© 2018 Tim Stroh. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

ISBN: 978-0-64815-530-0 (print)

ISBN: 978-0-64815-531-7 (ebook)

Dedication and Epigraph

For those familiar with E.O. Wilson and the evolution of the science of Sociobiology, Phillip Ball and his book Critical Mass, Paul R. Lawrence and Nitin Nohria’s work and their book Driven, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and his book On Killing, Robert Wright who wrote The Moral Animal, or Denise “D.D.” Cummins and her work on Dominance, status, and social hierarchies - it is they who deserve the credit.

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

– Isaac Newton

“If the genius of invention were to reveal tomorrow the secret of immortality, of eternal beauty and youth, for which all humanity is aching, the same inexorable agents which prevent a mass from changing suddenly its velocity would likewise resist the force of the new knowledge until time gradually modifies human thought.”

– Nikola Tesla

Illustrations by Marley Stroh

Acknowledgements

It is essential that I thank a host of people without whose support, love, help, feedback, stories, and in some cases tolerance, this book simply could not have been written:

• My wife Juanita who has persevered through endless drafts and been consistently supportive despite how utterly terrible many of those early drafts were.
• My sons Marley and Parker who have put up with the countless weekend hours I’ve spent working on this and endured countless commentaries on their experiences at school based on the associated research.
• My Mom, Dad, and brothers Chris and Bryan each of whom has given invaluable feedback, reviewed early drafts, or contributed stories and experiences. Needless to say I love them all very much.
• Professor Edward Hess at Darden Business School, University of Virginia, who was kind enough to invest time to read and review an article from a total stranger on the other side of the world, give meaningful feedback, and was the first to ask me an invaluable question, “Who are you writing for?”
• Douglas Green for his insights, humor, exceptional feedback, comments and anecdotes – all of which have been invaluable. Also for his friendship and his book The Teachings of Shirelle: Life Lessons from a Divine Knucklehead.
• My editor Catherine Moolenschot who was able to convince me to keep cutting and rewriting without ever once being negative.
• Pavel Dvorak for his contribution of excellent anecdotes, honest feedback, and friendship.
• David Bradbury and Rebecca Dee-Bradbury for their support, friendship, sage advice, specific feedback and the pointer to Brene Brown’s work.
• Hesham Soliman for his friendship, objectivity, and for being the first to be overwhelmingly positive – I’ll never forget you describing a later draft as a “page turner.”
• Ros Tatarka for her friendship, feedback, and fantastic advice on how to improve this book, think about readers, and think about next steps.
• Denise Moolenschot for her enthusiasm, help, excellent advice, and generosity in reviewing and identifying improvements.
• My uncle Bill Black, my uncle Bob Black (who is sadly now longer with us), his wife Sue and my cousins Maja and Carmen. Each of whom contributed heavily to conversations on topics ranging from genetics to evolutionary developmental biology and several of whom persevered through one or more of my early drafts.
• Rob Hunwick for his tireless support.
• Oana Maria Pop for taking the time to respond and give feedback to a total stranger from the other side of the world. (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oana_Pop2)
• John Devereaux who not only suffered through an early draft paper (early enough that “suffering through” is the right description) but was nonetheless willing to make a number of introductions to staff and colleagues at Deakin University.
• Professor Barry J. Cooper of Deakin University for his total willingness to assist, delightful conversation and many introductions.
• Professor and Nobel Laureate Eugene Fama who, to my great surprise, personally replied to my email in regards the efficient market hypothesis.
• Steve and Sue Koenck and their family for being great friends to the Strohs and for detailed feedback on early articles and drafts.
• Kirsten Tilgals, who kindly gave feedback on early concept drafts.
• Ramin Mobayen, my oldest friend and one of the kindest, warmest, and most thoughtful human beings I could ever have the luck to call a friend.
• Alan Sitomer, a dear friend, who persevered through early writings and with grace and humour suggested ways forward.
• Larry Kurofsky, Ron Vignone, and Lucia Sullivan along side Ramin and Alan, all dear friends since grade school, whose intellect and drive have long stood as motivational examples to follow. If you are in the Seattle Area try Purple or the Barrio restaurants. They are a testament to what a person can accomplish. Look for Ron and Lucia’s names in the credits to your favorite film and television shows. If you want to feel their individual or collective influence, play Beethoven’s 9th at full volume.
• General Stephen Williams, Chris Simon, all of those I knew at USAFA, and all of those who have or are serving as members of the military or as first responders. To you we all owe a debt of gratitude. You are the true heroes. Steve and Chris, like Ramin, Larry, Alan, Ron and Lucia, you are truly inspirational human beings. While I’m long overdue for a catch up with many, you remain inspirations.
• Peter Grierson for introducing me to a whole new discipline of research.
• Simon Saint John and Michael Lhuede, who in addition to being good friends contributed by way of wine, conversation, and introductions to all manner of people on many occasion.
• John McMurtrie who, in addition to being a cracker of an individual, was prepared to invest in a good idea when he saw one.
• Daizy Maan who runs the SPARK program at Deakin University for her constant eagerness to help others including myself and quite specifically for referring me to Catherine Moolenschot who has been fantastic to work with as an editor.
• Olivia McMillan who has been one of the best people I’ve had the pleasure to work with - twice!
• Mark Nihill, Matt Maden, Sam Fewster, Suhrid Regmi, and Renny Seears, who have been some of the most enjoyable people I’ve had the pleasure to work with.
• Andrew Wilkinson, Murray Longe, Irene Chan, Eloise Wall, Matthew Sayers, Chris Kwan, Mick Chmielewski
• Darrel Ludowyke and his wife Kyla Martin who have always been ready with a smile and assistance.
• Sharon, Courtney, and Charlie Young who have been wonderful supporters, readers, and sources of feedback.
• Simon McNamara
• Ed Daniels who was a pleasure to work with, a cracker of a bloke and one smart cookie.
• Bruce Tonkin
• Mark Hewitt
• David Lennon
• Stuart Grenville
• Paul Breen
• Hamish Goddard
• Gary Gale
• Stella Cai
• Domenic Carosa
• George Beaton
• Matt Barnett
• Alisondro and Adrienne Bizzarri
• Gab and Andy Dunnmoore
• Rachel and Al Visser
• Serena Gatusso
• All of whom were great to work with or are great friends, each of whom has in one way or another contributed to my thoughts on human nature and innovation.
• Annie Jeffery, who kindly volunteered to hold a marked up hard copy for me while riding a crowded train so I cold keep editing on my computer.

Introduction - A compulsion to ask
and answer “Why?”

When I was 13, my advanced math teacher gave the class a formula saying “use this to get the right answer.” I asked why the formula worked. “That math is way beyond this class, just use the formula,” he replied.

As crazy as it may sound I couldn’t make myself do it. I had to understand why the formula worked before I would use it. I continued trying to solve the problems, but failed the test. Prior to this I had never received a grade on a math test lower than B.

My teacher asked me why I had done so poorly, and became very annoyed when I explained that I just wasn’t comfortable using the formula unless I understood why it worked. In hindsight he probably thought I was challenging him, but I just needed to know. After two more failed exams, parental involvement, a transfer to the same class taught by another teacher, and that teacher actually taking the time to explain the proof, I went back to getting good grades.

I’m sharing this story to demonstrate an aspect of my nature; I have a compulsion to ask, and understand, “Why?” I am also someone who has repeatedly worked to develop new and innovative products (some successfully, some not), it bothered me immensely that there was no solid answer to the age-old question of why some products succeed, and yet so many others fail. None of the explanations available stood to scrutiny. To make matters worse, new explanations seemed to rise and fall faster than fashion trends and every new product I worked on – success or failure - magnified my need for an answer.

In the same year as my math struggles, either looking for something to impress a girl or compelled by an English assignment, I was flicking through a copy of my mother’s Norton Anthology of English Literature1 and stumbled upon Percy Shelley’s “Ozymandias”:

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

A few years later in my first “real job” my boss asked me, “why has every great and powerful civilization – every single one – despite every advantage, eventually collapsed?” Ozymandias immediately came to mind and my compulsion to understand why kicked in. Once again, no available answer could stand to scrutiny. Throughout the decades that followed, I continued to seek one out.

Quite unexpectedly my quest for answers to these seemingly unrelated questions came together. I read Driven by Paul Lawrence and Nitin Nohria from Harvard and The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, just after re-reading The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy. All had great value to offer, but both Driven and The Rise and Fall had internal inconsistencies or contradictions, were not consistent with my experiences, and had too many elements that were seemingly refuted by other robust research.

The three together, however, provided a whole new direction to explore. Rather than looking for answers in the particulars of specific civilizations, events, or new products, I would look for answers in the one thing they all shared; the medium of human beings.

Rather than two discrete questions, I would ask just one. I would ask a question that would be in some ways simpler and in some more complex. “Why?” Or more specifically, “Why do sane people do the things they do and make the choices they do - including the crazy, irrational, and seemingly inexplicable ones?”

Even if you don’t have my compulsion, most of you will share my need for an answer. As a business leader you need to know in order to motivate and direct your staff. As an entrepreneur or product manager you need to know in order to predict the success of your product. As a teacher you need to be able to influence your students. In any role, with any project, you need to know in order to improve your chances of success. As any normal citizen, you need to know simply so you can make better decisions and plan your future? Why Trump? Why terrorism? Why are some things so widely adopted they become disruptive and yet others are rejected seemingly without reason? Why do people do the things they do and make the choices they make?

Science can finally provide an answer, thanks to inputs from dozens of disciplines ranging from economics and neurology to behavioral developmental psychology.2 While no single discipline of study provides the logical proof or complete chain of evidence, each contributes a piece of the puzzle. Collectively, they make clear an answer and prove the explanation rests in the universal aspects of human nature.

In short, our brains are comprised of a collection of evolved, purpose specific modules. Amongst other purposes, these modules motivate us to pursue and resist the loss of seemingly abstract outcomes such as relative status, belonging, mastery, and novelty. It is common for these outcomes to be pursued at the expense of rational self-interest or preservation. In addition, these modules, as well as the rest of our brain, are built almost entirely from a single standard neural building block. This universal building block requires nearly all information to be stored in the form of patterns of stimuli and for these patterns to be created by the association of new patterns with ones that already exist. These two realities, the non-monetary forms of value defined by our drive traits combined with the pattern and association bounded nature of all stored information, fundamentally influence our perception and our choices. This is Motivational Drive Trait Theory.

These genetically dictated traits, rather than overriding free will, in many cases prompt it. Despite this, they so strongly influence our perception, choices, and behaviors in context of other people that they dictate readily applicable and formulaic rules for behavior in groups and between groups. These rules in turn enable an explanation and prediction of our choices to adopt new things, a variety of societal scale phenomena, and the interaction of groups with each other. They also offer a pragmatic new approach to leading positive and successful change.

What I propose in this work has what is most lacking in all other explanations: consilience. Meaning it provides a single, consistent explanation across all arenas of human activity and their associated disciplines of study: from economics and the diffusion of technology to neuroscience and from political science to evolutionary developmental psychology.

Despite the strong support consilience represents, and its satisfying nature, I am aware that despite everything I have read and studied, I may have missed something. I have hunted to find every piece of the puzzle and have put those pieces together for you here. I hope this picture is complete, and uplifts your understanding of why we are the way we are, make the decisions we make, and do the things we do. I earnestly hope you find this book worthwhile and thank you in advance for reading onwards.

---