On log jams - with pictures, and novelty videos at the end.

So I have had a year of being professionally 'stuck', and it has all suddenly come free and stared flowing again, I am trying to (very gently, carefully and compassionately) roll around in my head and understand why I could not feel the forward motion I needed in one particular work environment, but many other people could and still can. What is it that was so different in my circumstances, my approach, my accumulation of experiences, the little voice in my head that tells me a story about what is important and unimportant, that is different to others? Why did I end up in such angst? I am not trying to be self-critical, or critical of that particular workplace (although both are easy to fall into). Just trying to consider and meditate on the corners of the square peg and the curves of the round hole. So next time I know what to do differently, with less angst and, possibly, either more success, or a more sound and achievable definition of success.

1. Not about log jams. 

During the worst weeks between June and September, the same thing happened multiple times. A senior person who I respected took me aside and told me not to lose heart, they each used a phrase similar to "You should keep being demanding; that is how you will trigger change in the world." Inside this brain of mine, I do not intend to be, or think of myself as demanding. On reflection, from the outside I might seem demanding... or with a positive framing, how about earnest, hopeful, determined, focused on outcomes, and trying to understand the stuck-ness of a system. Maybe holding high standards for myself and others. Maybe a bit too vocal. Maybe a bit too curious. Maybe that adds up to 'demanding'.

My younger children are still a bit demanding. They are kids. They are entitled to be demanding. They are supposed to demand attention, icecreams, help finding their shoes, their favourite songs in the car. Adults are supposed to be mature, measured, self-sufficient - and depending on your background and context, using the adjective 'demanding' about an adult can be quite pejorative. It's a class-based thing too, working class family stories try to replace 'demanding' with 'enduring' while the rich expect, demand and obtain what they want - and the company was a class-driven system - maybe 'demanding' is a key personality trait of those leaders, along with 'charismatic' and 'politically savvy': that was the alchemy that originally got onto leadership track...?

Demanding is not the point of this post.

Log jam is the point of this post.

2. About log jams. 

There are small log-jams

And big log-jams

Perhaps... 

The bigger the water system, and/or

The more aggressive the through-put of logs, and/or

The more irregular the flow (curves, rapids, obstructions etc) and/or

The longer the logs have to accumulate

The bigger and more intractable the log-jam has the potential to become.

So could it be that the group I was in was, well, bound up? In need of a dose of Spirulina? That the accumulated weight of all those years of trauma and bad process and incomplete initiatives and the revolving leadership door just added more and more logs behind the jam, and that in my earnestness I was adding to the problem? If that is the case, extracting me and others who are elders and others who care intensely is a massive step forward for the system. Get rid of the backlog of previous failed attempts, junk the lot, erase the memories, start from ground zero. Or at least from a fresh perspective.

3. Unsticking log jams.

The first useful part of the log-jam metaphor is that to shift it, you need to be in the right spot and you need to push the right log. No amount of pushing the wrong spot will un-stick it. Sometimes there need to be multiple shoves in multiple spots.

It may be no criticism of me that nothing I tried to do succeeded (by my definition at the time). It could be simply that I was in the wrong place within the system. Or that I could have moved the log-jam in concert with others in the system, if we pushed on the multiple key logs at the same time, but I never got coordinated with anyone in the other key spots. Or maybe I did push the system and I was just too impatient - too demanding - that the logs are still creaking and the jam is still flexing and in a second or two it will all start to flow again.

And my current working idea/hope/theory is that triggering a small change in the right part of a complex system will pull the whole system into a different mode of function may also have merit... I am always looking for the key log.

4. Not unsticking log jams

A lot of life thrives in a long-established log-jam, regardless of whether it was accidentally or deliberately created. In fact, engineered log jams (ELJs) are a thing. For fish habitat in Idaho.

For erosion prevention, water and land quality improvement, and channel stabilisation in Murray-Darling country and South East Queensland

There are also a lot of things that seem like log jams but aren't log jams. 

I think one of the objectives of those who live in, on, or with a log jam is that the log jam should remain exactly where it is. One of the things that fusses me about the digital revolution (and technophilia in general) is that disruption without common purpose can trigger bigger community problems. But even when there is a purpose for disruption, a clear system benefit, those whose livelihoods depend on the continuity of the floating structures are (if aware of the disruptive efforts) going to put their efforts towards stopping the disruption.

A large, relatively ancient organisation is by its nature pretty log-jammy. And properties such as bureaucracy, a severe case of hierarchy, and stupid time consuming rituals like hours and hours of web-based training, are evidence that the system does not want to move, and tools by which the people who live in that system resist movement. 

Maybe it was just foolish optimism to try so hard.

5. To jam or not to jam?

I went to a workshop on risk and 'black swan events' which got me thinking about cascading failures. I haven't finished the series of posts yet but the essence is this:
Some systems are made vulnerable to catastrophe, without their knowing it, Catastrophe gets triggered by an apparently small perturbation of normal functioning. 

One log stuck on a rapid. But the environment and context cascades a jam around it.

Or one log which finally works free from an established jam. But the fact that it was a key log makes the entire functional, vibrant edifice disintegrate.

Is a crisis the making of a log-jam?

Or the abrupt and catastrophic destruction of a system held together by log-jams? 

Or both/either, depending on your perspective?

In the risk management workshop, the presenter put forward the idea of - sometimes counter intuitively - slowing down the system, slowing down reactions, to manage or contain the cascade. 

I wonder if I should personally look less about speed of adaptation and flow, and more about system stability, diversity, resilience etc. Whether I need to practice the art of not minding that things don't get through the system. Less about the goal. More about the journey. 

6. That's it. 
If you've made it this far through my post.... :)

Some Youtube links.

Jam:

Trees (and other things):

A river
(I reckon this girl's got groove. I like her song about horses too, but it's not about a river.)

Loss driven systems part 1: Cascading losses, and pain and fear.

I found a really nicely written New Yorker article, in which the author describes a rapidly cascading sequence of smallish personal losses: keys, bike lock, pickup truck, phone. It seemed like a run of bad luck, because as she tells it, the losses aren't interlinked. Her phrase is "And then, mystifyingly, everything fell out of place." 

I started wondering whether the first loss might have triggered the cascade in a non-obvious way. 

Had the brain's stress cascade partially shut down judgement to the point where the author was unable to protect against the next loss? 

Was it about divided attention: by putting her mind to remembering the bike lock, she forgot where she put her pickup truck? 

Or was it that the early losses derailed established habits, her confidence, or her schedule, and these habits were all that was protecting her life from the entropic pull of the universe? 

On cascading loss: the causal model, the complex causal model, and complexity

Consider musculoskeletal pain: a lower back muscular problem can trigger a spasm event which leads to all sorts of muscles doing all sorts of compensations that, if left to their own devices, cause issues throughout the body: shoulders, feet, fingers, scalp.. and conceivably migraines and jaw pain and sleep disruption too.

A consequential or causal loss cascade is easy to wrap one's head around. The story is a straightforward one.

Sore back -> didn't go to the barbeque and missed it -> didn't get included in the planning of the group camping trip. 

The next layer of linked systemic losses is the directly related, but not necessarily causal, cascade. 

But can a sore back trigger digestive problems?

Not if you're only looking at the musculoskeletal system. But in the body as a system, here is one possible clear causal cascade: chronic back pain is often treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, whose long-term use can be a trigger for severe gastrointestinal disorders. Sore back -> ibuprofen -> digestive problems.

Can a sore back trigger marital or professional problems?

This question requires stepping out of the body as a system, and into the system of the person-in-the-world.

Chronic pain is linked with mood disorders, but it's not clear that the link might be one-directional or bi-directional. Does the bad mood make you more susceptible to pain? Or the pain make you grouchy, anxious, depressed, or reclusive?

It's not such a big step to think that a mood disorder can impact one's partnership or professional collaborations. 

Now we start to get into the oft-underestimated interconnectedness of adjacent systems. A single adverse event (a back spasm) can clearly trigger losses in terms of more pain, drug side effects, and relationship impact. The person with the sore back may not have that particular cascade - but it's both possible and explicable that this could happen. Just because you won't find any papers in the medical or psych journals which allow causal linkages between a sore back and a divorce, doesn't mean they're not interrelated. You'd need to dig into the person's story to hear about their experience of the cascade. Or dig into the bulk statistical data to see if there is an overlap between people with back pain and people seeking relationship counselling.

Hobfall's Conservation of Resources theory. 

For humans and systems of humans, the framing of loss and gain of resources seems to be more important than the actual loss or gain. It doesn't matter what the loss is. Material or financial loss, loss of time, loss of status, loss of relationships, loss is loss.

Hobfall put forward a series of layered ideas in a few different papers (here's one of the key ones), that biological and psychological stress is a response to loss or anticipated loss. Researchers have since measured how stress hormones (cortisol) goes up as people think about loss or experience subjective loss. 

In one of his more recent abstracts, there's one phrase which can be unpacked rather more deeply than has been done. The phrase is " ....the stress process within a more collectivist backdrop than was first posited...". 

It means that Conservation of Resources theory extends to how anticipated or actual subjective loss to a few of a group of organisms can neurochemically stress out the whole group. Whether in colonies of tubifex worms pulling away from a robot in a sewer, or in a team coming to terms with a round of redundancies and the anticipation of more.

Anticipated loss -> stress.

Loss to others -> stress to the whole system.

And in a loss-driven system, where the attention of the group is directed at the loss, individuals and the group work to adapt for, and protect against more loss. Not to seek, or even see, gains. 

"Don't go out foraging: roll the stone across the front of the burrow and stay put."

In the diagram at right, the dotted lines are really hard paths to take if all you expect to see is more loss.

And in the lack of seeing gains, the individuals and the system as a whole fails to pursue options for gain.

The point of Conservation of Resources is not the magnitude of the actual loss. 

It's the perception of loss. The anticipation of loss. Thinking about loss all the time. The neurochemical reaction to thinking about loss. And when losses cascade, this is particularly difficult, because you're caught in a mode of expecting more loss and it's really hard to put the last loss behind you and move on. 

Cascading losses is an observed pattern with a number of different pieces behind it. 

I read the New Yorker article and thought it interesting, and got on with my life. 

Then a few days later, I was held back ten minutes at work. I missed the deadline on a circuit book and I got a bit stressed. And I was surprised at how quickly fell into a multi-layered feedback-fed loss cascade, which included functional linkages, stress, attention, judgement, habit and timing.

To make the call that we were going to miss the deadline, I booked a late meeting to get everyone together, and I stuck around for 10 minutes longer than I should have. 

This lost me my window to travel in the pre-peak-hour traffic. 

When I did get out the door and to the exit of the parking lot, I fumbled the credit card payment, the machine went into an error state, and I lost another 5 minutes explaining it to the rocket surgeon on the intercom. Habit was disrupted. Judgement was a little shaky.

I knew I was going to be late to pick up the kids. I got stressed. Once the gates opened, I zipped off down the road, but I was careless with where I put my credit card at the petrol stop. I discovered the next day that I had lost it. Attention was on halting the loss of my time, not protecting my belongings.

I pulled over, rang ahead, and booked them into after-school-care. Unnecessary expenditure. More loss.

I had to pay quite a lot of careful attention to my driving: driving on automatic I tended to speed and tailgate. I had to pull over twice to take a phonecall, and sort out just-one-more-issue with the circuit book. I knew I was in a loss cascade and was trying to prevent more loss at that end. 

It was an hour after normal pickup time when I got to my kids. I was pretty tense, and I didn't want to infect them with the feeling of loss. 

I thought, I have to look for a small gain, a treat, something to get me out of the spiral and make sure I didn't pass it to them. I picked them up and took them straight to the beach.

At the beach, they played on the sandbar and the shallows while I sat on a towel taking calls from the project about what to do next. I used a bunch of techniques to contain and reframe the stress, and detach from the problem. I hid it from the kids, so by the time we got home, all was well. 

All because of being ten minutes late at the start of the cascade.

Even once I stabilised the stress of the immediate loss cascade, freezing and replacing the credit card triggered a functional cascade for the following week. The credit card is a key piece in our life system, and while there are contingencies and redundancies so we can keep life going normally, they are disruptive and there were still knock-on losses. 

I had to skip a fruit & veg box delivery and now have to go to the shop and pay cash. My tight work and family schedule normally relies on doing vegie shopping online in the evening. I had to cancel a few things, to make time to go to the supermarket - it cost me another publication deadline and a not-unimportant meeting.

There are things you can't buy without a credit card these days. I almost missed out on our eldest sitting a scholarship exam - it required payment online. I ended up borrowing someone else's credit card and paying them back in cash. 

A phone bill bounced. There's a penalty payment. Not much, but enough to irritate.

We've had to pack lunches rather than buy food from the downstairs cafe. They don't take cash anymore, just tap-and-go. 

With the new cards, we also have to go through all our regular direct debits and work out which to reinstate. We can either wait until they bounce, or spend a couple of hours with old bank statements and a highlighter.

It's been really annoying. 

Cascading losses can be more than annoying. Multi redundant complex systems like a body, or a family, or an infrastructure network, tend to compensate and compensate and compensate for losses, right up to the point where they catastrophically fail. Consider the octogenarian with osteoporosis, heart problems, diabetes, one functioning kidney, blindness and partial deafness, and an enlarged heart. She can be living independently at home, with everything managed and stable, until a slip or a fall triggers a very rapid decline. How does a fall exacerbate her kidney disease? No obvious causal link. It wouldn't have such an effect in a younger person. Only in the fragile elderly, where the redundancies are running out.

The issue is in how you frame and conceptualise cascading losses...

We generally think of cascading losses as either 'a run of bad luck', or in simple causal chains, which can be predicted with thought experiments or a simulation (such as a fire drill). Options can be evaluated and the best one chosen. Most of the safety, risk and mitigation structures I use professionally (and which we adapt to our personal life) use this kind of framing.

But cascading losses can also be multi-system causal chains or bi-directional feedback structures, where an event in one system (eg falling) may or may not trigger an apparently strange cascade of failures in other systems (kidneys, heart, diabetes etc). This kind of probabilistic assessment and mitigation is cognitively difficult. Most commonly, multi-system complex cascading losses are explained after the fact, rather than prepared prior. 

In cascading losses, there are a few common mechanisms, especially where human systems are involved.

Pain and fear is first on the list. Hobfoll's model uses the term 'stress'.

Pain is a topic worthy of its own post, but here's the short version. It's an ambiguous word to start with, and every person's experience is different. Pain is a huge and very costly problem in the world, in both human suffering and economically, and as a distinct thing from the multitude of ways it is caused and triggered. Pain in the body causes damage to the body. In fact, pain management is now a major focus of nursing, because the body's inflammatory and neurological pain responses often interfere with so many other body systems that medical outcomes from an injury or acute event are often substantially better if the patient feels no pain.

Outside the general medical ward, pain is not just bodily pain. 

There are a few models to help us think about pain which have quite nifty little diagrams: here's the neuromatrix model, Louis Gifford's Mature Organism Model, and the Onion skin model. What you'll quickly see is that these models all include 'beliefs' and 'culture' and 'past behaviours' and 'social communication' and such things. It's generally widely accepted that severe chronic pain and ideopathic (unexplained) pain generally have at least a psychological component, and very often a social or family history component too. There is a class of pain called somatic pain which has no traceable physical cause, but can cause extreme suffering and permanent disability. And amputees can have severe ghost-limb pain and spasm without even having the limb anymore.

I'm going to make a sweeping generalisation: that fear is the feeling of anticipated future pain. 

Fear (we often call it anxiety) also causes a lot of human suffering and economic cost, There are anxiety clinics just like there are pain clinics, and the anxiety research overlaps with the pain research quite a lot (but without some of the creepier animal experiments). 

In any human cascading-loss situation, such as the author who lost her pickup truck in Portland, or my own credit card, or the octogenarian falling over, both pain and fear quickly come into the mix. 

The stress of a crisis often triggers an adrenaline surge, which compromises cognition and deliberate thought. You can no longer use your judgement to make decisions, because adrenaline triggers the brain to use heuristics - short cuts or habits - in order to respond faster to a crisis.

Perception is narrowed, making it easy to stop paying attention to small things which normally mitigate against loss (like keeping track of where your phone is). 

Fear and pain can distort your perception of time and urgency too - amplifying the perceived size of the loss in-the-moment and other tiny events. Things which are normally inconsequential (breaking a cup, tripping on the sidewalk) suddenly become catastrophic, and symbolic. 

People in pain or fear can experience the world as a malicious place, and they often lash out at others over trivial things, or nothing at all. Relationships and interactions with other people often become dangerous - and the person in pain can feel, or get, isolated very quickly.

Pain and fear are both exhausting, and fatigue reduces the activity you can actually do to mitigate the loss. Fatigue has very real knock-on effecst too, such as unsafe driving or compromised attention to whatever else you're doing. 

And both fear and pain can cause insomnia or disrupted sleep. Have I blogged on sleep yet? I think I may need to blog on sleep. 

So what stops a cascading loss situation?

Stop obsessing about the chain of loss itself. Pay more attention to your own pain and fear first.

Stop. 

Breathe. 

Deliberately try to relax.

Make a cup of tea.

Look for a small gain. A real gain, or a symbolic gain.

One tuned-in and skilled teacher can get a troublesome and troubled kid out of a loss cascade which would get her into juvenile detention, and academically flying.

One Ulysses butterfly - if it's symbolic enough - can be enough to get a broke, isolated and deeply depressed young man back to work.

One box of strawberries. One busker in the subway. One small victory at work, one story or joke with your family at home. 

Shopping doesn't count. It should count - because when you go shopping you come back with stuff, which should be a gain - but it's a financial loss, it crowds your space, and there's often guilt involved in buying un-needed things. 

However, sitting down for 10 minutes at the shopping centre and sharing a chocolate brownie and a conversation with a friend definitely counts. 

Only once you're feeling a little better should you identify, prioritise and start to sort out each step in the loss chain one at a time.

Reversing a loss cascade often takes a bit of time. But first you have to arrest the fall.

Slipping the boat in the most picturesque weather

This year, I ended up more-or-less responsible for getting our boat out of the water for the winter. Certainly I was the only one down there from our boat, and I'm not the skipper or the owner so it was a bit weird, but I figured I'm brave and clever and would do my best.

I got there at dawn - here is a high-res picture for your screen background or wherever you want to sell canvas prints of yachts in a harbour at sunrise.
And by this stage it was lunchtime and everyone had just about finished so I went home to dry off and warm up.

Actually it was exquisitely gorgeous down there for about the first two hours.

​
After a bit of the customary standing around at the yacht club saying 'hmmm', I got some guys to drive me out to the boat for me to prepare it for bringing into shore. The plan was that our boat would be first on the list. So I sat out there waiting. It was very still and very pretty, and I took lots of photos.

I noticed other boats being brought up the slipway before ours, which wasn't the plan! After about an hour, the ducky came to get me - they couldn't find the cradle on shore and needed me to tell them which one it was. By now the cradle was boxed in, and there were about 4 boats ahead of ours.

So I went back in to have a nutritious breakfast (fried chicken strips and a coffee) and to help out with pushing the yachts around the yard like this

 

and I waited
and I waited
and I waited

At about 11:00, the black clouds rolled in and the temperature dropped from 15 degrees to 8 degrees. Of course this was exactly when they were ready for me to go back out to our boat and bring it in!
These guys were driving the ducky which towed our boat in. (we had already removed the motor some weeks ago so it had no way of getting in without being towed.)
Look how even the old salts are rugged up against the rain and cold wind!

So with numb fingers, we brought the boat up onto the slipway. It was beautifully set, and rolled straight into position. I didn't take any more pictures for a little while because I was too busy. But here's where it is staying for the winter, and you can even see the weed growing on its belly which I had to remove using a high-pressure hose. I got coated in antifoul, but at least it was white antifoul. The guys removing antifoul from the boats with blue bellies ended up with blue faces, like the most unattractive version of Mystique ever.

So that's my story!

What's up in your world?

The Rules of Style (apparently...)

So, there was this party, a couple of years ago. Gorgeous birthday lady had invited thirty women, the house was warm and smelling of tasty food, there was lots of very nice wine - and then birthday lady told us that she had organised a clairvoyant, and another mystery guest.

The clairvoyant never showed. There were lots of jokes about what impeding doom had caused the clairvoyant to fail to show up.

The other mystery guest turned out to be a gentleman in a tweed three-piece suit, who had been booked to give us a talk on fashion and style. I admit to being dubious, looking him up and down. It was a dated but clearly expensive, green-brown tweed suit with massive lapel wings. He acted as if it were normal.  So we all sat on gorgeous birthday lady's squooshy leather couches and listened to this fellow.

He was a good speaker and told us lots of funny stories. As to the style advice - he had four rules, which I have kept in mind, and I think all four points are extremely sound. I will substitute my own stories.

1) The Rule of Standards (and Matching Underwear)

The proverbial 'grandmother' used to have a saying: "Always wear nice underwear in case you get hit by a bus". I had thought this was code for 'Only loose women don't wear any undies'. But this gentleman carefully and charmingly explained, straight-faced and without innuendo despite being the only man to a room chock-full of drunk women in their 30's and 40's, "that your underpants should match your bra, and there should be no sad, droopy or thinning underwear in your underwear drawer.... Not to impress anyone, not for a man, not even your husband, and not because anyone else would see your underwear, - but just for yourself, because you have standards." And underwear does not have to be expensive, he explained. It just has to fit, be comfortable, and be of a certain standard.
This idea of 'standards' is quite powerful. If you maintain standards with underwear, many other things follow.
Later that week, I emptied out my underwear drawer and threw out a third of the contents because it didn't fit or had passed a point of no return. I then went to my favourite outlets and got my first Matching Set. I wore it somewhere inconsequential, like the fruit shop, and felt like an empress.
Not that all your underwear always has to match. White shirt and black un-lined pants? Wearing a white bra and black undies may be a smarter plan.
Only that what you use is fit-for-use, and that everything - even your undies - are up to the standard that you expect for yourself.
The technique works in other parts of your life too: out with the weevil-eaten lentils and the mystery unlabelled cans; out with the nasty pilled sheets your grandma gave you; out with the broken furniture or electronics that you're never going to fix; out with shoes that hurt your feet, old cosmetics, nasty acrylic yarn that is not fun to knit with and doesn't make you happy.
Nice underwear is a lovely way to start.

Corollaries for The Rule of Standards:
Always take care of your skin, hands, feet, and hair, to maintain a standard with which you are happy. Wear sunglasses and suncream in the summer, do any gardening or physical work in gloves, simply because you are entitled to the basic standard of not being in pain.
Always fractionally overdress for the context, so you don't feel uncomfortable being under-dressed; anyway, overdressed people can comfortably slot in to most situations higher up the hierarchy, especially women. Pearls are a great way to fractionally overdress.

While this tweed-clad style consultant was telling us about the importance of matching underwear, one of the ladies piped up. She had apparently heard him speak before, and had been inspired to get a black satin diamante-studded Matching Set of Underwear. She had worn it to bed (by herself, she insisted, as we giggled). She said she is a squirmy sleeper. The diamantes all fell off, and dispersed through her bedding, into her pillowcase, into her fabric-covered button-studded bedhead, and throughout her bedroom. There was a trail . She was vacuuming them out of crevices for months.

2) The Rule of Colors

An outfit should link the top and bottom halves of the body with a common colour. Subconsciously, we rate people as more attractive when their outfits match.

• A dress or coat which crosses your midline instantly creates a 'matching outfit'.

• Black and white are neutral colours, and go with anything - but they have different subconscious effects.
• Jeans go with many things because denim has a white (or sometimes black) cotton warp. Jeans go best with a white t-shirt - just see James Dean.
• But for every other clothing colour, you should make sure that whatever colour you wear on your bottom half, you have a linking piece on the top half of your body. 

You can have the whole body in one colour or fabric pattern; an outfit can be a sharp tailored suit, a muumuu, or paint-smeared corduroy overalls.
You can have a solid on one half, and a pattern on the other half: black and blue print harem pants look great with a blue t-shirt.
You can use a very small amount of colour to link your outfit: a scarf that works with a coloured stripe in your shorts fabric; blue-green skirt + turquoise earrings; red patent leather shoes + matching red lipstick and nailpolish.
Look at these totally gorgeous people of quite different styles. They all tie the colour from their top half to their bottom half. The outfits just work.

Corollaries for The Rule of Colours:

• Leathers should really match too. Your shoes should be of the same colour leather as your handbag/wallet and your leather belt. If you wear a hat, you might pick one where the band matches, or a pattern colour links in to your other leathers. Set this up now to match any outfit top-to-bottom effortlessly. This spring, I am living in my milk-chocolate-brown cowboy boots. I only get away with it because of a panel in my handbag of the same brown. Throw on the shoes, grab the handbag, and I'm set.
• Toning colours is quite acceptable. Light and dark versions of the same colour do indeed count as 'matching'.
• Match what your kids wear (tantrums permitting). A boy with a natty red dinosaur on his T-shirt which matches his red shoelaces will get more free stuff and more benevolent smiles than one in a blue & green top, and brown & grey bottom, and orange & black shoes.

3) The Rule of Posture

 

You can get away with almost anything if you stand up straight and act like you belong there.
Men with good posture become more important. Women with good posture are perceived as more beautiful. (To my knowledge, there has not been a study on whether women with good posture become more important - this is an appalling research oversight, but typical of patriarchal social norms.)


This is not just perception either. There's a neurochemical mechanism for it.
One of my favourite recent TED lectures included some research on how simply standing in a "Superhero" dominant posture for a few minutes a day triggered measurable increases in testosterone in saliva. Changing to a good posture was linked to improved performance in job interviews, marks in grad school - and by extension 'success'. 

So - shoulders back, head up, make eye contact, stand square and symmetrically. Walk with grace, and don't ever fidget, cower, slouch, flop or twist yourself up in a funny shape. Even if you are in a terrible way on the inside, stand tall. Use the feeling that you're wearing matching underwear, or pearls, to help your posture improve. Nobody significant, famous or glamorous has bad posture.

4) The Rule of Lace

 
So now you've got Standards, your Colours are all sorted and your Posture is good. There's only one thing missing: being visually interesting.
'Lace' is my tweed-wearing gentleman's catch-all phrase for a feature texture or pattern in your outfit. It can be some beading, something metallic or reflective, a small amount in a contrast colour, a piece of writing on a T-shirt, a striking piece of jewellery, an intricate hairstyle, bows on your shoes, or anything else.
Expensive designer things almost always have a 'lace' feature, or are designed to go with things that have a 'lace' feature. It can be a Coach bag with its classic pattern and shiny clasp, or the velvet trim and nonchalantly perfect pleating that 'just happens' when you do up the Armani jacket, or the whole vibrant Missioni dress.

But 'lace' can just as easily be the chunky chewable teething beads which are the only jewellery you can wear when you've got a grasping baby, or your old oversized digital watch, a red patent leather belt from an op-shop, or a dandelion in your top jacket buttonhole.

The lace feature is where the eye is drawn. Put your lace feature on your body thoughtfully - what impression are you trying to give? If you really want people to look at your cleavage, have a shiny pendant hanging low. If you want people to look at your legs, try green tights. (I love my green tights.)
People will look at your feet if you have striking shoes: forcing them to look down at your patent leather stilettos can be a way to achieve immediate dominance, but on the other hand, scruffy sneakers can totally undo an otherwise positive imporession.
Peripheral accessories have their uses too.
Drawing the eye to something on your hand (a watch, a bracelet, a ring) can give the impression that you are a person of action. More so if it jingles, or if you move your hands as you talk. To use this effectively, attend to your hand posture: don't pick your nails or fidget with things.
Glasses draw their eyes to your eyes. Dark sunglasses draw their eyes to your mouth. Be aware of this, and learn to use it. Celebrities do.
Drawing the eye to a handbag or clutch gives the impression of wealth.
Drawing the eye to your neck gives the impression of vulnerability, sensuality, and human contact.

You can also use lace to draw the eye away from things you don't want people to look at. Are you worried about your waistline, or your less than perfect ageing physique? Wear a hat, and nobody will look.

The Canopy of Authority, and the Carapace of Dominance

The big manager struts into a meeting. Let’s just imagine it is a project meeting, but it could be any sort of meeting - a construction project, a boardroom, a backyard barbeque or a Mafia meeting.

He might thump the table and first say something which he thinks sounds authoritative, like “Right. Let’s get on with this.” His posture also says: Raah. I am the boss. Look at my Dominance. This terrain is mine. My Dominance is serious. No space for namby-pambiness on my watch.

Many people conflate Authority with Dominance. Authority comes in many flavours: being an early entrant into the group, being expert or particuarly clever or articulate, being taller and stronger, being higher caste or upper class, even being better looking. Often Authority starts by being the one who is brave enough to speak for the group. Mostly, Authority grows inside a person incrementally, day by day; every time they get the feeling of “I know this” or “I could just about do this”, a small authority gets a little bit of water, a little bit of sunshine, and it might put out another tiny little leaf. A good strong Authority is lush and fruitful, and protective of others and the broader community. And yes, a big Authority does cast a shadow: when a mature Authority has a large canopy, it is difficult for the seedling of someone else’s little authority to get the sunlight it needs.

Dominance is another type of creature entirely. Its larval stage is spent in forced submission. The larvae watches, learns, and stores up all the techniques it will need later for making people submit. It learns how to use tactical non-listening to make others feel less significant; how to use posture, stance, eye contact, geographical space, and vocal techniques to imply its barely-suppressible latent dominant power, and how to flare into full-blown aggression both theatrically and (if well-taught) not too destructively. When Dominance hatches, it acts reflexively to protect the vulnerable points of the person to whom it belongs. When the person inside gets the feeling of ‘this is too scary, too hard, it’s beyond me’, Dominance leaps into the space, provides armour plating and covering fire, and later claims to have saved the day.

Dominance frames internal uncertainty as a battle zone, and not as an opportunity for curiosity - but Dominance typically does try to avoid ‘total war’; it does want to be able to claim some kind of spoils at the end of the battle.

Dominance can sometimes be protective of others - but generally only when in combat with an external Dominance. So in larger systems of human beings, the presence of a single very militant Dominance can trigger the rapid growth, hatching, and artillery flare of protective Dominances elsewhere.

So back to that manager. 

Thump the fist on the table. Declare, “Right. Let’s get on with this.” Which translates as ‘I am not sure I can do this, it is scary. Maybe the stakes are high, and I fear losing. Maybe I'm out of my depth. But my current working plan is to bluster through, hide my fearfulness, and make everyone else feel more scared or less important than me.’

So what can you do when you walk into a meeting like this, and someone’s Dominance is rattling its carapace?

This is what I do.

Hold steady. Do not let your own Dominance engage theirs in combat, and at the same time do not let their Dominance force you to submit. A standoff can be a good outcome for a pair of male mountain goats.

Hold on to your Authority, and understand the limits of it - and the full extent of it. Feel its reach and protection. Publicly admit to its limits! Practice the art of clearly declaring when things are within or outside its reach.

You can sometimes try to make tentative contact with the person inside the Dominance shield, who is hiding in there because they fear that things are too scary or too hard. Use humour, or generate a rumbling group consensus to help them feel less alone, or make out of context contact over something else. Aim for a state of in-this-togetherness with them.

Be aware of the possibility that the person inside the Dominance shield might really, actually, not be enough to get you all out of the mess. They maynot have the protective and nourishing Authority that the group needs. Here the Dominance will need to move aside for someone better-equipped, or the group will need to grow a team Authority, not rely on the dominant leader.

And also be aware that such a Dominance on such a hair-trigger does not stand down easily, not ever while its owner feels unsafe. And it will probably try to claim credit for any later group success too. 

You might also control the Dominance with reminders about social norms and manners. Every community sets behavioural boundaries which ensure some level of predictable limits to what can and can't be done or said in context. There is an incentive in that rule-breakers may be banished from the group. An activated Dominance might well push those limits, using implicit or explicit threat to force submission. You can remind the community of their power to bring that Dominance into line.

Someone might want to explain this to the Republican party right now...