Category: Uncategorized

I would like to share a new publication that I have co-authored with Rhonda C. Messinger of Career Momentum, LLC. It discusses the basis of axiomatic logic and how a long-standing flaw in logical systems has inhibited the development of axiomatics, compared to the unbalanced development of evidentially based statistics. The paper “Using Axioms to Unblock Civilization’s Progress” will be included as a chapter in a new book by Nova Publishers, mid-2015, entitled: “CRISIS AND RENEWAL OF CIVILIZATIONS; The 21st Century Crisis of Ideas and Character, edited by Marek Celinski.” The paper is available for download on ResearchGate. See:



Photo Tour of WMU East Campus on Prospect Hill

Historic Photos of WMU East Campus on Prospect Hill

A PDF version of this post is item no. 4, available at: or go to Pinterest;

Frank J. Lucatelli, 19 May 2013, version 4

I am indebted to others for the concept of forming the ten digits according to the number of angles needed to form each numerical digit. For example, here is a version of the font that I discovered on the Milky way scientists’ Facebook page:

Milky way scientists version of font

However ingenious that the concept is, the appearance of the resulting font is less than elegant. Just like people who live together begin to look alike, this version 4 of the fonts shows increased similarity among the digits compared to the first version. I propose that the following re-proportioned font be used for the angles concept:

Angle Count Font without marked angles v4

The included angles for each digit are marked below, the “zero” has no angles:

Angle Count Font with marked angles v4

I’ve always had a difficult time describing the difference between analysis and design. This is a good visual representation of the difference. The original font, and others similar to it, were formed individually with the analytical angles concept in mind. This redesigned set used the same principle, but in addition to the analytical principal, the numbers also had to reflect each other as part of the same system. Each number within the font could look to all the others as analogies for what it should look like itself.

This copyrighted font may be freely used as a font in personal presentations and documents with credit given to the copyright holder, Frank J. Lucatelli, who reserves the distribution and commercial rights to this “Angle Count” digits font.


The logic, of Quality systems, encompasses a greater domain than commonly appreciated. The explicit logic, underpinning Quality, models systemic interrelationships that exist among Dr. Deming’s points, enabling the correlation of Quality systems with structurally parallel personality types. This facilitates training and increases employee satisfaction. The confusions, between processes and systems as well as between jobs and roles, are examined as obstacles to understanding and applying Quality. This review discusses the two parts of the book covering a refined model for Quality, Part 1, and descriptions of the eight essential Quality frameworks, and their respective stakeholders, Part 2.

© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of JIBES University, Jakarta

Keywords: Deming; Quality; personality types; systems; processes; roles; jobs; frameworks; management; employees.

1. Introduction

In the spirit of Dr. Deming’s work the author has been searching for a practical approach to logic that recognizes the struggle between certainty and uncertainty, yet allows these two conflicting realities to inform each other in an intermittent interplay with each other. Like climbing a ladder, first with the right foot of certainty to secure a position of understanding and certainty, then with the left foot of uncertainty to explore where one may next find a secure foothold for the next, new and higher advance of certain knowledge.

The context of this work is to understand Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s Quality system work as pointing to a solution to the philosophical paradoxes raised by the physicist, Ludwig Boltzmann in statistical mechanics, plus the mathematicians and logicians, Georg Cantor in exploring infinity, Kurt Godel in the limits of logical certainty and Alan Turing in computability. The Quality system offered by Dr. Deming is a practical solution to the deep philosophical ambiguities in nature uncovered by the deep thinking scientists mentioned above. By linking intuitive personality with the Quality method it is possible to understand Quality systems as a current foothold in an ever-advancing mastery over nature for cultural benefit.

2. Key issues
This paper is a review of the author’s book that takes a fresh look at Dr. Deming’s version of Quality systems. The work is written with the practitioner and business student in mind. The refinement of Quality systems introduced in The Multiple Responsibilities of and within Organizations: An Interpretation of the Structure of W. Edwards Deming’s Quality System including the correlation of personality roles with Quality “points” takes a look at the current difficulties that are preventing Quality systems from developing further as an organizational system. The primary issues addressed in the book include:

Mind-set: The over-emphasis in current Quality practices on process oriented perspectives of systems; the over-use of analytical methods at the expense of synthetic methods. A consequence of analytic methods is to focus on the parts; Synthetic methods focus on the whole.
Appreciation of Psychology: The need for systemic understanding of the personalities of employees and how personalities affect the roles that are assumed within a Quality organization.
Rigorous Logic of Quality: The need for an understanding of Dr. Deming’s points as a logically rigorous com-prehensive system that addresses management issues as thoroughly as production issues have be addressed to date.

Map of Quality System Roles: The need for simplified frameworks for Quality that highlights the range of stakeholders who are interested in different functional aspects of any organization.

2.1 Mind-set
Although Dr. Deming worked as a consultant to specific companies, the larger message of his career was addressed to the nature of valid work and its impact on large scale economic systems. So while Dr. Deming says to continually improve, which tends to reduce the need for labor, he also says to seek the genuinely new, which creates new products and services for re-employing those who are no longer needed to manufacture mature parts. This is the deadly disease that Dr. Deming warned; emphasis upon short-term profits. It is the lack of reinvestment in future products that causes the lack of job security, not technological improvements. How is it possible to work diligently on improvement and not result in more automated technology? The goal isn’t for a worker to keep making the identical parts until her/his dying day, but rather to be ever advancing to create more benefit and wealth for humanity as a whole. When a worker can say that s/he participated in creating a technology, or production facility, that no longer needs her/his input, that should be the basis of pride of workmanship for having created a continuing benefit to society. The reward for such accomplishment should not be unemployment but an opportunity to create similar benefits around new opportunities and remain employed to do so.

Dr. Deming in his concept of a System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) said that it is important to have an appreciation of a system. It is possible to get off track by equating a “process” with a “system.” Most people in manufacturing are regularly dealing with processes. However, to treat a process and a system as if they are the same entity, synonyms for each other, is to overlook the significant differences between them. A process always links components that have direct input-output links between them. If one removes one of the component links the process halts, unless a person can bridge the gap.
A system is qualitatively different. Systems are made up of components that do not have direct input-output links between them. For example, think of marketing and manufacturing. Both are systems. A company can produce for a while without marketing. Just as marketing can function for a while without manufacturing. The indirect harm from one or the other ceasing to function will be felt by the other, but only indirectly over time. The difference between direct and indirect influence is a critical difference between processes and systems. Processes may be analyzed, systems must be synthetically integrated.

All of Dr. Deming’s points, point to separate and unique systems, (not processes) that are collectively required to function in parallel to create a robust enterprise system. Many organizations, probably most, do not employ every system that Dr. Deming described, but the robustness of their enterprise is in direct proportion to how many of Dr. Deming’s “points” are effectively implemented.
On p. 50 of The New Economics (second ed.) Dr. Deming mentions networks, aims (purpose), need for management, cooperation among components, interrelationships; all terms as properties of systems. He does not mention “process,” nor is “process” listed in his index. It is not likely that this is an oversight. Dr. Deming did not consider systems and processes synonymous. For example, processes do not need cooperation between components because the relationships are fixed, and so cooperation is relatively unnecessary. It is the changing nature of relationships in a system that requires cooperation. Systems have more freedom of motion and so require cooperation to focus their energies. So, if systems have a wider range of choice for response at each transition, how can these choices be best managed?

2.2 Appreciation of Psychology

Dr. Deming emphasized that each person should be treated as an individual with unique skills, interests, and life circumstances. However, Quality systems only specify the systemic relationships among organizational functions and have ignored any systemic understanding of variation among employees. There are various rationalizations that justify this oversight. Many Quality people say that “one doesn’t need to be an expert in every aspect of SoPK, but simply be aware of the impact of other factors.” While this may be true for an individual employee, it is disastrous for an organization to assume this position. The system must be aware of itself, and this is done by positioning specific individuals so that their collective wisdom captures all aspects of the system, even though each individual may not comprehend the entire system.

The question this raises is how is it possible to position individuals properly within an organization so that the collective awareness is robust? Awareness of personality types, that are carefully correlated with Quality, makes it possible to further sharpen the focus for productive organizations. This integration is a specific application of a SoPK that integrates psychology with the appreciation of a system, a theory of knowledge and variation. Knowing the appropriate roles of given personality types can clarify the needs and contributions of unique individual’s working collectively. When unique personalities perform roles within a Quality system appropriate to their personality type, the the individual derives joy from work and the organization becomes better informed about its situation, and so, is better able to clarify its priorities. It must be emphasized that this concept is not about assigning jobs based upon personality, but rather roles recognizing specialized perceptive abilities of all employees for comprehensively monitoring the effectiveness of ongoing operations. Jobs are tasks that are well defined and performed cyclically or repetitively. Roles are responsibilities to manage unexpected situations. Most people may be trained to perform most jobs, but only those with perceptive abilities aligned with their area of responsibility are able to fill specific roles. People who work and manage organizations are the eyes and ears of the organization. Without a way of acknowledging the accurate perceptions of individuals, this tremendous resource of human capacity degenerates into gossip and complaining.

The book (Lucatelli, F. J. (2012)) discusses, in depth, unique frameworks each composed of two complementary Quality roles. Each framework also integrates two distinct personality types. So, each framework is constructed from two of Dr. Deming’s points and each point has a single corresponding personality type that best understands that particular point. Different personalities will naturally gravitate toward specific roles within their favored framework of the organization and consequently will be sensitive to the needs and aspirations of the particular stakeholder associated with that framework. An individual may be competent in several roles. The ability to be clear about who the appropriate stakeholders are is critical to making sound decisions. It is possible for an individual to identify her or his unique capacities by reflecting upon which of Dr. Deming’s points most resonates. Further in-depth identification of roles in critical applications may be determined by completing the Personality InsightTM (See Disclosure in References) assessment questionnaire and by receiving appropriate coaching.

Personality is not just a style difference between people, it represents real differences in awareness of their environment and the capacity to perceive and understand specific ranges of conceptual and sensory experience.

In a 1995 conversation between Dr. Simon Shnol’, a Russian biophysicist, and the author, Dr. Shnol’ commented that human beings are the most sensitive instruments that we know, and consequently also the greatest amplifiers. His example was, if the word “run” were whispered into the ear of a runner, that very weak auditory signal would be perceived and could be translated into the physical exertion of running with no other input. This represents a huge amplification of energy, as Dr. Shnol’ said. The author sees this as an analogy for an even greater amplification potential of the perception of weaker-yet signals that are specifically perceived by different personality types. For example, signals like the desires of their audience that performers can read, or a counselor who can intuit of the needs of a client, or a leader who unerringly senses the best organizational direction, are all signals that are imperceptible to most people but readily perceived by individuals gifted with appropriately focused sensibilities. Perceptions like these are so subtle, more so than the spoken word in Dr. Shnol’s example, that most other personality types are usually not aware of the presence of subtler signals in the environment. The insight here is that the words whispered like “run” could actually be the output of a person sensing a subtle cue that running is needed!
Just speaking the word “run” amplifies by magnitudes the original signal perceived by a specific personality type. The amplification that Dr. Shnol’ implied could represent an actual amplification at least twice as large as he imagined when the subtle awareness of the speaker is considered. This metaphor aims to call attention to the subtlety of personality differences that are most often beneath awareness. Different personalities in a common environment are more likely to notice different aspects of that environment than they are to notice similarities. Becoming aware of these natural differences between individuals can have a similar dramatic impact on the productive interaction of people, as does knowledge of physical variation have upon achieving finer tolerances in production processes.

2.3 Rigorous Logic of Quality
A common complaint about management from employees in production is that they don’t understand Quality. It is true that management doesn’t understand Quality the way that those who operate the systems do. They shouldn’t. Those operating the system must be sensitive to the flow of work and the uniqueness of each machine. However, that is far too much detail for managers to assimilate, nor is it a sensible way for a manager to behave. The manager must understand the system in general so that changes made to the system don’t deteriorate it. Managers (and executives) are responsible for the completeness of the system, not its operation. So, as circumstances change, which affects the relationship between components of the larger system, adjustments must be made at the systems level to facilitate operations at the production level. It is the management’s role to understand and manage the complexity of the system so that operations can become as simple as possible. Managers manage systems, employees in production manage work flow. These two roles are essential complements to each other. If either fails, both fail.

2.4 Map of Quality System Roles
The book also details a theory of knowledge about the progressive hierarchy of systems. Quality is a new systems level that is based upon dynamic principles compared to historic systems that have been based upon static hierarchies. The success of a Quality system leads naturally to a new systems level that addresses “intention” or decision-making, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

In a Quality system new frameworks appear as unique ways of interpreting the action of the overall system. These new frameworks, eight in all, are similar to the frameworks of science, art, religion and experience that are so important in historical systems levels. The new frameworks of Quality – and their respective stakeholders are outlined in Table 1 and include: A) controlling variation – customers, B) developing futures – employees, C) teamworking – communities, D) aspiring – administration, E) optimizing – suppliers, F) fostering esprit de corps – shareholders, G) governing – society-at-large and H) safety – all-concerned. These necessary frameworks are mathematically/logically determined by the by the author’s logic of systems, A-Priori Modal Analysis (APMA). Again, space does not allow the logic to be specified here. The application of this system of logic is discussed at length in the book.

3. Conclusion
It is important to realize and appreciate that each independent framework of a Quality system comprehensively monitors the entire system through the interaction of a unique pair of complementary principles. Each organizational principle may also be interpreted personally as an organizational role or alternatively as a Quality system point. When the points and roles are paired properly within each framework, it is possible for each framework to provide a comprehensive, and unique, view of the entire system. Imagine two hikers in the wilderness, each one climbing a mountain on opposite sides of the same valley. When they both reach the summit of their respective mountains they each have a view of the common valley between them. However, if they were to meet after their respective hikes and compare their photographs of the valley, they may not recognize that their photos were of the same region! It is in the reconstruction of their common experience that a more comprehensive understanding of the valley dawns on each of the hikers. This is the nature of the pair of complementary principles and roles within each framework.

While processes may be found operating throughout a Quality system, it is the non-causally interrelated system frameworks that give Quality its most significant advantage over competing management and organizational approaches. Employees working within a Quality system derive the most productive benefit and personal satisfaction, by identifying with their appropriate role within the multiple Quality system’s frameworks. The rigorous integration of personality into a logically clear Quality organizational structure promises to reinvigorate the Quality system originally envisioned by Dr. W. Edwards Deming.

A Catch-Phrase: A summary attitude of being negatively influenced by a specific pair of Obstacles.
B Deadly Disease: A warning sign of the failure to succeed within a specific framework.
C Focal Affect: A personal experience of successfully operating a specific framework.
D Framework: A combination of two complementary points with their associated personality types.
E Management: A general term for employees responsible for organizational oversight functions.
F Obstacles: Attitudes that are used to resist the implementation of specific points of Quality.
G Personality Types: Personal modes that correlate one-to-one with points and obstacles.
H Points: Principles that Dr. Deming espoused for operating a successful Quality organization.
I Stakeholder: A targeted audience most served and benefited by a particular framework.
J Employee: A general term for all those employed or contracted by the organization.
K Worker: A general term for employees who initiate and execute the organization’s production.

The author wishes to express his gratitude to many who have crossed his path in developing the concepts for organizing Quality systems in alignment with unique personality capacities. For lack of space I will simply list the names of those whose knowledge and feedback have been valuable to me. The are: Sherveen Lotfi, William Bellows, PhD, Richard Steele and the Detroit Area Deming Study Group, Rhonda C. Messinger, Pamela Sophiajohn, Gina Thomas. Since the original paper presentation at the 18th Annual International Deming Research Seminar, many other Quality experts have further broadened my understanding of Quality. They include Richard “Dick” Danjin, Rod Gray, Thomas A. Smith, The W. Edwards Deming Institute Official Linkedin Group, including Nick Gardener, Marc Hersch, Timothy Higgins, Jim Myaard, Hans Norden, Dennis Sergent and Wes Stewart. The valued input, of these and others, has enabled results to be achieved that stretch beyond what could possibly be achieved independently. Most recently colleagues, Carl Jessen, DeDe Esque, Lori Kerlin and Marsha Barnosky have been very helpful.

References (A complete listing of references is available in the reviewed book.)
Disclosure: The author, Frank J. Lucatelli, is the developer of the Personality InsightTM personality assessment.
Lucatelli, F. J. (2012-Work-in-progress). The Multiple Responsibilities of and within Organizations: An Interpretation of the Structure of W. Edwards Deming’s Quality System including the correlation of personality roles with Quality “points.” Kalamazoo, MI: HEAR, Inc. and Frank J. Lucatelli.

What Did Dr. Deming Do?

Frank J. Lucatelli;

Dr. W. Edwards Deming is rightfully admired for his introduction of Quality systems to the world of productive organizations. I presented my theoretical systems work applied to Dr. Deming’s ideas at the recent 18th Annual International Deming Research Seminar in NY at Fordham University. It struck me how little appreciation there is among practitioners for the immense potential of Dr. Deming’s grand vision for Quality systems. Quality is potentially far more comprehensive than variation control. In order to understand what is meant by this, it is necessary to review what Dr. Deming actually did during his life and how he documented it.

The paper recently presented to the Deming Research Seminar, “Exploring the White Spaces within Deming’s Quality System” attempts to correct the lack of theoretical underpinning to Quality systems initiated by Dr. Deming and others. This paper shows that the interconnection between Dr. Deming’s fourteen points is such that they can be paired, with minor adjustments described in the paper, into eight pairs of opposing but complementary terms that form eight different frameworks for viewing and operating Quality systems.

Dr. Deming was first and foremost a statistician. Dr. Deming recognized the value of Walter Shewhart’s work on statistical process control, variation control, for greatly improving production methods. Dr. Deming realized that management was responsible for setting the tone of the manufacturing environment, so that variation control could be operated effectively. The workers were structurally unable to modify the system that they worked within. The broadening of his view from the line worker to the scope of the entire organization, including executives and managers, as well as workers, made him realize that larger issues needed to be addressed than just the variation control issues.

Dr. Deming expressed this awareness in his “Fourteen Points” and in the “Seven Deadly Diseases” in Out of the Crisis, his second book. Ultimately he saw that the scope was even larger than just the entire organization in that it also included broad cultural issues as expressed in his requirements for a System of Profound Knowledge. (SoPK) The elements of a SoPK included four critical elements: appreciation for a system, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge and psychology. This grander idea did not appear until his third book, The New Economics. The idea of profound knowledge was clearly a retrospective realization of Dr. Deming’s long years of dedication to the application of Quality principles in manufacturing organizations.

This is a natural progression for a person like Dr. Deming who’s first impulse was to implement what he knew, and to learn from the application of it. He was a genius in application. His overall personal approach was to drive out public fear, learning through critical observation of the collective and applying through experimentation within the group. He could go into any organization and intuit their state of readiness to improve and be able to point to the highest and best use of their time and energy for making organization-wide improvements. This experiential approach is evident in Dr. Deming’s writings, especially in his first two books, Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position and Out of the Crisis, as he focuses upon the process of statistical control and then gives anecdotal descriptions of the efficacy of such an approach. The fourteen points, are presented as principles to keep in mind as one works, to help notice when one may be varying from one’s constancy of purpose. Even the deadly diseases are not presented as a systematic approach, but rather as signposts for recognizing when one has veered off course.

However, the fact that Dr. Deming did not articulate the system of Quality as a systematic theoretical construct does not mean that one doesn’t exist. Dr. Deming’s points are consistent in principle, but out of scale with each other in the way that they are expressed and are presented as process flags instead of interacting components of an integrated system. His seven deadly diseases are structurally connected to the fourteen points, but the connection is not clearly articulated in Dr. Deming’s writings.

By arranging Dr. Deming’s work into a theoretical model, outlined in “Exploring the White Spaces…,” that captures his “points,” “diseases” and experience, it is possible be more systematic in applying his principles and more effective in training novices in the use of his system. But more importantly, the theoretical framework described in “Exploring the White Spaces…” shows that the seed planted by Dr. Deming is potentially a much more comprehensive system than most practitioners of Quality realize. The eight frameworks that are generated by the principles behind Dr. Deming’s points, address many more ways to view Quality than are currently realized.

It is common to hear that “Management doesn’t understand Quality.” However, this is to be expected, as Quality is currently used as a code word for variation control, not the entire Quality system of eight parallel frameworks. Variation control is not management’s direct responsibility; providing the system that makes variation control possible is management’s responsibility. Each framework, including variation control, is a completely different approach to the operation of productive organizations. When all eight frameworks are used in parallel they create a very robust system. Finally, by articulating the entire system that Deming pointed to, it is possible to correlate components of the model to other, seemingly unrelated, parallel systems. The example used in the “Exploring the White Spaces…” paper is a correlation with fifteen personality types. This type of structural correlation becomes possible with theoretically developed systems, and opens doors to previously unimagined opportunities for improvement and advancement.

So, what did Dr. Deming do? He imprinted organizations with the realization that things could be done more systematically and productively than previously imagined. By the force of his personality he was able to guide specific organizations to achieve levels of performance that were unattainable before his involvement and guidance. He left behind writings, books, videos and the personal remembrances of those who had the opportunity to work with him. Many organizations, world-wide, continue to follow his example.

However, Dr. Deming’s books and other materials, although dwelling at length upon the issues of statistical process control and full of anecdotes of successful applications of his ideas, don’t fully describe the system that he promoted. Those who worked with Dr. Deming are currently in the process of retiring from the organizations that Dr. Deming helped. If Dr. Deming’s work is to continue to have positive influence on the future development of organizational management, now is the time to explicitly lay out his Quality system. What is now needed is a re-visitation of the body of work that Dr. Deming left behind, with an eye toward documenting Dr. Deming’s unexpressed structure and the theoretical principles that he intuited so flawlessly in his personal consulting with organizations. You are invited to read “Exploring the White Spaces within Deming’s Quality System” as an overview of how a theoretical structure can organize Dr. Deming’s concepts for increased understanding and applicability.

(See: <> for a PDF version of this article and the “Exploring the Whites Spaces…” paper.)

I know Dr. Peter Beamish personally, and it is not likely that he would ever say this about himself, but I think that he has discovered the complementary discipline to Darwin’s evolution. While Darwin has described a model for how living organisms adapt and adjust to changing environments to enhance their survival prospects, Beamish has discovered that when survival is not a present and pressing issue, the animal kingdom behaves and communicates across species in remarkably altruistic ways.

He has discovered this altruistic behavior in his ground-breaking work in cross-species communication. Beamish has studied how animals can communicate with each other in mutually helpful ways, using an unexpected temporal method of conveying intentions, in that the method employs a novel temporal form. (More on this later.) Beamish shows that animals (and possibly all non-humans) are intimately focused upon what is happening in the moment without imagining the future. He further shows that by using this new temporal form, based upon rhythmically patterned signals, their attention to the present tilts the agenda for communication to altruism; no axes to grind and no future expectations to lobby.

His amazing insight realizes that low-stress cross-species animal communication is based upon a completely different modality than that used by humans for communication. When humans talk to each other, we use symbols conveyed in some tangible form, that stand for something, and the form of the symbol is something that all humans can mimic, like words spoken orally, or printed on pages. In the animal world, it cannot be assumed that other species of animals will be able to replicate the symbol system of any given species. For example, an ape could use fingers to indicate a specific meaning but whales and birds would have trouble reciprocating.

How have animals solved this obstacle? They do it, Beamish says, by using patterned movements or sounds that are synchronized to a mutually agreed upon clock tempo. The specific movement or the specific quality of the sound is immaterial to the communication. A bird’s chirps or a dog’s barks can convey the identical meaning if uttered in the same temporal pattern. Imagine a clock face with the quarter positions of 12, 3, 6 and 9 marked, and a clock hand or dial moving clockwise at a fixed rate around the clock face. The patterned motions of the respective animals occur at predetermined quarter points of the clock’s hand motion; on-time (12), late (3), off-time (6) or early (9). The particular pattern of signals sent on-time, off-time, early or late indicates what is being communicated. It works like this:

1. Two animals meet. 2. They greet each other with a standard greeting, which when done successfully establishes the tempo of the clock that will be used in their current communication. 3. By using high-rise sounds or motions of any available body part the animals are able to communicate intentions to each other. For example, a dog might wag its tail or bark in rhythmically-patterned bursts; a squirrel might move its head or tail; a deer might flick its ear.

An important aspect of this type of communication, and this is the crux of Beamish’s work in relationship to Darwin’s work, is that this rhythmic system induces low-stress. An animal responding to an environmental change that threatens survival, like food scarcity, is operating under high-stress. Lack of food will produce hunger, which in turn drives the animal to seek alternative sources or fight off competitors to the available food; both options are stressful to the animal.

When these stressful circumstances are not present, the animal is free to engage in stress-free interactions with other animals. The method that Beamish has discovered, uniquely reinforces this stress-free state. The use of rhythmic signals works to synchronize the physical actions of the interacting animals. The synchronization of the interacting animals further reduces stress levels in them.

An analogy in human terms would be that when we are physically synchronized with a friend we experience a lessening of stress. When we are in the company of a competitor, one who is not synchronized with us, we feel heightened stress. The nature of the method of animal communication described by Beamish requires synchronization for messages to be sent. Because the default communication mode between animals is synchronized, the low-stress that results is similar to humans associating with a close friend.

Looking under the hood of Beamish’s animal communication model, we find that living organisms have the capacity to express high-stress or low-stress. High-stress manifests itself in focused communications intended to produce desired outcomes, like humans convincing others to follow one’s suggestions or animals trying to feed themselves when food is scarce. Low-stress manifests itself when the specific outcome is not critical and the participating organisms, human and non-human, are synchronized in their interactions.

So, simply by communicating in the rhythmic communication mode, altruistic attitudes are allowed to manifest themselves. Further, when the form of the outcome is open, altruistic modes become primary in the interaction and the communication that results tends to produce honest, non-deceitful messaging.

Here’s one of the stories I have heard Dr. Beamish tell about how an altruistic interaction might work between animals. A whale signals to a flock of birds that it is seeking food. The birds then fly out over the ocean searching for schools of fish. When the birds find the fish they fly in a circle over the location of the school. The whale then, seeing the circling birds, approaches the school and sends out a piercing sound-blast that stuns the fish, causing them to float to the water’s surface while the whale feeds. When the fish arrive at the water’s surface, the birds then help themselves to their meal. After the whale and birds are finished with their meals, the fish that were not eaten, recover from their stunned state and continue on their way. Only as many fish as needed for feeding are killed and the rest are unharmed. The birds and the whales have helped each other altruistically, both benefiting from their cooperation, while preserving the fish that were not needed for the bird’s and whale’s survival; an intriguing metaphor of ecological balance.

Humans are animals, too. We use this rhythmic method of communication as well; it is largely unconscious, but does not need to be so. When we find ourselves connecting with someone, if we notice what is happening, we will likely discover that our mutual body motions are in synchronization with each other. Those to whom we don’t connect are out of synchronization with us. Our habitual focus upon symbolic language has blinded us to this more fundamental, empathetic, rhythm-based way of communicating. It is my opinion that Beamish’s work represents a completion of Darwin’s work by providing an explanation for low-stress interactions between animals as a foil or complement to Darwin’s high-stress scenarios.

Dr. Beamish is calling our attention to what we humans can learn from the animal world. If we learn to reconnect with our altruistic animal heritage, we may actually be able to make progress toward creating peace on earth, and get tangible models from the animal world on how to live cooperatively on our common planet. Ultimately, if we also learn to communicate with the animals according to their natural method, we may find that we have global monitors present and willing to inform us of conditions in the remotest regions of our environment.

To learn more about this insightful work get, and read, Dr. Peter Beamish’s new book:

Dancing With Nature ——- by Peter Beamish
Amazon-Trafford, — ISBN 978-1-4269-6305-6

Our research in applying the Personality Insight assessment instrument has uncovered counter-intuitive results. Much advice to career seekers points them to develop and work in areas of their strength. While this is good advice for some people to follow, we have found that a far stronger motivation for many career seekers is to seek out areas of employment that expose them to areas where their strengths are less than average; areas where learning and applying what was learned does not come naturally. Career seekers of this type might ask: “Why am I not so interested in doing those things that I know that I can do well?” “Why do I keep working at something that hardly ever works out for me?”

There are a few terms that should be clarified, so this realization about the ideal work world for many people makes sense. The terms: core modes, dominant modes, blind spots and sensitivities don’t refer to specific personality characteristics, but rather the relationship that one has with their own personality characteristics.

A “core mode” is a strength that is so obvious to a person that he or she can’t not use it. (The double negative is intended.) This is a major strength and everyone has two such strengths, one that is dedicated to learning and one that is dedicated to applications. Sometimes the two different approaches are the same for a given person. These are the serious issues for a person; they are the things one finds oneself doing in emergencies when there is no time to waste.

A “dominant mode” is a high strength, sometimes stronger than a person’s core modes, but one in which the person does not feel compelled to use, even though great enjoyment is derived from using it. This is the place where one likes to play.

A “blind spot” is a mode in which a person has no natural interest. Like the blind spot in one’s eye, it can be experienced but not without great indirection. This is a mode that is not obvious to a person. Here is where people bump into walls.

A “sensitivity” is a mode that is known to the individual, but one in that is problematic to the individual. It is a less than average capacity. It seems to the person, that no matter how hard one tries, there is always something that seems to slip through the cracks. These are the characteristics where one can expect parents and teachers to complain most about performance.

All of the above may be applied to either one’s approach to learning or application. Most people favor different personality characteristics when learning compared to applying what is known.

It’s the core modes and dominant modes that most advisers will identify as pointing to a successful career. Why not work in an area where you have naturally high capacities? Here’s why. For some people, there can be nothing more boring! This is not applicable for all people, because of differences in personality structure, but for those with a particular personality structure, choosing a career could become very easy if they realized just one small thing about themselves. The best career choice is the area where one both has a sensitivity in the way one learns in the area and also the way one applies oneself.

So why does this backwards idea make sense?

Sensitivities are the areas of activity that are like mysteries to to the person who has this relationship to a given personality characteristic. One knows what is happening in these areas is real because there is a sense of the need for it. Although the person is able to function in this area; success is hit and miss. In spite of all the trouble one has in this mysterious area, sensitivities are sources of endless fascination. It feels like gambling when one operates here. Most of the time the person gets by, breaks even. Often they lose, things don’t quite work out. But every now and then, the person hits the jackpot here. It is overwhelming and surprising how well things worked out, and it’s imagined, “I can do this again!” These sensitive modes are below average ability where most of the corrective advice that was received growing up occurred; the areas where the same mistakes were repeated, over and over.

The technique for making this seemingly backward approach to a career work out, is to let the area of double sensitivity be the field to enter as a career, but use one’s core and dominant modes to serve that field. This places the worker in an environment that will never be dull, while using higher capacities to serve that environment. Boredom never sets in because the outcome is never fully certain, which is challenging to ones strengths. Every success, reveals more of the mystery. Although, the mystery is deep, one’s strengths are capable of meeting the challenge. By establishing this relationship between one’s strengths and sensitivities, this type of worker will always go the extra mile to ensure success. There is a deeper appreciation of the real nature of each problem tackled in a sensitive area. By not working directly on the area of sensitivity, the core and dominant strengths overcome the difficulties that arise. Because of the deep interest in the results, the client is served well, and the insights gained in the process are usually insightful in a way that focusing purely on one’s strengths can never be.

The Personality Insight assessment instrument, is able to measure a person’s fascination with certain kinds of activity; not a specific career, but any career where the qualifying activity is a central experience.

Imagine workers who are expert in Total Quality Management (TQM) who are personally unable to make things on demand. They think that the ability of systems and machines to make the same part, over and over within tight tolerances, for as long as one wishes, to be nothing short of miraculous. Each new part to be produced is a new and exciting opportunity to make the world better in some way, not just for one other person but for many people.

Also there are career counselors who finds it problematic to make long-term decisions, but are captivated by the decision processes that others go through to make life decisions for themselves. Every career client is a new and unprecedented search for life meaning.

Consider family counselors who are baffled by the choices that families or groups might choose for themselves. The family counselor sees each group or family as an opportunity to find a new and exciting way for people to interact creatively and beneficially with each other. Each family situation is seen in terms of the specific individuals involved, not just a formulaic service.

Those career professionals who maintain a high level of excitement and enthusiasm about their work over the life of their career, communicate that excitement to their clients. The very people that you think might be the worst person for a career are paradoxically the best. Not because they directly work with what to them seems miraculous, but because they use their best skills and abilities in the service of the mysterious, turning numbing drudgery into contagious joy.