I would kindly argue that "When shit hits the fan," humans can surpass their true selves. It's more in all the many small everyday situations that people cannot live up to their ideal self.
And I'll leave you with a short German poem by Erich Kästner that aligns with your thoughts: "Es gibt nichts Gutes, außer: Man tut es."
Sat, this resonates deeply. Your framing of character as "operating policy" rather than private experience is sharp, it shifts the locus from introspection to transmission, which feels right.
A few thoughts it sparked:
The French have a saying: "Le poisson pourrit toujours par la tête"—the fish rots from the head. Your piece articulates exactly why. In management, I've found that inconsistency is the deadliest killer of culture, more corrosive than any single bad decision. People don't just watch what you do when things are easy; they're calibrating their own future responses against yours in those edge cases you describe.
Where I'd push back gently: I think the signal-emitter framing, while elegant, is incomplete without a receiver function. Most interactions have zero impact, neither positive nor negative. They're static. The discipline isn't just harmonizing what you broadcast; it's also listening in before transmitting. Adapting the signal to the audience. The best mentors I've had weren't just clean transmitters, they were exquisite readers of where I actually was, not where they assumed I should be.
And on the butterfly effect: I'd temper the Semmelweis romanticism slightly. While it's true that impact is unpredictable, it's also usually extremely limited. Most 3° shifts correct themselves. The chaotic system cuts both ways: it amplifies, but it also dampens. Which, paradoxically, makes your core argument stronger: since you can't engineer outcomes, all you can do is engineer the signal. Just with appropriately humble expectations about the echo.
Like this thought experiment set and framing, Sat! It's like a moral imperative to try to have net good impact.
One of the things I thought was interesting came up in this line:
"What really persists from you is not your memories or your feelings. It is the algorithm of how you respond to reality: how you handle fear, power, love, money, truth, status, boredom, failure, etc."
I do think that our memories and feelings ultimately will become part of the corpus, though, which really complicates this argument. That's sort of what Constellation is doing.
Hi Sat,
I love your piece.
I would kindly argue that "When shit hits the fan," humans can surpass their true selves. It's more in all the many small everyday situations that people cannot live up to their ideal self.
And I'll leave you with a short German poem by Erich Kästner that aligns with your thoughts: "Es gibt nichts Gutes, außer: Man tut es."
Thanks Peter.
That’s a good point actually, I guess it might lead to different ways of not matching your ideal.
Great quote as well.
Awesome piece! Always a pleasure reading your stuff! :)
Glad you enjoyed the read
Sat, this resonates deeply. Your framing of character as "operating policy" rather than private experience is sharp, it shifts the locus from introspection to transmission, which feels right.
A few thoughts it sparked:
The French have a saying: "Le poisson pourrit toujours par la tête"—the fish rots from the head. Your piece articulates exactly why. In management, I've found that inconsistency is the deadliest killer of culture, more corrosive than any single bad decision. People don't just watch what you do when things are easy; they're calibrating their own future responses against yours in those edge cases you describe.
Where I'd push back gently: I think the signal-emitter framing, while elegant, is incomplete without a receiver function. Most interactions have zero impact, neither positive nor negative. They're static. The discipline isn't just harmonizing what you broadcast; it's also listening in before transmitting. Adapting the signal to the audience. The best mentors I've had weren't just clean transmitters, they were exquisite readers of where I actually was, not where they assumed I should be.
And on the butterfly effect: I'd temper the Semmelweis romanticism slightly. While it's true that impact is unpredictable, it's also usually extremely limited. Most 3° shifts correct themselves. The chaotic system cuts both ways: it amplifies, but it also dampens. Which, paradoxically, makes your core argument stronger: since you can't engineer outcomes, all you can do is engineer the signal. Just with appropriately humble expectations about the echo.
Beautifully written. Made me think.
Like this thought experiment set and framing, Sat! It's like a moral imperative to try to have net good impact.
One of the things I thought was interesting came up in this line:
"What really persists from you is not your memories or your feelings. It is the algorithm of how you respond to reality: how you handle fear, power, love, money, truth, status, boredom, failure, etc."
I do think that our memories and feelings ultimately will become part of the corpus, though, which really complicates this argument. That's sort of what Constellation is doing.