Get best of the week

Programmer, Pack and John Steinbeck

In general, if you look impartially, I am a very poor worker. And as a programmer, and as a manager, and as at least someone. But they don’t kick me out of work. They even raise it periodically, provide resources, opportunities and a TV.

There are two reasons (just don’t tell my boss): I can build relationships (= make intrigues) and cook a “Korean breakfast” - quickly get into the context of any problem and find a solution. Actually, they hold me for this.

But it was not always so. Exactly the opposite - from the first three works I quit myself, and precisely because I did not know how to weave intrigues and quickly delve into the context of tasks, both technical and managerial. And then something changed.

Well, changed and changed - I just enjoyed the result until I read a book about the work of the brain. Then everything fell into place. It turned out to be the default system of the brain.

The default system of the brain


So far, little is known about the brain default system (DSM), or the network of the passive mode of the brain (SPRM). It was open only in the 21st century. This is not a section of the brain, but a kind of network that unites different sections, existing either physically and stationary, or only as a network of neural connections, i.e. flexible, capable of serious development.

Different functions are attributed to DSM, as a rule - something about wandering in one’s own thoughts, reflection, fantasies and internal dialogues with fictional characters. It’s a kind of inner world in which you can travel, communicate, win and lose (if you like to lose).

JSM is about society


But there is a version that hooked me and made me rethink my own professional experience. According to this version, DSM is a patch made by nature in the last stages of evolution to ensure the existence of the pack.

The more developed some kind of pack animals, the more complicated the relationship in their society. There is alpha, his "women", omega, a bunch of "simple units", someone helped you, and now you owe him, there is your couple and her relatives, etc. There is some kind of relationship between all these individuals. For normal survival in the pack, it would be nice, nature decided, to keep these relationships in mind and track their changes.

Animals like monkeys needed this not for fun, but for survival. The more complex the structure of the pack and the relationships in it, the more restrictions on behavior apply. You cannot kiss the beloved wife of an alpha male, otherwise you will quickly become an omega, or a dinner for hyenas. But in time to punch alpha in opening a coconut, while his wife is busy with the morning toilet, and the rest of the guys pick their nose - that’s it, it will come in handy later.

So, according to one version, the DSM was created to perform the work of collecting, updating and maintaining the context of the “flock”. The fate of this in the pack depends on its development in a particular individual.

According to research, DSM in nature has one significant limitation - no more than 250 objects are placed there, or rather, subjects, i.e. members of the pack. Interestingly, a similar figure was called a limiter in the book “Leader and Tribe” - so many people can be kept in mind normally, i.e. remember not only their names and surnames, but at least some biography and, most importantly, position and relationships in the tribe.

JSM in humans


Well, sort of, why do we need these monkeys? Wait to run away, then the fun part. People lived in the forest, didn’t bother, they used DSM as a patch from nature, and everything was fine with them. And then, abruptly, quickly (in terms of evolution), they began to develop. They fly into space, build nuclear power plants, build entire cities, write millions of lines of code. In short, they are engaged in highly intellectual activities related primarily to the construction of complex objects.

And then embarrassment: nature in our brain was not provided for anything for such an activity. The most difficult thing that a monkey had to think in his head was the relationship in the pack. To solve the most complex problems facing the individual, the DSM was intended.

So, according to one version, a separate patch for solving complex intellectual problems has not appeared in our brain (yet). Too little time has passed for serious evolutionary transformations. And all the fantastic achievements of mankind are the result of the work of the DSM. The very DSM, the purpose of which is to think about who can collect fleas from the back, and who should not.

And what happens? We have in our head a system designed to solve the problems of survival in a pack. Optionally, it can be used to build complex systems and objects, load a large context into the brain, analyze relationships and anticipate the development of a situation for different scenarios. A multifunctional such system is obtained.

Ways of development of the DSM


Now the question is: how is it better to develop it? There is a traditional way - more precisely, a way that has become traditional for us - through pumping exactly the optional way to use DSM. And there is a way provided by the DSM developers - through understanding the context of the pack.

So, the hypothesis is that for pumping yourself up as an engineer, programmer, analyst, architect, manager, prime minister or even president, it’s better not to read books, write code, or watch videos, but to delve into the processes of relationships in the pack . Again, this is a hypothesis.

About my JSM


Back to me. I’m not here to show off, but as an object of study. Relations in the pack, I always ignored. As soon as the flock began to climb into my space, one way or another, I just quit my job because I did not want to delve into its device.

And then, at one of the works, something changed. In fact, everything was simple - there was a man, the owner, who explained to me the importance of understanding human relations. More precisely, he didn’t explain, but convinced that it was important, and I believed.

And since then he began to observe. Fortunately, that company had a large staff turnover, especially in the management team at all levels. This gave an advantage - it was possible, in fact, to observe several different flocks in a few years. From birth to solemn destruction.

And, what already there - it began to turn out. It turned out that living in a pack is not difficult at all. Then it turned out that moving up the pack is quite simple. The main thing is to understand who is who. Who is alpha, who is his “beloved wife”, at least for the coming months, who will die on the next hunt, because he burrows too much and jumps on a mammoth, and who should learn from.

And then miracles began - I suddenly became faster and better at solving programming, designing, project and people management tasks, organizational changes, etc. All these stories began there, accelerating the work of programmers, “friendship” with the owner, strategic development, etc.

I even got such a function as drawing psychological portraits of managers and employees to order. Perhaps because I began to delve too quickly into the context of not only tasks, but also packs and personalities. Well, by God, the owner ordered me portraits of all the leaders. Then I ordered my own portrait, and then a misfire came out - I overestimated my understanding in the pack, and wrote everything I think, and the relationship went cold.

I still work as a full-time painter of psychological portraits, in great secret, and, of course, I no longer “paint” my boss.

The main tool for the development of DSM


Important functions of the DSM can also include reflection, that same wandering, playing real and predicted situations in relationships with people. You know how it happens - for example, a conflict situation has appeared, or an episode in which you showed yourself not in the best way. They said the wrong words, they made the wrong emphasis, they explained everything wrong. And then, in private, you lose this situation in your head, in a variety of variations, but with one outcome - so that you are the winner.

This is also the work of the DSM. But if one removes one’s beloved from the equation, then such walks will be quite useful for oneself. For example, if during the day you observe the behavior, actions, words, gestures and facial expressions of people, and in a state of reflection - try to understand what motivates them, what are their true motives, who is friends with whom, and who are with whom - “friends ", Or, as women say, who are friends against whom.

It is important only to consider situations that are not related to you, otherwise the brain will always lead to the side of personal victory, this is not very useful. It will be useful to reflect on fictional characters in the same way, from books, movies and TV shows. Only, of course, not from soap operas, but from quality work.

John Steinbeck


Personally, I would recommend reflecting on books by authors such as John Steinbeck - for example, “The Winter of Our Trouble” or “The Bunches of Wrath”. I wrote essays poorly at school, so now I can be mistaken, but, in my opinion, Steinbeck’s key “trick” is not to tell what the characters think and are guided by. He simply sets out the events as they were without getting into the character’s head, leaving the reader a huge space for imagination.

This is its difference from, for example, Dostoevsky, who is not fed with bread, but let me tell you what Raskolnikov is thinking about. All his motives, concepts of understanding the world and his place in it, and most importantly - the development of these ideas in time - are shown with maximum detail and cause-effect relationships. Roughly speaking, the reader has nothing to think over - everything is laid out on a silver platter.

Total


In general, the hypothesis is clear. If you want to be a cool programmer, analyst, architect, manager, minister, prime minister, president - develop DSM in a natural way for her, i.e. through cognition, understanding and influence on the flock.

The success of most managers, if you look, is connected with the developed DSM. It’s just that it’s always been called differently - “relations with people”. Who understands and builds relationships with people, i.e. develops JSM, rises higher than those guys who are smart, but no one knows about it.

I say right away: I do not say that success is a career and the position of manager, minister or president. In this case, I use the term “success” as moving up the hierarchy in a pack — exactly the same way as “success” is understood in packs of animals. Surviving and moving higher are two key instincts.

Although, perhaps I’m just pulling an owl on the globe, and this article is the result of my excessively played DSM. Not excluded. Therefore, I do not affirm anything, I simply suggest that you look at yourself and your environment from a new perspective. It’s probably not going to harm your DSM.

More articles:


All Articles