"We are generating weak and dependent beings"



Pilar Gómez Acebo is a businesswoman, thinker, tireless and fighter woman with great experiences in the social field, diversity, companies and the Board of Directors. He has just written with five other authors 'Society in Check, Common Sense to the Rescue', a book of critical thinking highly pertinent in this complex historical moment.

Book & # 039; Society in Check, Common Sense to the Rescue & # 039;
Book 'Society in Check, Common Sense to the Rescue'

Why have you written this book, what has been the motivator?

Try to 'wake up' as many people as possible and who want to stay 'awake' to the reality that we live with all its consequences.

Let them know and feel that they are not alone to face present and future difficulties and / or realities, offering a series of valid answers for this.

They have written the book in six, what unites them and what role does each one play?

We have been gaining cohesion among ourselves through many hours of debate and discussion, providing six different perspectives, from different ages and experiences, but with a common background: believing in the human being and in the possibility of achieving trust above the multiple discrepancies, as the making of this book demonstrates.

Antonio [Sola] writes from the political point of view, Oliver [Herrera] brings a vision of a young entrepreneur, who faces difficulties of all kinds. Yolanda [Cañizares], Diego [Martos] and Enrique [Salas] They offer their reflections after having held high-level positions in multinationals and refocused their professional work to improve the system, to which I try to contribute a social angle, starting from the individual behavior of each person.

I was struck by the phrase by Ludvine Paternostre that he quotes at the beginning of the chapter 'Integrity and Coherence:' People were created to be loved, while things were created to be used. The reason the world is in chaos is because things are loved and people are used. Could you comment on it?

We have reversed the priorities, to a large extent by the welfare state, which, making another reflection of the Greek philosophers a reality, affirms that hard times tan strong people, who in turn, erroneously wanting to facilitate a more comfortable life externally, without internal construction for the next generations, they create soft people, who lead to difficult times.

This is the current problem, which also contains the alternative: balancing the IQ of each individual with their emotional coefficient, whose immaturity is generating the reality we live in.

Work more on the 'hows' than the 'what', where technology makes our work easier. How do we do what we do?

What is consistency for you?

Consistency consists in getting a trajectory with less and less breaks, because a common criterion is being built between what we feel, think, say and do, which is achieved when we work on ourselves, in this order of action.

In the book he talks about the human capacity to advance a lot in technology, but much less as people. Why?

Technology responds to logic and human beings respond to interests, which, if they are not focused on the general good, become more and more EGO-ists and therefore weak, insecure, fragile and manageable.

Logic has been prioritized over the good of people and with it, we have once again generated weak and dependent beings who have bought the wrong message.

Can you explain the interesting distinctions regarding the human that you bring to the reader's attention: "Feelings is not sentimentality", "Sensitivity is not sentimentality", "Innocent and not naive" and others such as "Loyal, not faithful" or "Solitude , not loneliness?

I have been working and training observation and listening as keys to success for many years. I try to make them a subject in universities, business schools, councils and government bodies at the business, political and social level. This allows us to identify those differences in human response in each day-to-day act and decision, which, as explained in detail in the text, the response will depend on whether it is based on the common good or private interest, even if it is done. unconsciously.

Sentiment is plural, sentimentality is individualistic. Sensitivity is plural, sentimentality is selfish. The innocent choose, even if they make a mistake in the option, the naive buy the easy thing, without considering anything other than their benefit. The loyal give you their judgment, the faithful flatter you and tell you what you want to hear.

Consequently, it depends on each person being able to find himself on a day-to-day basis, the result of moments of solitude, reflection and encounter with himself, or else, that lack of self-encounter leaves him more and more alone and isolated in hands of others who decide for her, without her.

What do you mean when you talk about integrity, advantages and disadvantages?

Every option has pros and cons. To the extent that we consider both a priori, we will facilitate the pros and if not, the interests of the system will make the contras triumph, as we are experiencing, with the very high degree of impunity prevailing in the absence of integrity as a key axis of action.

Finally, invite readers to "Dare" to what?

The common factor is going to the internal cause that modifies the external response through behavior. The true internal cause is daring to feel. The feeling unites us and makes us grow and therefore, that daring always translates into global improvement.

The head individualizes. The heart pluralizes. The plural is always more than the singular. From there we find our uniqueness and individuality, not individualism ...

A daring… go ahead.

See them


Source link