Macro vs Micro Analysis
The inability of the human mind to comprehend worlds greater than that which one is working on is why the micro world catches our attention so much easier than the macro world. We have the expression “they can’t see the forest for the trees.” That means that the details often obscure the big picture. We have trouble getting out of our own way to see the bigger picture. When a person has lots of training in a wide variety of key fields, then it is more possible to see the bigger picture, the macro picture. We describe people like this as people who have “vision.” Vision is often just the ability to see a bigger picture that explains otherwise hard to understand concepts and ideas.
Sometimes too much training can keep someone from seeing the new realities and can even narrow one’s thinking to not recognize the broader concepts. Even when one does see a new concept from a broader point of view, it is easier to dismiss the new concept because it lies outside the normal framework of reference. Summarizing a broader point of view comes easily to some people and is scoffed at by other people. Even when presented with evidence, some people are reluctant to recognize new truths and resort to labeling and dismissing those who are bringing forth the new truths. Others are naturally curious and will try to understand the new truths and see if they apply in new circumstances or not. They are willing to give the new ideas enough credence to put them to the test. But all too often, people fall back into familiar patterns and forget or dismiss new truths. This is very easy to do if you have a silo vision of the world, not so easy to do if you are constantly experimenting and learning new ways of understanding the world.
I have often employed the technique of looking for the common link between two things that otherwise appear to be contradictory. Maybe there is a grey area between what appears to be black or white. I let the thought stick in my mind that way until I run across something new that sheds light on the situation of the “apparent contradiction.” That can then become my “aha” moment of enlightenment.
We know from Planck’s Law in physics that sometimes you can get the position of a particle but not the speed. There is a tradeoff in measuring such things. This reminds me of a tradeoff I once discovered in an encounter group. At the end of the encounter group, each of us was asked to estimate who in the group grew the most and who in the group contributed the most. When I averaged the results, I learned an astonishing thing. Those that were perceived as contributing the most to the group had the least clear vision about who contributed the most or grew the most. Those that contributed the least had the clearest vision about who contributed the most or grew the most. So the silent ones had the best idea of who contributed the most or grew the most. The lesson I learned is that involvement distorts your perspective, while detachment clarifies your perspective. That is the value of meditation, prayer, and other techniques that give you the necessary detachment to see clearly new frameworks. That is perhaps the reason the “leaders” of the peace and justice studies organization take it upon themselves to attack me for trying to teach them new ways of thinking.
In my work macro trumps micro the following ways:
Micro looks at military spending as merely the spending of money.
Macro looks at military spending as lost economic growth potential and lost capital investment.
Micro looks at crime as a function of individual decisions and can’t explain the nineties crime drop.
Macro looks at crime and sees the direct relationship with military spending changes.
Micro sees the society fraying in the inevitable decline of an empire.
Macro sees the society shaped by the size of the military and sees growth potential from reduced military eventually reversing all negative trends.
Micro sees the greenhouse effect as the only significant global warming changer.
Macro sees the evaporation effect separating land from ocean creating a 54 year cycle.
Micro can’t explain the 15 year stall in global warming.
Macro sees the land ocean temperature gap stalling global warming for the 27 year half cycle from 1998 to 2025.
Micro sees conflict resolution.
Macro sees empire reduction.
For an academic class on the way out of micro into the new world of macro:
Cover Letter, Proof of Concept, Nine Areas of Mastery, Creating Model, 31 Class Sessions: https://www.academia.edu/11786950/FRAMEWORK_For_Academic_Class_six_pages
Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on academia.edu.
Dr. Peace, Dr. Bob Reuschlein, Real Economy Institute
best contact to ask Bob to speak to your group: email@example.com
to leave message: 608-230-6640
for more info: http://www.realeconomy.com
(Real Economy and/or Peace Economics free pdf on request by members of the press)
An archive of this yearlong press release campaign can be found at: https://bobreuschlein.wordpress.com/