The mechanistic metaphor supposes that you are nothing more than a biological mechanism in an impersonal mechanistic universe.  Consciousness is a by-product of chemical reactions in your brain.  Soul, personality, and freewill are just illusions.

            The mechanistic metaphor follows from scientific reasoning.  Science has advanced our technical understanding of the physical world faster than any previous generation in recorded history.  Science has been so useful in producing an age of technological marvels; people see it as an absolute rather than a model of investigation.  People are offended whenever I suggest science is the mythology of the modern age.  “No!” they say, “Science is fact and beliefs are just beliefs.”

Facts and Beliefs

            Many people think that facts are absolute whereas beliefs are questionable.  In English, we use the grammatical pattern called “simple present” to convey factual knowledge.  We say: “Water is wet,” or “Gravity goes down.”  When you listen to a fanatic talk, they also use simple present.  A fanatic says, “The law is right!” or “God is watching.” or “Heaven is beautiful.”

            A fanatic would never describe their beliefs as beliefs.  They are as certain about their beliefs as the ground they walk on; so when they speak, they speak in facts and absolutes. Also to a fanatic, their beliefs are self-evident.  There is no need for a logical argument to justify the belief. 

            Imagine trying to create an argument to support the statement that “the sky is blue.”  Why would you even need an argument?  The sky is blue.  Look up… Blue… end of argument.  What is your problem?  Why are you even asking about the sky?  Are you stupid? 

            What is the difference between a fanatic and the rest of society?  A fanatic holds some strange beliefs and confuse them with facts.  The rest of society knows the difference between belief and truth about things.  Now isn’t that is a slippery slope!  Is truth a function of popular opinion? 

            There was a time, not very long ago, when everyone believed that the world was flat.  Except back then, it wasn’t a belief, it was a fact.  When you looked at the horizon on the ocean, you saw a flat line.  Furthermore, if you drop anything on a sphere (even a big sphere) it would roll off, but if you drop something on the ground, it just stays there.  Down was an absolute direction.  The earth wasn’t flat like a table… it was a table. 

            Naval captains risked mutiny when they sailed too far from shore.  Mutiny was a very serious business.  Each member knew that a noose would be waiting for them as soon as they made it back to port.  They would be forced into a life of piracy and never be allowed to go home again.  It wasn’t a light decision, but it was preferable to being ordered to sail over the edge of the world and certain death.

            It would be unfair to say these crews were fanatic or stupid; they were just acting in accordance with the world as they understood it.  If your boss ordered you to walk off a cliff you would probably refuse.  See “The world is flat” wasn’t a belief… it was an absolute fact shared by the majority of society at that time.

            But now how do we tell what the difference is between a fact and a belief.  After all you only believe in something because it’s true.  If it weren’t true, why would you believe it? 

Where Science Fails

            Yesterday, it was a fact that the world was flat.  Today, we have new evidence and the world is round.  Oh, how foolish our ancestors were; yet should we be so smug assuming our modern way of thinking is so superior to our primitive predecessors?  We have the benefit of hindsight.  Our fallacy is that we already know the final answer and we can easily see the steps that led to it. 

            It is like reading the end of a murder mystery before starting the story; the clues which lead to the answer jump out far more readily.  However without knowing the final destination, you won’t know what clues are relevant and you won’t know which questions you need to ask.  Our understanding of the world today is the cumulative effort of a long, slow process of testing, experimentation, exploration and discovery.  But even before you can discover something, you have to be aware there is something to look for. 

            One of the great problems with our rational mechanistic society is the willingness to dismiss events because physical evidence doesn’t immediately present itself.  One out of four people see UFOs.  They believe themselves to be rational, scientific minded people so they dismiss it as a weather balloon, a low flying drone or an atmospheric anomaly.  This is no different from claiming it to be an angel, fairy, or an alien from Mars.  Why?  Their explanation was not based on observation, they are forcing an explanation of an unknown event that works with their current model of the world. 

            It sounds rational, because it follows the scientific physical model which is the modern mythology of our society.  Really, the kind of thinking which automatically assumes a UFO is a weather balloon is the same kind of thinking which sees the world as a flat table with an edge.

            A true scientist must always have the courage to say “I don’t know.”  Understanding only follows from observation.  Beliefs about the world can change, and can change often.  The whole deal with trying to prove a null-hypothesis (to attempt to prove the opposite of what you believe) is an attempt to remove ego from the experiment.  The ideal scientist must maintain a little distance from their theories, understanding that they can change on a moment’s notice.  One experiment can produce results which can destroy a beloved theory and along with it a reputation built upon that theory.  Extreme confusion is often the mental state right before a Eureka moment.  Our greatest innovations often come right after our harshest failures.

            And therein lies an irony.  Scientists are considered experts in their field.  They are paid top dollar because they are the people who are supposed to know the answers.  To say “I don’t know” or “I don’t understand” is taboo, for it damages their credibility as an expert.  So scientists are stuck in a dilemma; they have to look like they know what’s going on, even when, especially when, they don’t.  Maintaining status and Ego are at odds with the philosophy of scientific investigation.  Science is an exploration of the unknown.  It is looking for the edge of the world that everyone says is there and pushing ahead when you don’t know where the investigation may lead. 

The Scientific Approach is a Model

            Seeing the universe with in a mechanistic way is an effective model for understanding the physical world.  We should always keep in mind that it is a model; it is only one of many ways in which we can look at the world.  A metaphor guides our thinking allowing us to make new connections faster.  While metaphors create shortcuts in our thought process, it also limits how we can think about things.  The mechanistic metaphor falls short when addressing things of an insubstantial nature.  Thoughts, feelings, dreams, art, poetry, music, personality, mind, soul are all in the category beyond scientific investigation.  If we cannot measure, weigh or poke it, then it doesn’t qualify as a real thing.  The implication is that real things are important and imaginary things are not.

            Have you heard the expression: “You need to see it to believe it,” or “Did you get that in writing?”  These suggest that you can’t trust spoken word because it’s insubstantial.  Two hundred years ago, a man’s word of honour was his bond.  In a mechanistic culture, honour and integrity carry little worth. 

            Hypocritically, we use language to make intangible concepts more real when it suits us: “He paid in cold, hard cash.”  Money is not a real thing, it is an abstraction.  It is the idea of value, which we represent by printing it on paper or bits of metal.  In our online world money is even more abstract taking only an electronic form of numbers in your bank account.  When we want to minimize the value of an intangible, we use dismissive language: “Don’t worry Johnny, it was only a dream.”

People Don’t Matter

            Personality is also an intangible.  So when humans are thought of as machines their personal feelings no longer hold value.  No one finds it odd when a corporate manager says something like “John just isn’t working out, I think we need to replace him.”  Is John a human being, or a badly crafted component?  An interviewer is unashamed in asking: “So how can we best use you?” WTF? Am I a tool for your company to be used and discard?  Not only is he not bothering to hide it, but he’s asking for a spec sheet, as if I were a happy little robot wishing to serve.  The industry is full of happy little robot workers, and if you want the job, you had better tote the line. 

            An investor pays a compliment to management by saying, “Wow!  You’ve got a finely tuned operation here!  I’m looking forward to seeing your production in the next quarter.”  Where is the consideration toward the extra effort, loyalty, and craftsmanship of all the workers who make it their personal responsibility to see the company do well?  Management might share a kind word with their staff, but do they share their bonus checks with the team?  We have become so used to depersonalization at work, we no longer even notice it.

            Workers buy into the mechanistic metaphor as much as management. “Keep your head down and just do your job, you’re not paid to think, Hey it isn’t my job, someone else will manage it.”

            Why can’t a janitor come up with an excellent marketing strategy or provide valuable feedback on a corporate procedure and save the company loads of money?  The mechanistic metaphor gets us stuck on seeing people in terms of their job, robots are not expected to know anything more than what they were programmed to do.  What could an uneducated janitor know about procedure?  Except he isn’t a robot, he is a human being.  An adaptable, flexible, versatile human being with a wide range of thoughts, feelings and experiences.  Grunt workers on the front lines are often more aware of how corporate policies affects customers than executives sitting in ivory towers.

            Sometimes management becomes aware of this fountain of knowledge hidden in their labour force and attempt to access it as a resource.  They try surveys, on-line feedback forms and anonymous suggestion boxes.  More often than not they are unsuccessful in pulling any useful information.  They conclude that because they can’t get information from their workers, there isn’t any to be had.  So rather than seeing the workers as a “resource” they are demoted back to the status of “equipment.”  The workers were never approached as valued partners whose opinions and experiences with the new policies may be of great importance to the company.

            I have worked in many companies where front-line workers were obligated to execute ill thought out policies.  The workers were like a thick wall which stood between executives and thousands of angry customers.  How many times have you been the customer stuck talking to a poor service rep who completely understood your pain, yet was bound to a ridiculous policy?  So you hang up and then call a competing firm.

Shoot me or Shoot me

            Contrary to managerial opinion, workers are not stupid.  They are aware that if they express a negative opinion about a back-assed policy, they could be reprimanded or fired. 

            What if their suggestion is exceptional?  Do they get credit and rewarded for it, or is it more likely their immediate supervisor would take credit for coming up with it (and a larger bonus check)?  So with everything to lose and nothing to gain, why should they speak up?  Workers have learned to keep their opinions to themselves.  “After all, we aren’t paid to think… Managers are getting paid the big bucks, let them figure it out.”

            Treat people like machines and they learn to act like machines.  They do the job they are paid for and nothing more.  Dehumanization has moved away from seeing people as part of our “tribal community” where we value all members.  One of the big motivational pushes for developing AI is to replace all those expensive, inefficient biological machines (aka human employees) with hard working robots. 

On Corporate Manipulation

            The word “manipulation” originally meant “to handle by hand.”  It described the deft skill of craftsmen wielding tools of their trade.  The modern use of “manipulation” has a negative connotation; describing a person who uses deception to hoodwink others.  Somewhere along the line humans have become the tools that are being handled.  No one ever worries about the feelings of a hammer, it is a silly notion.  Yet the manipulative person, seeing people as tools, regards their feeling as he would for a hammer or any other tool.  “Feelings” become levers to manipulate others, but how a person feels afterwards isn’t a consideration as long as the manipulator gets their way. 

            Corporations have grown into manipulative entities; placing more value on production than the human element.  The term “Human Resources” doesn’t even bother to hide the fact that they are using people for their best advantage.  The HR department may engineer events to promote loyalty, community, retention, and better social relationships; but these are only in the service of better productivity.  Companies will always choose profitability over the welfare of people (staff or customers).  I have never heard about an HR department helping a dismissed employee prepare a resume or work on interview strategies; beyond a good referral or letter of recommendation.  There is no profit in it.

            When management fires an employee, they assume the fellow is going to want revenge.  Often they give them two weeks salary and get them out of the building as fast as possible.  Sometimes passwords and accounts are revoked even before they notify the worker of the dismissal.  The priority is to protect the company from a potential threat, without any compassion for a fellow human being who may have been of great service to their company for years.

How Much is Your Time Worth?

            Say you invite a friend to a house party, but they decline.  You ask why and they say they wish to stay home and work on a hobby; they were looking forward to having some free time all week, and they booked off Saturday night for it. 

            You, like most, may feel a bit put out, your friend valued doing a hobby more than coming out to your party.

            Say you invite another friend and they also decline.  They apologize, saying how much they would have loved to come, but their boss already scheduled them to work this weekend.  Do you still try to talk them into coming?  Do you think they are being rude?  Probably not.  But why is that the case?  Why should “boss assigned work” be of higher value than “self-assigned work?” 

     When you are working for a boss, he is paying you.  When you are working for yourself, it’s only your free time.

A: Does this mean time is only valuable when you are being paid for it?

B: Yes.

A: Why?

B: Money is important, we need money to live. 

A: What does it mean “to live?”

B: Living means we can afford to do things we want to do.

A: So work is a method to get money to afford to live?

B: Yes

A: And “to live” means you can pay rent, pay for food, clothing and other necessities and then do the things you want to do… like going to parties and doing hobbies?

B: Well… Yes… I suppose

A: So, if you’re saying that work is a means to allow you to do the things you want to do… Why would you ever subordinate positive life experiences for work?

B: …(silent contemplation)…

Free… to Serve?

            Do you see yourself as a slave or as a free thinking agent?  If you asked 10 people, 10 would say they are “free” people; it sounds like the correct answer.  After all, who wants to think of themselves as a slave? 

            For most people, work is their primary activity; when the boss calls, they hop to it!  Self-determined activities (hobbies) are of typically of lesser importance to what you do for a living, because someone is paying you.  Someone else places value on your time with a dollar value.  If you are truly free, then you should place a dollar value on your own time too, but most people don’t.  They feel that because they aren’t being paid in ‘free time’ that free time is worthless.

            How does this affect motivation?  How much work is done by a hammer, by itself?  A hammer sitting on a table, not being used by anyone, will get nothing done by itself.  A hammer is a non-sentient, inanimate object.  It has no purpose beyond the purpose defined by the will of the user.  So what happens when you adopt a metaphor that you are the tool (the mechanistic metaphor)? Your purpose, your will, your interests become subordinate to whoever you are working for. 

            Have you ever worked at a job where your boss gave you some strange instructions?  You thought to yourself, “OK, that is a stupid way of doing it.  But he’s the boss, so I guess we’re doing it his way.” You are following orders because you are his hammer, his tool.  Inwardly you are critical because you can see a better way, but you don’t mention this because it isn’t your place to do so.  Tools don’t talk back. 

            The more you work for others, the less you question the chain of command.  You fall in line with the mechanistic metaphor and see yourself more and more as a tool of the company.  To the company, your “time off” is unproductive and unimportant.  Somewhere along the line, you adopt the idea that unpaid time isn’t valuable. 

            Are most people slaves or free thinking agents?  Let’s consider it more carefully.  If they were free, then they should be more motivated by internal values, than the will of another.  Free time, time when they are under their own direction should be more important than being under direction of an employer.  But how do most people spend their free time?  Do they use it to improve themselves or their situation?  The vast majority of people waste their “off-hours” by passively watching TV, consuming social media content, playing video games, or drinking.  They are driven with as much purpose as a hammer hanging on the shelf.  They have become so lax in the skill of self-motivation, they no longer know how to motivate themselves.  They flounder because they haven’t been told what to do.  Without self-motivation, is it any wonder why procrastination is so widespread?

Tragedy in Retirement

            Then there is the tragedy of retirement.  They labour so hard their whole lives, they dream about the weekend that never ends, where they can just kick back and relax for the rest of their life.  They do not set the age of retirement for the benefit of the worker, but for the benefit of the company.  At age 75 the average labourer is no longer effective at doing their job, so they are retired.  The company awards them a golden pocket watch for years of loyalty and service, and swaps them out as you would change a dimming light bulb.  A young fresh junior worker is hired at the bottom, openings are made at the top, everyone is promoted and the corporate machine continues. 

            The person who retires, enjoys their break for a few weeks, but they soon become aware they lack the structure the company provided them.  They feel lost as they never learned the skill of self-direction.  Losing a sense of purpose leads to depression; in many professions the life expectancy after retirement is just 18 months.

On Depersonalization

            While depersonalization is very common in modern corporations, it is even more common in our interactions with each other.  Have you ever caught yourself thinking: “What can this person do for me?” or “How can I best manage this person?”  When you do, you take on a manipulative frame of mind. 

            Ten out of ten people would deny being manipulative; it is natural to see oneself as good, kind, honest, and fair with others.  The term “people” only applies to individuals you have a high emotion involvement with (friends, family and coworkers).  Except those with infrequent or singular interactions are not considered “people.”  Waiters, sales people, security guards, clerks working a counter and other customers, are not real “people,” so we are not as empathetic with them nor value them. 

            When a red shirt guard on star trek dies, the audience doesn’t have any feelings towards them.  In fact their fatality only serves to increase the peril of the main characters.

            The fans were shocked when King Geoffrey beheaded Ned Stark (Lord Eddard Stark) at the end of the first season of “Game of Thrones.”  Why?  Why would we care more about Ned than a red shirt on star trek?  We got to know Ned, we followed his story from the beginning.  He was an honourable man, though his loyalty and commitment led to his death.  Ned’s death was particularly traumatic to the audience because we had time to identify with Ned as a person.

            While watching Game of Thrones a door-to-door sales man comes knocking at your door.  He just had the last 30 doors slam on his face, his boss is on his back for poor performance.  It’s raining, it’s late, he is tired, and his shoes are soaked.  In all and all, it is a miserable night.  Strained, he puts on his best fake smile and knocks on your door.  When you open the door, you don’t see his story or the sorry chain of events which led him to being there.  You only see an annoying idiot trying to sell you something of no interest to you.  He is nothing more than an interruption in your valuable TV time and in less than 10 seconds you are worried you may have missed some important plot development on your program.

            STOP… Back up a moment…  Reality check…  Are fictional characters on TV more important to you than a real-life person in a tough situation?  Be honest.

            Don’t feel too bad, I would feel the same way.  After all, most sales people regard all prospects as wallets with legs.  “He doesn’t care about my needs” you reason, “Why should I give a rat’s ass about some mindless drone working for a company?”  You’re probably right, and you’re justified in your apathy towards them. 

            Dehumanization is extremely common, but does that make it right?  Is this the sort of world we wish to live in?  One where everyone dehumanizes everyone else?

How Much Time do You Save by Being Rude?

            President Theodore Roosevelt often took a moment to greet the gardener, compliment his chef or express concern for a troubled messenger.  He knew the entire staff of the white house on a first name basis.  Roosevelt had a remarkable memory for names which allowed him to personalize his relationship with everyone he met. 

            This wasn’t a technique for manipulation; this was Roosevelt’s way of showing genuine respect for others.  Taking the time and effort to learn their name showed them they were a person of importance; someone worth knowing.  As the 26th president of the USA, he was the top man; he held the top status in the whole country.  Everyone expected a president to be too busy to think about the little people.  Theodore Roosevelt was an exception leader because he treated people with respect even when he didn’t have to.  It is unsurprising that all the people around reciprocated; he engendered unusual loyalty with all the people he worked with.

            I often think of Roosevelt when I see someone being rude.  They are always pressed for time; they seem to think their rush justifies insensitivity.  Does being polite really take any longer than being rude?  How much time does it take to smile vs frown?  How much longer does it really take see people as people rather than as objects in their way? 

            Ironically, polite behaviour saves far more time than being rude.  If you are polite as a course of habit people give you more space when you are in an emergency.  Those who are rude as a course of habit find everything harder.  They often get into arguments or physical fights, have more car accidents and spend a significant amount of time in legal battles.  Forcing someone to do it “your way” may allow you to “win” but you make an enemy which will try to subvert you later.  All of these stressful events are easily avoided with a positive, polite attitude from the outset.

            How much time do you save by driving like a maniac to get to an appointment?  Those ass hats, driving hard and cutting people off are usually waiting at a red light only one car length ahead of me.  They may shave a minute off their trip, but is it worth it?  I would have preferred it if they made the light because those sorts of drivers are guaranteed to get into an accident sooner or later. 

            If you want to count all the minutes you save by being a jerk on the road over a year, then you should also subtract all the hours and weeks you spend dealing with insurance, legal battles, and maintenance issues from burning your car out.

            It takes no more time to be polite than it does to be rude.  Through habitual kindness, Theodore Roosevelt showed respect to all people around him.  He made people feel important and in turn, they were loyal to him far beyond the requirements of their job.  Pay people with money and they will work for you.  Pay people with genuine respect and they will put their heart and soul into a job.

Off topic point: Here is a secret to driving safely.  Simply leave 10 minutes earlier than you and never try to make up time on the road. Trying to save a few seconds by racing through yellow lights, cutting people off and speeding is dangerous.  Automotive fatalities are higher than murder rates and this is directly caused by people trying to “save time” in their cars.

The Golden Rule

            The Golden Rule: “Whatever you do to (or for) another, you do to (or for) yourself.”  In it lies the concept of abundance and reciprocation.  If you treat other people with kindness and compassion they will treat you the same.

            Many people don’t believe this.  They hear the rule with tongue in cheek and then profess that that is a wonderful idea, but life isn’t that way.  To the curmudgeon, this is a dog-eat-dog world.  Those who win do so at the expense of the many who loose.  The only way to get your share is to take it from others, because there isn’t enough for everyone. 

            Highly competitive people are bound in poverty consciousness.  What they value and how they act is based upon the idea that there are limited resources.  Out-foxing others with manipulative strategies shows you’re more clever, resourceful and ambitious.  You win because you want it more than the other guy.  Who cares about losers?  Who cares how many bodies you have to step over to win?

            The mechanistic metaphor makes it easy to dehumanize people.  Yet, the golden rule still applies.  To dehumanize others, one dehumanizes the self.  Being rude corrodes one’s sense of self-worth.  They suffer from a relentless internal monologue continually reminding themselves how useless they are.  It comes out in self-destructive behaviours (smoking, drinking, overeating), self-deprecating humour, internal stress, and emotional outbursts, all of which are not present in a healthy non-competitive human. 

            The golden rule isn’t a threat.  It isn’t a be-nice-or-else warning.  The golden rule doesn’t require a person to believe it to be in operation.  It is a statement of human nature.  We evolved as tribal animals, we are strongest when we operate cooperatively.  When we compete with each other and treat each other badly it breaks down the strength of the tribe.  Treat others as you wish to be treated.  Not only will you grease the wheels of social relations, but you will also cultivate a positive, charismatic healthy personality inside your mind.

Summary: Price of the Mechanistic Metaphor

Key points covered:

1) If you believe that humans are biological machines, then you start to see people as machines.  You use them without regard to their feelings; it is such a subtle form of dehumanization, it often escapes conscious awareness.

2) Humans are social creatures.  We have evolved to work and live in tribal communities.  Our internal psychology mirrors the quality of our interactions with others.  In the modern age we see and treat others as machines.  This echoes back upon the self and corrupts the way you see yourself.  Deep down we believe we are no more valuable than the manipulative regard we have for others. 

            When you encounter the rare person who has cultivated a strong positive personality, they almost always have a generous, warm, and genuine attitude in dealing with others.  This is a complex application of the Golden Rule.

3) All machines are designed for a specific purpose.  That purpose is defined by the user.  When you accept the model that you are a machine then you also accept that your purpose is defined by someone outside yourself. 

4) “Creating purpose” is an essential part of the skill of motivation.  Like all skills, you use it or lose it.   As most people gain purpose from their job (their boss tells them what to do) they never build up the skill of self-motivation.

5) People value money.  As work assigned by a Boss carries a monetary reward, people consider “time at work” more important than free-time.  Sadly, this aligns most people to servitude over being a free willed entity.  “Work” should only be a means of providing you with resources to do what is truly important to you.   

            The majority believe in the mechanistic metaphor.  They are unaware that it is a belief, assuming it a fact.  They are unaware they have an option to view life in another way.  Consciously or not, they still pay the price for the mechanistic metaphor; the more they see others as machines, the more they dehumanize others and the more they dehumanize themselves.  They erode their ability to set their own purpose, becoming more and more like the tools they use; and it becomes harder to motivate themselves.  This is what makes the mechanistic metaphor an underlying cause of procrastination.