The first concept that struck me in this read of Chapter 8 of How To Be A Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci was the idea of the reification fallacy. The reification fallacy is also known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The fallacy occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete, tangible entity. The author describes it as “speaking about a concept as if it has a mind-independent existence.” The example used in the book is evil. Contrast how you would act if you viewed evil as a lack of thought; something commonplace rather than something with a mind bent on doing despicable things. Avoiding the reification fallacy allows us to frame our perception of evil (or agile) based on what is in our mind, which, is under our control. Making a concept a thing makes it more apt to be outside our control and can lead to misunderstandings or misrepresentations. The more complex the greater the potential for a disconnect.

During this read, I realized how many concepts we tend to “personify.”  Evil and other strong patterns of behavior tend to be treated that way. In many operations and software-centric organizations terms like agile, lean, old school, and bureaucratic are used as if they are almost semi-conscious entities making it difficult to maintain clarity in discussions and arguments. This shift to a person or concrete entity obscures the nuances of the original concept. 

As the nuances and context of the original concepts are obscured it becomes significantly easier to rationalize variations in thought and behavior that don’t fit the original idea. We brand individuals as the personification of evil, Charles Manson or Adolf Eichmann (example in the book). Agile has fallen prey to this treatment. Consider the times you have heard someone described as agile (a thing rather than an adjective). As I was listening to a webinar recently someone in the chat stated that the presenter wasn’t “agile.” There was no discussion of context or what the organization needed, just blanket branding without nuance.

A second concept that I found intriguing is the idea of honorable and sinister stupidity (author’s term). A Stoic view is that stupidity is a lack of knowledge and being unaligned with virtue and reason. Stupidity is the is ignorance of the truth or lack of wisdom. An inability to learn yields an honorable stupidity. A choice is not being made, the person is playing with the cards they are dealt. In scenarios where there is a “lack of willingness” to learn, to acquire the knowledge needed for wisdom, yields sinister stupidity. A choice is being made to avoid gathering more knowledge or to live with reason. A person with the latter problem will not be able to be convinced by any logical argument that their position is wrong unless the environment they are operating within changes. The only way to change a person who lacks the willingness to learn is to increase the amount of cognitive dissonance on a topic.

Cognitive dissonance is a conflict between judgments a person holds to be equally true. Most people abhor conflict and just as nature abhors a vacuum; they seek explanations to push an idea or judgment over the equal hump. Rationalizations are a key tool for breaking the tie. A discussion of rationalization takes us down the path of conspiracy theories and the like. 

Rationalizations are a problem especially if you can’t dispute them with logical arguments. Enter the need to increase cognitive dissonance until they are uncomfortable enough to seek new sources of information. As a change leader, your role is to provide the impetus to increase dissonance (ask questions, provide demonstrations, mentor, and more) and then to help guide them to sources of information that are more supportive of the change. Changing a position whether in process improvement or sales is an active process, if you curtail your involvement too early people will return to equilibrium. A form of reversion to the mean. The author states “The more clever people are the better they are at rationalizing their cognitive dissonance.” 

In conversations with my colleague and co-author of Mastering Work Intake, Jeremy Willets, we both recognized that this behavior could be construed as manipulation. While both behaviors involve influencing others, manipulation is deceptive and self-serving while leading change is ethical (or should be) and transparent. Applying Stoic virtues to change leadership provides a framework for virtue and ethics. 

Jeremy and I have recently formulated 20 coaching questions to help generate cognitive dissonance as you examine and repair how work intake occurs. Send me an email (tcagley@tomcagley.com) and I will send it to you.

This is a powerful and useful chapter, other topics include the banality of evil and evil as a lack of thought. As a change leader, these ideas are useful in reframing how you view those who might oppose or even subvert your efforts. Your goal is to increase knowledge and thought rather than taking the Steve Jobs approach of branding your opponents as enemies (where you could fall prey to the reification fallacy).

A final note from my re-read of this chapter is that to pursue stoicism a person has to commit to an obligation to seek out knowledge and continue to grow. 

“Progress is not made by luck or accident, but by working on yourself daily.” Epictetus

Catch on all of the entries in the re-read of  How To Be A Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci (buy a copy and read along)

Week 1: Logistics and Opening Thoughts

Week 2: The Unstraightforward Path  

Week 3: A Roadmap For The Journey

Week 4: Some Things Are In Our Power, Others Are Not

Week 5: Live According To Nature

Week 6: Playing Ball With Socrates

Week 7: God or Atoms?

Week 8: It’s All About Character

Week 9: A Very Crucial Word