is to control, distribute, fight over, and destroy overall wealth. Can we learn to accept equality in opportunity, and diversity in results and rewards?
The longer we cling to the emotionally satisfying but flawed postulates we were taught, the more pain we will cause. Involuntary servitude and war are just two of the problems wrought by continuing an archaic negative sum game and persisting in win-lose thinking. Freedom and peace will grow as we instead seek to share in win-win-win. Positive Sum. Progress and an increasing of total human wealth can only happen as we allow ourselves to study, verify, and then apply win-win-win philosophies.
The poor, humans and nations, are best served not by merely sustaining them, but by teaching them how to openly create wealth by mutually beneficial exchange.
Give a man a some corn and you feed him for a day, teach him to grow corn and you feed him and those he loves for life, encourage him to trade excess grain and increase everyone's wealth and safety.
image from thegoldguys.blogspot.com
Jay Stuart Snelson
"Human freedom is the natural byproduct of win-win exchanges. Win-win creates human wealth, expands human freedom, and fosters human peace."
Win-Win -- the driving concept of the work of Jay Stuart Snelson.
The above lens' introduction was written after attending seminars by Jay Snelson and Michael Shermer. It was the immediate synthesis of their works and some of my prior ideas.
Michael Shermer is well known for his monthly column in Scientific American and for founding Skeptic magazine and The Skeptic Society. His lecture was on evolutionary economics, and dealt mainly with recent geometric complexity growth, and how we have been unable to socially adapt from tribal mores to open markets and globalization. I found I had already written on many of his subjects such as the economic ecosystem, although my approach is different.
What I had written in my notebook prior to the lectures reflected my anticipations, and was an effort to prepare an open mind for areas that I was sure to disagree with thoughtful speakers.
"I expect elitist arrogance and closed minds, much like attending an Objectivist meeting. Open minds and attitudes will be a pleasant surprise."
I didn't write it down, but one of my goals at such functions is to consciously keep my own mind open, seeking ideas that make me uncomfortable - the better to root out my own errors. Those ideas comprise the bulk of my rather skimpy notes and all were from Snelson's lecture. These notes will be reviewed several times over the next few weeks, and occasionally as warranted later.
Snelson pointed out an assertion Galambos (Galambos was an astrophysicist and professor) made; most of our scientific advances have come in physics, a more limited number in the biological sciences, and almost none in the social sciences that are still limited by using a-priori reasoning rather than scientific method.
He acknowledged the difficulties of changing minds set in academic concrete. Brilliant and well educated experts revere and protect their current intellectual positions; change being perceived as an assault on their status and reputations.
I've experienced this resistance, and have shared a quote in my Ignorance lens that Snelson used in his presentation. He quoted the father of quantum physics:
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." - Max Planck
Like artists, great scientists are seldom recognized during their lives. Usually vilified and cast out, breakthrough scientists are lucky if they are just ignored. Scientific Method be hanged, historic ideas persist in scientific circles against testable and verified truth.
As Max Planck said "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Also consider what futurist Arthur C. Clark observed concerning how scientific innovations are resisted: "...don't be surprised if the world again witnesses the four stages of response to any new and revolutionary development: 1. It's crazy! 2. It may be possible - so what? 3. I said it was a good idea all along. 4. I thought of it first."
Give credit to Jay Snelson for the thought and effort he has expended; and his persistence. As far as I'm concerned, you can take credit for developing anything I've added as win-win-win, as long as you help it spread.
Jay Snelson and Andrew J. Galambos' win-win philosophy may protect our world.
Snelson and Galambos consider a win-lose paradigm as responsible for human history's persistent wars and poverty.
A scientific method
With Snelson's win-win, or my slightly more cumbersome but illuminative win-win-win, the future may indeed prosper.
Let's begin with a statement or question that can be challenged, over and over again. Verifiable solutions start with detailed and testable definitions - not with assumptions and models. Clarity will increase as a subject is systematically studied under controlled conditions.
ie: Water boils at a different temperature at sea level than mountain top. If you are testing something using a boiling liquid's transition to gas, you must calibrate your equipment for your altitude. You would also note your adjustments so your experiment could be repeated at any altitude by anyone, if they accurately adjust all their calibrations.
Often knowledge is increased by the failures of expected results - leading to new experiments.
A statement and two definitions.
"Human freedom is the natural byproduct of win-win exchanges. Win-win creates human wealth, expands human freedom, and fosters human peace." - Jay Snelson
All these belong to you alone.
Galambos defined freedom as 100% control of your own property. By his terms, how do you define freedom? Is controlling 75% of your life's production , the rest taken in your servitude to other's demands on your life, is that freedom to you? Perhaps 50% or less, both spouses working, one in essence a full time servant of taxes and the costs of over-regulation?
A contrasting definition: "Liberty consists in doing what one desires." - John Stuart Mill
Does liberty to you consist of doing 50% of what you desire? My definition of freedom echoes John Stuart Mill, Lysander Spooner, and others: Freedom is the right to do as you please, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others to do as they please. As P.J. O'Rourke would add - you then accept responsibility for any consequences of exercising your freedom.
Answer me this:
Win For Life. Are you willing to investigate change?
I've probably already made you uncomfortable, but you have been wise enough to see that as opportunity, and stick around.
These books can help you develop personal and societal freedoms. Do you think freedom, peace, health, and wealth are exciting and attainable goals for humankind? Are you wiling to help calm the waves of the future by participating in more mature relationships today?
That's win-win-win.
If you are willing to add immediate action to your halcyonic wisdom, let's get started.
Allowing abundance is more effective than fighting poverty.
Abundance comes from voluntary co-operation to achieve mutually exclusive self interests.
ie: trade
Why play negative sum games when positive sum games are available?
Your turn at win-win-win
You have put up with both my ideas and Snelson's, at least as I've represented them.
Now is the time to present your thoughts. Of course proofs would be better since this page endorses verified principles over conjecture, historical suppositions, and expert opinion.
"I know very well that because I am unlettered some presumptuous people will think they have the right to criticize me, saying that I am an uncultured man. What stupid fools! Do they not know that I could reply to them as Marius did to the Roman patricians: 'Do those who pride themselves on the works of other men claim to challenge mine?'" - Leonardo da Vinci
Ah, to be remembered for being as uncultured as da Vinci. You don't need degrees and letters after your name to embrace win-win-win.
Too often our education has come from professors repeating authorities, who themselves repeated statements of their preferred authorities. If it is not verifiable, if challenges can not be repeated frequently with ever increasing accuracy - it is not knowledge, it is fluff.
"The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life-by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past-and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort." - Ayn Rand
If you don't like these choices ;} there is an open guest book for cogent opinions.
Who presents the greatest risk to a win-win-win future?
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byThe highly educated; their epistemic arrogance will keep them from considering a changing world.
howel says:
Both do actually, but I believe the over educated have more trouble getting over their own egos. One point I wanted to make - the win-win-win presents a clear statement, perhaps it sounds to "sweet" and "nice" - but whenever there is a "win" the implication is competition and a "lose". Obviously you are saying the opposite, but I would prefer a greater jump away from that frame of reference, into something new, with greater promise. One of the limitations I find is the lack of real optimism and possibility for positive change.
Posted September 24, 2011
bhavesh says:
I chose this because I had to. In actuality I disagree with both. Intellectual development contributes to win-win-win behavior only up to a point. I have seen too many people who speak of win-win but their behavior is anything but. It requires a depth of development that's beyond the intellectual faculty and goes to emotional development and beyond.
Posted September 09, 2011
karmicchristian says:
Arrogance and failure to think critically, are major stumbling blocks to create an open environment and detriments to win-win-win philosophy.
Posted August 08, 2011
badmsm says:
People need be taught critical thinking and self sufficiency at a young age and then be allowed to make their own choices for their lives. Pushing political/social/religious agendas serves no one. In my travels, I've met people from all walks of life and age groups. All any of us really want in the end is to live in peace, the way we see fit.
Posted June 11, 2011
crosscreations says:
Tough choice, the 'highly educated' often focus too much on WHAT to think rather than HOW to think, which does in most cases include the public school curriculum, producing a culture of beings indoctrinated with fear of change.
Posted April 22, 2011
The poorly schooled; their years spent being indoctrinated with public school curriculum does not enable them to challenge religious like, win-lose hierarchies.
JustOneGuy says:
The predators that feed off of the producers. The predators are the ones whose arsenal includes deception and lies and brute force. They are responsible for all human misery and death. The tools of the producer are trade, the shovel, the word, the hammer, invention, design, understanding, doubt, and love. The future belongs to the producer and our destiny is the stars and immortality. The predator provides nothing, the producer everything.
Posted January 03, 2012
jmurphy says:
The highly educated end to submerge themselves in debate rather than action but that's nothing compared to the intrinsic inability of the poorly schooled being unable to challenge the staus quo because of the power of social control at it's best worldwide.
Posted August 21, 2011
dc64 says:
I am most unimpressed with the public school system where children are sat down with a book and told to read the instructions and answer the questions. If they are unruly (bored), they are put on Ritalin or some other mind-altering drug. What these children learn in school is how to use drugs, how to fight, how to use foul language, and what party to go to.
My son spent three weeks in Kindergarten before I pulled him out and began home-schooling him. The teacher told me he could not read a single word. That's the day I pulled him out, my son could read very well. When he was three I sat him in front of the computer and let him have at it. By the time he was four, he was playing games and reading the instructions himself. That was the deal, if he couldn't read the instructions, then he couldn't play the game, so he was forced to learn for his own benefit and enjoyment. To hear a teacher immediately write him off because he was too uncomfortable to answer her was disappointing.
Posted June 18, 2009
Spook says:
I'm not the brightest spark in any field. However I have always stood by the principle, that all I ever want from my children's education, is that they be taught to think. Provided that happens I'm happy irrespective of their accomplishments.
Posted May 04, 2009
Sooner = less pain
In a way,
the future feels like something we once knew,
but have long forgotten.
Simply: If I Plant 50 kernels of corn and reap 100 ears of corn, the world's food supply and wealth have increased.
When we willingly trade some of my corn for some of your eggs, we both gain.
Bonus Thought: Basic, Easily Understood Economics (no math needed)
Were youth 160 years ago so advanced they understood simple truths our leaders refuse to acknowledge?
excerpt from To The Youth, by Fredrich Bastiat:
... Now the nature of this solution, as you readily understand, will depend greatly upon whether men's interests are, in fact, harmonious or antagonistic to one another.
If they are harmonious, the answer to our problem is to be found in liberty; if they are antagonistic, in coercion. In the first case, it is enough not to interfere; in the second, we must, inevitably, interfere.
But liberty can assume only one form. When we are certain that each one of the molecules composing a liquid has within it everything that is needed to determine the general level, we conclude that the simplest and surest way to obtain this level is not to interfere with the molecules. All those who accept as their starting point the thesis that men's interests are harmonious will agree that the practical solution to the social problem is simply not to thwart these interests or to try to redirect them.
Coercion, on the other hand, can assume countless forms in response to countless points of view. Therefore, those schools of thought that start with the assumption that men's interests are antagonistic to one another have never yet done anything to solve the problem except to eliminate liberty. They are still trying to ascertain which, out of all the infinite forms that coercion can assume, is the right one, or indeed if there is any right one. And, if they ever do reach any agreement as to which form of coercion they prefer, there will still remain the final difficulty of getting all men everywhere to accept it freely.
But, if we accept the hypothesis that men's interests are by their very nature inevitably bound to clash, that this conflict can be averted only by the capricious invention of an artificial social order, then the condition of mankind is indeed precarious, and we must fearfully ask ourselves:
1. Shall we be able to find someone who has invented a satisfactory form of coercion?
2. Will this man be able to win over to his plan the countless schools of thought that have conceived of other forms?
3. Will mankind submit to this form, which, according to our hypothesis, must run counter to every man's self-interest?
4. Assuming that humanity will consent to being rigged out in this garment, what will happen if another inventor arrives with a better garment? Are men to preserve a bad social order, knowing that it is bad; or are they to change their social order every morning, according to the whims of fashion and the ingeniousness of the inventors?
5. Will not all the inventors whose plans have been rejected now unite against the accepted plan with all the better chance of destroying it because, by its very nature and design, it runs counter to every man's self-interest?
6. And, in the last analysis, is there any one human force capable of overcoming the fundamental antagonism which is assumed to be characteristic of all human forces?
I could go on indefinitely asking such questions and could, for example, bring up this difficulty: If you consider individual self-interest as antagonistic to the general interest, where do you propose to establish the acting principle of coercion? Where will you put its fulcrum? Will it be outside of humanity?
It would have to be, in order to escape the consequences of your law. For if you entrust men with arbitrary power, you must first prove that these men are molded of a different clay from the rest of us; that they, unlike us, will never be moved by the inevitable principle of self-interest; and that when they are placed in a situation where there can be no possible restraint upon them or any resistance to them, their minds will be exempt from error, their hands from greed, and their hearts from covetousness...
(Seek out C. F. Bastiat on the net.)
Think, Don't Follow
What do you do when your duty and your humanity collide?
Hitler was an elected official in a modern democracy, everything he did was legal. Voting results don't discover truth. Lawmakers, the majority, and leaders can create evil.
If you allow yourself to think, you can make choices.
Guestbook and Change Agent Forum
Take your best shot - we all need to consider more than one side of this argument.
"I've found that the best way to open my mind is to encourage others to open their minds." - Allan Wallace
-
Reply
-
JustOneGuy Jan 3, 2012 @ 6:05 am | delete
- Alan, great lens. I loved the intro picture. Clean, bright, and meaningful! That's hard to come up with. The more I see of Bastiat the more kinship I feel for him. I have progressed away from the study of Rights to the study of Virtue. This lens speaks to the virtues requiring freedom. And my definition of freedom has changed to become the ability to perform one's Primary Virtues unencumbered or unimpeded by another person or persons. The Primary Virtues are those acts we take that lead to our survival as humans. If we are unimpeded in the performance of these virtues, it is truly a win-win-win situation.
-
-
Reply
-
SquidooProductReviews
Sep 10, 2011 @ 9:34 am | delete
- Why can't we live in peace.
-
-
Reply
-
bhavesh
Sep 9, 2011 @ 11:42 am | delete
- Nice lens. Thanks for sharing!
-
-
Reply
-
LaraineRose Sep 3, 2011 @ 1:32 am | delete
- If no man could anticipate all chess moves, how could he be able to foresee human affairs? The problems facing the human race are not limited to a small board of sixty-four squares and thirty-two pieces, but are vast, virtually innumerable. Additionally, each of man’s problems are influenced in many ways by human will, which, of all factors, is the most unpredictable. It is no wonder, therefore, that historian Arnold Toynbee states:
“I myself believe that prediction is not possible in the field of human affairs. I believe that the outcomes of human choices, purposes, and plans are unpredictable intrinsically, however fully we may be informed about the relevant past facts up to date.”-Reconsiderations, 1961, page 4.
Nevertheless, like chess players, men continue to predict changes solely on the basis of what they see immediately before them. Should one of the expected ‘moves’ on the global chess board deviate from what is anticipated, a whole new situation is created, upsetting the change.
Thank you for another lens that made me think.
-
-
Reply
-
maik
Aug 27, 2011 @ 6:50 am | delete
- really is a great lens
living your full potential
-
-
Reply
-
karmicchristian
Aug 8, 2011 @ 1:41 am | delete
- One's attitude decides ones altitude. Very nice brain fodder. Thanks for sharing.
-
-
Reply
-
NidhiRajat
Aug 1, 2011 @ 1:36 pm | delete
- sky is the limit for success
-
-
Reply
-
ebookmum
Jul 31, 2011 @ 12:09 pm | delete
- Wow, lots of brain food. I love lenses that make you think.
-
-
Reply
-
letsgoduke
Jun 29, 2011 @ 10:14 am | delete
- Very inspirational lens, thank you!
-
-
Reply
-
HomepageHeroes
May 12, 2011 @ 8:50 pm | delete
- Ah, a lens that inspires thought - I like it. I gave you a thumbs up and lensrolled to my two lenses. Thank you
-
-
Reply
-
darkk93 Apr 30, 2011 @ 10:59 pm | delete
- If you think you can have a win-win-win life, then you will.
-
-
Reply
-
pinkrenegade
Apr 27, 2011 @ 9:09 pm | delete
- I consider being optimistic and hardworking person will have a win-win-win life. Of course we should not forget to put God first in everything that we do. That's a win-win-win-super win life.
-
-
Reply
-
One4Nell
Apr 25, 2011 @ 7:36 pm | delete
- Great ideas shared and food for thought. Thanks for sharing.
-
-
Reply
-
TanjaWanderlust
Apr 25, 2011 @ 8:40 am | delete
- Thanks for this lens. Its fantastic..
-
-
Reply
-
Pinkchic18
Mar 8, 2011 @ 12:30 pm | delete
- Very insightful! I got a lot out of this lens.
-
- Load More
What sort of person writes a page like this?
Someone that enjoys life.
*enjoy life*
change
Denial is most dangerous when change is structural. The bureaucratic age is ending, your past is not your future.
Your survival is not guaranteed.
Your historic world view is now self-destructive. Improvement is only available through intentional perceptional change.
More challenges for the bureaucratically entrenched.
Too many gatekeepers? Open The Gates! Red Rover, Red Rover, let abundance take over.
These lenses each delve into a topic that challenges some, infuriates others, and probably comforts no one. Recognized business leaders like Seth Godin understand defining, measuring, and improving leads to success. Yet all of us get defensive of our positions and resorts to accusing others of not facing the truth. We must first seek out an understanding of the other sides logic.
Civil discourse is centered on a seeking of truth through logical arguments; but politeness is maintained by fear of overreaction. Do those that disagree have cause to fear a hostile response from those who feel their emotionally derived positions assaulted? Do you automatically raise barriers to discourse over these and other subjects, considering any counter arguments stupid before you hear them:
Faster than light travel
Limited Growth
Creationism
Stem cell research
Globalism
A snort of disgust on reading the word or phrase is a good indicator of a closed mind.
"anthropogenic global warming" and "global jihad"-are subject to dichotomous left-right political posturing rather than sober reflection and action, amplifying the dangers of both. - Richard Allen Landes
Questioning an accepted truth should be applauded, not attacked as in primitive societies. Employing logic, and limiting our self-assurances that we (and those we follow) know the truth without error is difficult. It is always easier to sit on our hands, causing and suffering loss, blaming others while avoiding understanding their positions. Let us hear and understand the other side's logic. Scientific associations and peer-review journals that suppress dissent are not scientific - they are primitives trying to save face.
"The authorities I choose to follow agree . . . so those people are ignorant and should be silenced."
The order of these challenges is random, pick one. For your benefit - preferably pick one that sets your teeth on edge.
*enjoy life*
To re-read, rate, lensroll, del.icio.us, stumbleupon, digg, research books, contact the author, and email this lens to students, educators, your family, and your friends:
return to top of page. All direct income from my Squidoo lenses goes to micro-finance solutions for world poverty provided by the Grameen Foundation. The Grameen Foundation and similar orgaizations (Acumen Fund, Kiva) are creating a rising tide of positive influence upon our world. Help decrease poverty, by enabling the poor to support themselves.
Will YOUR life be based on what you want to use it to accomplish, or by random urges of what you want to do?
"Regulation bears seeds of failure. When protection is assumed: due-diligence suffers - fraud and corruption expand." - Allan Wallace
by BFuniv.com
Allan R. Wallace Trains Visionaries
"I just might be wrong; but if you view change as a problem rather than an opportunity you'll always be too late....
more »
- 145 featured lenses
- Winner of 15 trophies!
- Top lens » The Importance Of Education
Explore related pages
- Start My Own Business Ideas Start My Own Business Ideas
- Go PT, Live A Perpetual Traveler Lifestyle Go PT, Live A Perpetual Traveler Lifestyle
- Sparrow Swift Lensography Sparrow Swift Lensography
- Renaissance Education - how to study and apply classical literature Renaissance Education - how to study and apply classical literature
- The Importance Of Education The Importance Of Education
- How To Raise Money For Charity How To Raise Money For Charity
