Whoa. Nice job! > "We need unifiers and not vilifiers," Bezos said. "We need people who argue hard and act hard for what they believe. But they do that always

Whoa. Nice job! > "We need unifiers and not vilifiers," Bezos said. "We need people who argue hard and act hard for what they believe. But they do that always with civility and never ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, we live in a world where this is too often not the case. But we do have role models." Also this is where I have to offer--absent other evidence--that Bezos should either distance himself further from his donation process, or create more objective guidelines for this process. This example above is going way too far into covert contract territory. It immediately and loudly projects the sense that he's been deeply hurt by ad hominem attacks. In that way, it's really awkward. Giving money based on covert contracts ("congratulations, you met my secret, emotionally-charged guidelines for receiving $100M!") will tend to backfire or fizzle out because it starts to look more like a way of snubbing people or commenting on society's ills, than a way of being generous. It looks more like a way of bringing the focus back to the subject's own valued perceptions instead of really getting down to solving problems in a wider scope. This kind of thinking also tends to go really deep, and depth processes tend to delay the executive process of constructive giving. I would guess that this is also a back-foot process for Bezos (he's more business-logic than relational-logic oriented) so it's weak AND deep, which will inevitably lead to really awkward communications, if not awkward outcomes in general. Fingers crossed that this can develop positively for him and everybody involved as it develops.