"Yes, $400 billion to prevent sexually transmitted diseases will save your job."
So says David Harsanyi, in his column today in the Denver Post:
The "stimulus" bill is all about payback to Obama's supporters and to a lesser degree, about fixing the economy. I am just hoping that the Senate Republicans are as savvy as those in the House about voting against the bill. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they do. If the stimulus works (I am dubious about this), then the Dems will get the credit. If the bill fails, those Republicans who signed on will be blamed, so what's the point?
Yes, $400 billion to prevent sexually transmitted diseases will save your job. A $34 million remodeling of the Department of Commerce and $150 million for honey bee insurance and hundreds of billions in new government growth will create economic growth faster than a similar-sized business or payroll tax cut, you are led to believe.
The "stimulus" bill is all about payback to Obama's supporters and to a lesser degree, about fixing the economy. I am just hoping that the Senate Republicans are as savvy as those in the House about voting against the bill. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they do. If the stimulus works (I am dubious about this), then the Dems will get the credit. If the bill fails, those Republicans who signed on will be blamed, so what's the point?
"If you want money flowing to the companies with good lobbyists and powerful congressmen, then the stimulus bill may accomplish something."
David Boaz, author of Libertarianism: A Primer,
has a good article on the economy at Real Clear Politics (via Newsalert):
has a good article on the economy at Real Clear Politics (via Newsalert): Even if regulators are as smart as Leonardo da Vinci and as incorruptible as Mother Teresa, they can never have as much knowledge as the decentralized, competitive market process, so planned economies and planned industries fall further and further behind free-market systems. But in reality, even if they're smart, they're not incorruptible. Political influence always comes into play. What we're seeing with the bailout funds will also happen with the stimulus money.
Government planners claim to be able to aggregate all the available information and make informed decisions for the whole society. But market economies clearly produce far more economic growth than planned economies. It isn't just the United States versus the Soviet Union or East Germany versus West Germany. Consider the customer service and technological advances you get from FedEx versus the post office, or Microsoft and Apple versus the DMV.
If you want money flowing to the companies with good lobbyists and powerful congressmen, then the stimulus bill may accomplish something. But we should all recognize that we're taking money out of the competitive, individually directed part of society and turning it over to the politically controlled sector. Politicians rather than consumers will pick winners and losers. That's not a recipe for recovery.
Are boys with unpopular names more likely to break the law?
LiveScience reports:
I once knew a caseworker who had two kids named Rotunda and Vagina on her caseload. I often wonder how those kids turned out.
Boys in the United States with common names like Michael and David are less likely to commit crimes than those named Ernest or Ivan.
David E. Kalist and Daniel Y. Lee of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania compared the first names of male juvenile delinquents to the first names of male juveniles in the population. The researchers constructed a popularity-name index (PNI) for each name. For example, the PNI for Michael is 100, the most frequently given name during the period. The PNI for David is 50, a name given half as frequently as Michael. The PNI is approximately 1 for names such as Alec, Ernest, Ivan, Kareem, and Malcolm.
Results show that, regardless of race, juveniles with unpopular names are more likely to engage in criminal activity. The least popular names were associated with juvenile delinquency among both blacks and whites.
The findings, announced today, are detailed in the journal Social Science Quarterly.
While the names are likely not the cause of crime, the researchers argue that "they are connected to factors that increase the tendency to commit crime, such as a disadvantaged home environment, residence in a county with low socioeconomic status, and households run by one parent."
I once knew a caseworker who had two kids named Rotunda and Vagina on her caseload. I often wonder how those kids turned out.
PJTV: Bill Haslam on running for governor
Glenn and I interview Mayor Bill Haslam about his run for governor of Tennessee on PJTV. He also talks about the stimulus, healthcare, and how Republicans can rebuild on the local level, plus a question from blogger SayUncle on second amendment rights.
See the show here.
Information overload � and how to deal with it (if you�re the one loading)
Most decisions in organisations require information. And we have to actively look for that information. We approach colleagues who have dealt with similar issues, are knowledgeable about the context, the customer or the technology, and try to incorporate their experiences and insights.
Nowadays, in our �knowledge economy�, many companies have realised the value of this internal expertise and set up databases, accessible through the firm�s intranet, that we can access and search. But now the problem is � more often than not � there is just so much of it�!
We�re swamped with information! How many databases can you access? How many documents can you read?! How many colleagues� brains and wisdom can you electronically pick?!
And this is actually not only a problem for the people looking for information. In many organisations the providers of knowledge get rewarded when others use their stuff, in the form of increased respect in the company, heightened status, and sometimes even in terms of hard cash after their annual performance evaluations. How can you as a provider make yourself heard and seen in the plethora of the information quackmire?
Professors Morten Hansen and Martine Haas � at the time at the Harvard Business School � examined exactly this issue. They examined the electronic databases of one of the Big 4 accountancy firms and surveyed its 43 �practice groups� on their strategy of what documents to upload and when. And they came back with some pretty clear insights into what works and not.
You have to understand that these different practice groups face some simple but concrete choices: how selective are we going to be in terms of the documents we upload; are we going to upload pretty much everything we get our hands on or are we only going to put up a mere fraction of what we have? What is the maximum number of files we would like to put onto the system? Do we cover a fairly wide range of sub-topics or are we going to be much more concentrated in terms of the subjects we cover?
The trade-offs are pretty clear; if you upload very few documents, people can only access very few documents. But if you put up many of them, potential users may be turned off, lose the forest for the trees and turn their attention somewhere else in disgust (while swearing at you for the sheer overload and making rude hand gestures to their computer screen). But where does the balance lie?
Hansen & Haas found out that where the balance lies depends on what the topic is that you are publishing on. If the practice group was providing information on a topic that was covered by quite a few other groups (such as for instance �cost management�, �capital & asset management�, �financing & IPOs�), they were much better off being very selective in what they put on their site. Those who made few documents available quickly gained a reputation as the group which always delivered high quality stuff without swamping you with irrelevant, low-quality distractions. More people, as a result, accessed their pages.
In contrast, groups publishing on topics which were much less widely covered (such as �Peoplesoft�, �hospital service delivery� or �call centres�) were better off providing a much wider range of documentation, that readers could really sink their teeth in. They developed the reputation �for topic X you really need to go to practice group A� and flourished as a result.
Hence, the various suppliers of information within the company competed with each other for the attention of the employees looking for relevant knowledge. And, like in any market, they needed to adapt their strategy based on the specific product they were offering.
Nowadays, in our �knowledge economy�, many companies have realised the value of this internal expertise and set up databases, accessible through the firm�s intranet, that we can access and search. But now the problem is � more often than not � there is just so much of it�!
We�re swamped with information! How many databases can you access? How many documents can you read?! How many colleagues� brains and wisdom can you electronically pick?!
And this is actually not only a problem for the people looking for information. In many organisations the providers of knowledge get rewarded when others use their stuff, in the form of increased respect in the company, heightened status, and sometimes even in terms of hard cash after their annual performance evaluations. How can you as a provider make yourself heard and seen in the plethora of the information quackmire?
Professors Morten Hansen and Martine Haas � at the time at the Harvard Business School � examined exactly this issue. They examined the electronic databases of one of the Big 4 accountancy firms and surveyed its 43 �practice groups� on their strategy of what documents to upload and when. And they came back with some pretty clear insights into what works and not.
You have to understand that these different practice groups face some simple but concrete choices: how selective are we going to be in terms of the documents we upload; are we going to upload pretty much everything we get our hands on or are we only going to put up a mere fraction of what we have? What is the maximum number of files we would like to put onto the system? Do we cover a fairly wide range of sub-topics or are we going to be much more concentrated in terms of the subjects we cover?
The trade-offs are pretty clear; if you upload very few documents, people can only access very few documents. But if you put up many of them, potential users may be turned off, lose the forest for the trees and turn their attention somewhere else in disgust (while swearing at you for the sheer overload and making rude hand gestures to their computer screen). But where does the balance lie?
Hansen & Haas found out that where the balance lies depends on what the topic is that you are publishing on. If the practice group was providing information on a topic that was covered by quite a few other groups (such as for instance �cost management�, �capital & asset management�, �financing & IPOs�), they were much better off being very selective in what they put on their site. Those who made few documents available quickly gained a reputation as the group which always delivered high quality stuff without swamping you with irrelevant, low-quality distractions. More people, as a result, accessed their pages.
In contrast, groups publishing on topics which were much less widely covered (such as �Peoplesoft�, �hospital service delivery� or �call centres�) were better off providing a much wider range of documentation, that readers could really sink their teeth in. They developed the reputation �for topic X you really need to go to practice group A� and flourished as a result.
Hence, the various suppliers of information within the company competed with each other for the attention of the employees looking for relevant knowledge. And, like in any market, they needed to adapt their strategy based on the specific product they were offering.
Does a bad economy save lives?
Allure magazine has a segment in the most recent issue called "(Dollar) Signs of the Times" which looked at what's soaring and what's plunging in the current fiscal roller coaster. They stated that hemlines, exotic handbags, lipstick, and sex columns are the barometer used to predict the health of the world's economy. Sounds scientific.
Apparently cosmetic procedures, egg donation, chocolate, slow songs, self-tanner and "mature features" are on the rise. Why the last one, you might ask? According to the magazine, "during recessions, Playboy Playmates have larger waists and waist-to-hip ratios, while actresses tend to have small eyes, large chins, and thin faces, hallmarks of older women."
What's on the decline? Lipstick, long hair, sex columns, alcohol, lobster prices, and mortality rates. Allure mentions that sex columns are slowing down as they "seem frivolous" and they mention that the Village Voice and Playboy channel have recently eliminated staff sex experts. I guess any future gigs as a sexpert are out for me. Darn...
Anyway, the mortality rate decline was interesting. It seems that a "one-percentage-point rise in unemployment leads to about 14,000 fewer deaths per year. With more time and less money, people eat healthier, smoke less, and exercise more."
Also in recessions, prices on exercise equipment get slashed!
I think I'll go buy a treadmill.
Apparently cosmetic procedures, egg donation, chocolate, slow songs, self-tanner and "mature features" are on the rise. Why the last one, you might ask? According to the magazine, "during recessions, Playboy Playmates have larger waists and waist-to-hip ratios, while actresses tend to have small eyes, large chins, and thin faces, hallmarks of older women."
What's on the decline? Lipstick, long hair, sex columns, alcohol, lobster prices, and mortality rates. Allure mentions that sex columns are slowing down as they "seem frivolous" and they mention that the Village Voice and Playboy channel have recently eliminated staff sex experts. I guess any future gigs as a sexpert are out for me. Darn...
Anyway, the mortality rate decline was interesting. It seems that a "one-percentage-point rise in unemployment leads to about 14,000 fewer deaths per year. With more time and less money, people eat healthier, smoke less, and exercise more."
Also in recessions, prices on exercise equipment get slashed!
I think I'll go buy a treadmill.
Kudos to Suze Orman
Okay, I cracked. I said I would no longer be watching Suze Orman due to her tendency towards sexism towards men and belittling. But I did watch it a few times and I have to give credit where credit is due. I saw a recent show where she said that word had gotten around that she was not fair to men. She stated that this was not true--that she would give the same advice to men about relationships that she gave to women.
"Yeah, right," I thought because that was not what I had heard so far in her advice. For example, one week, she told a woman to quickly divorce her husband because he told her he would call the police if she went through his mail again. Ms. Orman does not know what led up to that encounter, for all we know, the woman was snooping through the guy's stuff and was a control freak. I doubt she would tell a man to divorce a woman that quickly. I have never heard it. If you have, let me know.
But in this week's show, I was surprised to see that she gave a fair shake to men on a couple of occasions. The first was when a husband called in to ask what he should do about a wife who ran up bills but would not work. "Do you like your wife?" Suze asked. The guy said "yes" but that she was just irresponsible about the finances. Ms. Orman then proceeded to tell him to stop the heavy burden of paying for everything and let his wife pick up the slack. "But my credit will be ruined" the caller moaned. "Then how much could you like your wife who would do that to you?" Ms. Orman asked and with that she ended the call. Great question and psychologically astute.
Another female caller asked how she could get her husband-to-be to put her name on his condo that he had paid for and was paying a mortgage on. The woman had a property that she sold and kept the money on to move in with this guy. "He is being stingy," the woman said. Ms. Orman set her straight. "No," she said, "he paid on this condo, built equity and now you want your name on it. He is not stingy, you are less than generous." Amen.
Kudos to Ms. Orman for at least trying to make an attempt to be fair. It is more than many media personalities will do.
"Yeah, right," I thought because that was not what I had heard so far in her advice. For example, one week, she told a woman to quickly divorce her husband because he told her he would call the police if she went through his mail again. Ms. Orman does not know what led up to that encounter, for all we know, the woman was snooping through the guy's stuff and was a control freak. I doubt she would tell a man to divorce a woman that quickly. I have never heard it. If you have, let me know.
But in this week's show, I was surprised to see that she gave a fair shake to men on a couple of occasions. The first was when a husband called in to ask what he should do about a wife who ran up bills but would not work. "Do you like your wife?" Suze asked. The guy said "yes" but that she was just irresponsible about the finances. Ms. Orman then proceeded to tell him to stop the heavy burden of paying for everything and let his wife pick up the slack. "But my credit will be ruined" the caller moaned. "Then how much could you like your wife who would do that to you?" Ms. Orman asked and with that she ended the call. Great question and psychologically astute.
Another female caller asked how she could get her husband-to-be to put her name on his condo that he had paid for and was paying a mortgage on. The woman had a property that she sold and kept the money on to move in with this guy. "He is being stingy," the woman said. Ms. Orman set her straight. "No," she said, "he paid on this condo, built equity and now you want your name on it. He is not stingy, you are less than generous." Amen.
Kudos to Ms. Orman for at least trying to make an attempt to be fair. It is more than many media personalities will do.
"...she has got away without punishment."
A reader sends in this article from the Daily Mail illustrating what can happen to a man's life when falsely accused of rape:
Men are viewed as guilty even if found innocent. Women are viewed as innocent even when found guilty. This sexism under the law needs to change.
A BBC personality has shattered her ex-boyfriend's life by falsely accusing him of rape.
The woman, who has broadcast to television audiences of millions, accused him of raping her 40 times throughout their two-and-a-half-year relationship.
He was arrested, held in a police cell and handcuffed as police searched his flat for evidence of his crime. But she retracted her allegation weeks later, and the officer investigating the claims described them as 'inconsistent' and 'not credible'.
Despite the lack of evidence, the incident remains on the Police National Computer thanks to a legal loophole, which campaigners say is blighting the lives of falsely accused men.
Even if the 'victim' withdraws their allegation, it will show up under enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks that are undertaken regularly on people who apply for jobs with employers such as the NHS or schools. It will also prevent them from travelling to the United States.
Men are viewed as guilty even if found innocent. Women are viewed as innocent even when found guilty. This sexism under the law needs to change.
Serial Killer Shows on Biography
If you are intestested in learning more about serial killers, The Biography Channel is running a series of shows starting this week. I appear as one of the experts on four of the shows.
The first of those, on serial killer Jerome Brudos, airs tonight, Friday (Jan. 23rd) at 8 pm ET and runs again on Saturday (Jan.24th) at midnight. Here is a description of the show:
Check the shows out if you have an interest in crime, serial killers, or documentaries in general.
The first of those, on serial killer Jerome Brudos, airs tonight, Friday (Jan. 23rd) at 8 pm ET and runs again on Saturday (Jan.24th) at midnight. Here is a description of the show:
His mother had wanted a girl, an innocent enough disappointment. However, in Jerome Brudos' case, it somehow spiraled out of control first into a fetish and then into murder. As a teenager, he would assault women, stealing their shoes. By the time he was a married adult living in suburban Portland, his criminal activities had advanced. Over a fifteen month period Brudos killed four times, starting with a woman who had come to his house selling door-to-door. When he was captured he was found hiding under blankets while his wife drove the family car. Searches of the Brudos' home turned up women's clothing and shoes in Jerome's sizes. He died in prison in 2006 where he had continued to receive women's shoe catalogs.
Check the shows out if you have an interest in crime, serial killers, or documentaries in general.
Ace has some interesting thoughts and discussion going on over at his place on men, sex and marriage.
Amy Alkon has thoughts on Secretary of Labor Robert Reich's reverse racism.
Update: Thanks to my readers for pointing out my mistake in using the word reverse.
Update: Thanks to my readers for pointing out my mistake in using the word reverse.
Video games do not lead to violence according to researcher
A researcher finds no evidence of a link between school shootings and video games:
I never thought much of the theory that video games caused violence. The New York Times did a study of rampage killers and found that very few of them even played video games. They looked at 102 rampage killers and found "in only 6 of the 100 cases did the killers have a known interest in violent video games. Seven other killers showed an interest in violent movies." School shootings are complex, to blame them on video games is naive. I am glad a researcher is making that point more clear.
A researcher at Texas A&M International University has concluded that there is "no significant relationship" between school shootings and playing violent video games.
Writing for the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Prof. Christopher Ferguson criticizes the methodology used in earlier research linking games to violence and aggression. He also points out that no evidence of violent game play was found in recent high-profile incidents such as the Virginia Tech massacre, the Utah Trolley Stop mall shooting and the February, 2008 shooting on the campus of Northern Illinois University.
I never thought much of the theory that video games caused violence. The New York Times did a study of rampage killers and found that very few of them even played video games. They looked at 102 rampage killers and found "in only 6 of the 100 cases did the killers have a known interest in violent video games. Seven other killers showed an interest in violent movies." School shootings are complex, to blame them on video games is naive. I am glad a researcher is making that point more clear.
Amy Alkon on sex, dating and hooking up
I interviewed advice columnist Amy Alkon on PJTV about sex, hooking up, and if women should put out for their husbands. Other topics of discussion include: are the techniques in The Pick-up Artist
really the best way to get a date--and why don't women like porn?
You can watch the show here.
really the best way to get a date--and why don't women like porn? You can watch the show here.
A few observations on female crime in Chicago
I came across a gallery of photos at the Chicago Tribune entitled "Mugs in the news" which featured a collection of Chicago area arrest photos. There were a total of 66 photos and I took a look at the first 13 and noticed that eight out of the first thirteen were women--although there were only 12 women out of the total 66 mugshots from what I counted.
The women were (allegedly) involved in crimes ranging from making up fraudulent documents to first degree murder. Another thing worth noting is that some women acted alone or with other women. For example, two women (image 10 and 11) were arrested for robbing a couple and shooting the man after taking his wallet:
Patricia Pearson, in her book, When She Was Bad...: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence
says that women may increasingly work in pairs or alone. Joyce Carol Oates once said that "Most often, [women] are merely the distaff half of a murderous couple whose brain-power is supplied by the man." I don't think this holds true anymore, if it ever did.
The women were (allegedly) involved in crimes ranging from making up fraudulent documents to first degree murder. Another thing worth noting is that some women acted alone or with other women. For example, two women (image 10 and 11) were arrested for robbing a couple and shooting the man after taking his wallet:
Desiree Hollis and Bobbie Griffin, both 20 years old, were accused of demanding money from a couple walking on the Near West Side on Dec. 11, 2008, then shooting the man before fleeing, police said. Hollis, of the 100 block of North Leamington Avenue, and Griffin, of the 5800 block of West Walton Street, were tracked down shortly after the couple flagged a police car.
Patricia Pearson, in her book, When She Was Bad...: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence
says that women may increasingly work in pairs or alone. Joyce Carol Oates once said that "Most often, [women] are merely the distaff half of a murderous couple whose brain-power is supplied by the man." I don't think this holds true anymore, if it ever did.
The Great College Hoax
Kathy Kristof in Forbes: "It's too late to save the country from the housing finance bubble. But the college bubble is not quite as far along."
�It was like one big family on that wing..."
Neo-Neocon has an interesting post up on the calmness of the passengers of flight 1549:
One survivor, David Carlos, made the following observation:
Carlos's statements about the calm and assistance reminded me of what I had recently read in Amanda Ripley's book, The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes - and Why.
Ripley has a chapter on panic and notes that panic occurs if, and only if three conditions are present. First, people must feel they are trapped. Second, there is a sense of great helplessness, and the final prerequisite is a sense of profound isolation. Ripley points out that all of these conditions are hard to define or measure. But the point here is, whatever took place on flight 1549, none of these conditions was present. Human behavior on that plane was at its best. Ripley points out that this is common:
Maybe so, but crowds and people do panic in disasters. So, the million dollar question is "why in this circumstance were people cooperative and calm and in other situations they are not?" And how do you use the information gleaned from this particular crash to provide better psychological preparation for other disasters in the future?
One cannot help but be impressed not only by the mere logistics of their survival as well as its improbability, but by the near-unanimity of the passengers� stories of calm and mutual assistance.
One survivor, David Carlos, made the following observation:
�It was like one big family on that wing, everyone�s holding each other, this guy�s got that guy and this lady�s got that guy and no one wants to fall off,� Carlos said. �It was amazing, the human spirit, when it comes down to that everyone just got together, and was able to overcome and stay together, and everyone made it.�
Carlos's statements about the calm and assistance reminded me of what I had recently read in Amanda Ripley's book, The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes - and Why.
Ripley has a chapter on panic and notes that panic occurs if, and only if three conditions are present. First, people must feel they are trapped. Second, there is a sense of great helplessness, and the final prerequisite is a sense of profound isolation. Ripley points out that all of these conditions are hard to define or measure. But the point here is, whatever took place on flight 1549, none of these conditions was present. Human behavior on that plane was at its best. Ripley points out that this is common:
The truth is, in almost every disaster I have studied, people treat each other with kindness and respect. Violence and panic are extremely rare. An instant camraderie springs up between strangers--on a sinking ship or a bombed-out subway car. That is the rule, not the exception.
Maybe so, but crowds and people do panic in disasters. So, the million dollar question is "why in this circumstance were people cooperative and calm and in other situations they are not?" And how do you use the information gleaned from this particular crash to provide better psychological preparation for other disasters in the future?
Human nature: Self-interested bastard or community-builder?
Whenever I ask executives how they should make an organisation more entrepreneurial, more customer-focused or simply more profitable they virtually always come back with: �incentivize people�.
Reward people for their ideas, their efforts and initiatives and they will deliver.
But always, when I ask them, if you would be on a fixed salary, would you still do your best to come up with new ideas, be entrepreneurial and deliver the best value you can for your customers? And then the answer is, invariably, �yes I would, because I don�t do it for the money�. Then people say they like being good at what they do, initiate new things, and deliver customers the best they possibly can.
But why do we always assume that other people are motivated � and motivated only � by money, and the way to get them to do stuff is by financially incentivizing them, but we? no we do things out of intrinsic motivation, because we want to do the best we can and contribute to the success of our firm. Is everybody really so different from us?
If you hadn�t noticed: that was a rhetorical question.
So why do we assume other people are only motivated by money? My guess is it goes back to why we organise our firms the way we do. How we, in our society, organise our companies is basically based on two sources: 1) The Roman army (i.e. a hierarchy with unity of command), 2) economics.
Economics has had a huge influence on how we govern our firms. For example, the use of stock options to incentivize and reward top managers comes straight out of �agency theory�, and the spread of this practice has been linked to the spread of �agency theorists� across business schools in the US after which, gradually, the phenomenon started to diffuse. And there are other examples.
Yet, economics � including agency theory � works from the assumption that people are rational and self-interested. The will work if they get rewarded for it. But if they don�t receive a direct reward or nobody can really observe their efforts, they will �shirk� and be lazy. Under this logic, indeed, you have to incentivize people; otherwise they won�t do a thing.
And I guess to some extent, we are indeed rational and self-interested, and hence motivated by money. However, there is another fundamental aspect to our human nature, one which through millions of years of evolution has made us the way we are: we like being part of a community and contribute to the well-being of that group.
Because we, humans, evolved as being part of a tribe. And people who were purely self-interested, shirking and lazy would be kicked out of the tribe, clubbed to death, if not consumed for dinner. So our gene base evolved into making us a bit self-interested but equally also community-lovers. Our deep human nature is that we all like doing things not only for our direct individual reward but also because it contributes to the community that we are part of. This community used to our tribe. Nowadays, it is often our organisation.
And if you, as a manager (i.e., headman) manage to tap into that deep fundamental need among your employees, you can build a powerful firm indeed. People love to do stuff that strengthens their firm, fulfils them with pride, and makes us feel stronger as a whole. We don�t need to be financially incentivized to do that; it�s our human nature.
Reward people for their ideas, their efforts and initiatives and they will deliver.
But always, when I ask them, if you would be on a fixed salary, would you still do your best to come up with new ideas, be entrepreneurial and deliver the best value you can for your customers? And then the answer is, invariably, �yes I would, because I don�t do it for the money�. Then people say they like being good at what they do, initiate new things, and deliver customers the best they possibly can.
But why do we always assume that other people are motivated � and motivated only � by money, and the way to get them to do stuff is by financially incentivizing them, but we? no we do things out of intrinsic motivation, because we want to do the best we can and contribute to the success of our firm. Is everybody really so different from us?
If you hadn�t noticed: that was a rhetorical question.
So why do we assume other people are only motivated by money? My guess is it goes back to why we organise our firms the way we do. How we, in our society, organise our companies is basically based on two sources: 1) The Roman army (i.e. a hierarchy with unity of command), 2) economics.
Economics has had a huge influence on how we govern our firms. For example, the use of stock options to incentivize and reward top managers comes straight out of �agency theory�, and the spread of this practice has been linked to the spread of �agency theorists� across business schools in the US after which, gradually, the phenomenon started to diffuse. And there are other examples.
Yet, economics � including agency theory � works from the assumption that people are rational and self-interested. The will work if they get rewarded for it. But if they don�t receive a direct reward or nobody can really observe their efforts, they will �shirk� and be lazy. Under this logic, indeed, you have to incentivize people; otherwise they won�t do a thing.
And I guess to some extent, we are indeed rational and self-interested, and hence motivated by money. However, there is another fundamental aspect to our human nature, one which through millions of years of evolution has made us the way we are: we like being part of a community and contribute to the well-being of that group.
Because we, humans, evolved as being part of a tribe. And people who were purely self-interested, shirking and lazy would be kicked out of the tribe, clubbed to death, if not consumed for dinner. So our gene base evolved into making us a bit self-interested but equally also community-lovers. Our deep human nature is that we all like doing things not only for our direct individual reward but also because it contributes to the community that we are part of. This community used to our tribe. Nowadays, it is often our organisation.
And if you, as a manager (i.e., headman) manage to tap into that deep fundamental need among your employees, you can build a powerful firm indeed. People love to do stuff that strengthens their firm, fulfils them with pride, and makes us feel stronger as a whole. We don�t need to be financially incentivized to do that; it�s our human nature.
Where have all those "greedy bastards" gone?
I have been reading about how California is going bust and New York is having revenue probems and one thing leaps out. How much the so-called "greedy Wall Street bastards" and their investors were subsidizing these places. For example, in this tidbit linked on Drudge about Ca. needing to defer tax refunds, we find:
Or in New York:
So, next time your liberal friends start dissing those "greedy Wall Street guys"--just remind them that they are now in short supply and guess what? They were the ones paying for many of those social, mental health and other programs that you loved so much. Now it's somebody else's turn to pay. Maybe even yours.
Chiang says his office must continue education and debt payments but will defer money for tax refunds, student aid, social services and mental health programs.
A severe drop in revenue has left the state's main bank account depleted. The state had been relying on borrowing from special funds and Wall Street investors; those options are no longer available.
Or in New York:
In past years, Wall Street accounted for as much as 12 percent of city tax revenue, the comptroller said. This year, most financial firms reported losses that the mayor has said they may carry forward, allowing them to avoid paying city tax for several years. By the comptroller�s estimate, city taxes from Wall Street-related activities could drop by $2 billion, or more than 40 percent, over two fiscal years.
So, next time your liberal friends start dissing those "greedy Wall Street guys"--just remind them that they are now in short supply and guess what? They were the ones paying for many of those social, mental health and other programs that you loved so much. Now it's somebody else's turn to pay. Maybe even yours.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has an interesting interview up with Tony Blankley, author of American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century.
�The reports of bird strikes come from eyewitnesses on the ground.�
It seems that a plane from LaGuardia Airport en route to Charlotte, N.C. crashed into the Hudson river this afternoon. I was relieved to see that (thus far) there were no fatalities or injuries reported. The reason given for the crash? Birds cut into the engine. I am slightly afraid of birds and have a flying phobia--so to see that somehow all the passengers made it through the crash is very reassuring. I can't imagine what an ordeal this must have been. However, I have to wonder, why can't an engine stand up to a few birds flying into it?
discusses The threat of "cultural para-stimuli"
Andrew Klavan, the author of such internationally bestselling crime novels as True Crime
filmed by Clint Eastwood, and Don't Say a Word,
filmed starring Michael Douglas has a very thought-provoking column up at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog. Klavan responds to some on the right who believe that the left sets the precedent for how people think in this country:
Cultural para-stimuli--now maybe that should be added as a diagnosis to the future DSM-V.
filmed by Clint Eastwood, and Don't Say a Word, filmed starring Michael Douglas has a very thought-provoking column up at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog. Klavan responds to some on the right who believe that the left sets the precedent for how people think in this country:No, no, no, no. What the right is experiencing at the moment is a phenomenon called �cultural para-stimuli.� You can read all about it in Tom Wolfe�s wonderful novel I Am Charlotte Simmons.
It�s sort of like peer pressure on steroids. It was discovered by Nobel Laureate Victor Ransome Starling, who found that when he surrounded normal cats with cats whose behavior had been bizarrely altered by brain surgery, the normal cats began acting like the crazy cats all around them.
That�s us�surrounded by the mainstream media. So steeped are we now in their lies about our representatives, their ridicule of our commentators, their demonizing dismissal of the causes we know are just, that we�ve begun to adopt their attitudes toward ourselves! And perhaps chief among the lies they�ve sold us is the lie that they�ve won, that the media are theirs for good and all, and that Americans are going to be hoodwinked and brainwashed by their constant barrage of misinformation forever.
Well, only if we let them. And only if we in the media surrender first.
Cultural para-stimuli--now maybe that should be added as a diagnosis to the future DSM-V.
"Raccoon meat is some of the healthiest meat you can eat"....
Uh, okay. I was reading Drudge today and came across this article on the popularity of raccoon meat:
In Tennessee, it is legal to eat road kill, so I guess eating raccoons doesn't sound so far-fetched. I am not sure if I could stomach it, but then, I have eaten escargot in France and other foods that sound just as unusual.
What is the weirdest food you've ever eaten? Was it good?
Raccoon, which made the first edition of The Joy of Cooking
in 1931, is labor-intensive but well worth the time, aficionados say.....
Those who dine on raccoon meat sound the same refrain: It's good eatin'.
As long as you can get past the "ick" factor that it's a varmint, more often seen flattened on asphalt than featured on a restaurant menu. (One exception: French restaurant Le Fou Frog served raccoon about a dozen years ago, a waiter said.)
Eating varmints is even in vogue these days, at least in Britain. The New York Times reported last week that Brits are eating squirrels with wild abandon.
Here in Kansas City, you won't see many, if any, squirrel ads in the papers. But that's where Brownsberger was advertising his raccoons last week.
The meat isn�t USDA-inspected, and few state regulations apply, same as with deer and other game. No laws prevent trappers from selling raccoon carcasses.
In Tennessee, it is legal to eat road kill, so I guess eating raccoons doesn't sound so far-fetched. I am not sure if I could stomach it, but then, I have eaten escargot in France and other foods that sound just as unusual.
What is the weirdest food you've ever eaten? Was it good?
Managers and leaders: Are they different?
All these articles about what are the characteristics of a good leader or CEO always make me feel a bit sceptical. Sometimes even nauseous. It always strikes me, when I look into the history of a company and analyse its strategic development that they seem to need top people with widely different characteristics at different points in time.
Take my favourite little English company; the model train maker Hornby. When they were in trouble about ten years ago, its board appointed a tough guy: Peter Newey. He slashed costs, rigorously cut in their portfolio and fired a bunch of people. He wasn�t the most popular guy on the block (he was wise enough not to live in the company�s home town Margate; he might have ended up with a knife in his back) but � be it in hindsight � people also respected him: it was what the company needed at the time, and it is doubtful they would have survived without him.
But then Hornby hired a people guy: Frank Martin. The first thing employees told me about him was: �he is extremely good at managing relationships� (something Newey wasn�t exactly renowned for; and that�s a euphemism). And he was; he built superb relationships with suppliers, customers, retailers and investors. And the company flourished.
Yet, could he have done the tough turnaround job? Doubtful. He simply has other qualities. He too was the right man for the job at the time � just like Newey was.
You see the same thing at companies over and over again. Take Apple; in its early days, the energetic and charismatic Steve Jobs was exactly what the spawning company needed. However, when down-to-earth CEO John Sculley took over (much to the chagrin of Jobs), the company had one of its most profitable runs ever; Sculley didn�t innovate, inspire bold new moves, or initiated great change; he focused on making money, and did that very well.
And that is what the company needed at that point in time. Later, when they needed to be pushed and driven into a new direction, Sculley could not give them one; it was Jobs� time again, to inspire, initiate and make the company grow. And again he did that very well. The same happened at the famous Swiss watch-maker Swatch: Ernst Thomke created the organisation that led to the emergence of the innovative Swatch; subsequent CEO Nicolas Hayek took the invention and relentlessly managed the organisation into a long streak of dominance and profitability. There is not one type of leader that fits all; different companies, at different times, need different people.
In the classic Harvard Business Review article �Managers and leaders: Are they different?� author Abraham Zaleznik�s answer to this intriguing (and slightly provocative) question was an unambiguous �yes�: Leaders inspire, are emotional, if not neurotic, and they are born that way. Managers are very different; they are rational, balanced, unemotional and easy to get along with (be it perhaps slightly yawning). And it is not that one is superior over the other; different firms, at different stages of their development, need someone who inspires and does extraordinary things. But at other times, you need someone rational and objective, and perhaps slightly boring. Such a person may never be �a leader�, but is a damn good manager.
Sometimes we need to be inspired, take risks and dream up wacky things. Sometimes not. Banks come to mind. Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with a boring banker. Or a boring politician.
Take my favourite little English company; the model train maker Hornby. When they were in trouble about ten years ago, its board appointed a tough guy: Peter Newey. He slashed costs, rigorously cut in their portfolio and fired a bunch of people. He wasn�t the most popular guy on the block (he was wise enough not to live in the company�s home town Margate; he might have ended up with a knife in his back) but � be it in hindsight � people also respected him: it was what the company needed at the time, and it is doubtful they would have survived without him.
But then Hornby hired a people guy: Frank Martin. The first thing employees told me about him was: �he is extremely good at managing relationships� (something Newey wasn�t exactly renowned for; and that�s a euphemism). And he was; he built superb relationships with suppliers, customers, retailers and investors. And the company flourished.
Yet, could he have done the tough turnaround job? Doubtful. He simply has other qualities. He too was the right man for the job at the time � just like Newey was.
You see the same thing at companies over and over again. Take Apple; in its early days, the energetic and charismatic Steve Jobs was exactly what the spawning company needed. However, when down-to-earth CEO John Sculley took over (much to the chagrin of Jobs), the company had one of its most profitable runs ever; Sculley didn�t innovate, inspire bold new moves, or initiated great change; he focused on making money, and did that very well.
And that is what the company needed at that point in time. Later, when they needed to be pushed and driven into a new direction, Sculley could not give them one; it was Jobs� time again, to inspire, initiate and make the company grow. And again he did that very well. The same happened at the famous Swiss watch-maker Swatch: Ernst Thomke created the organisation that led to the emergence of the innovative Swatch; subsequent CEO Nicolas Hayek took the invention and relentlessly managed the organisation into a long streak of dominance and profitability. There is not one type of leader that fits all; different companies, at different times, need different people.
In the classic Harvard Business Review article �Managers and leaders: Are they different?� author Abraham Zaleznik�s answer to this intriguing (and slightly provocative) question was an unambiguous �yes�: Leaders inspire, are emotional, if not neurotic, and they are born that way. Managers are very different; they are rational, balanced, unemotional and easy to get along with (be it perhaps slightly yawning). And it is not that one is superior over the other; different firms, at different stages of their development, need someone who inspires and does extraordinary things. But at other times, you need someone rational and objective, and perhaps slightly boring. Such a person may never be �a leader�, but is a damn good manager.
Sometimes we need to be inspired, take risks and dream up wacky things. Sometimes not. Banks come to mind. Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with a boring banker. Or a boring politician.
Anti-semitism is mainstream
I find it ironic that so many people/the media are concerned with whether or not Prince Harry is a bigot for calling a Muslim comrade a "Paki" (in a video from years ago) and show so little concern when protesters in Florida called for Jews "to go back to the oven" and held signs stating "Nuke Israel."
So, Prince Harry is forced to apologize for his remarks while ANSWER's "apology" amounts to the following:
I'm just glad that Joe the Plumber is on the job giving the MSM hell over in Israel about their bias. Lord knows, somebody needs to.
So, Prince Harry is forced to apologize for his remarks while ANSWER's "apology" amounts to the following:
"She does not represent the opinions of the vast majority of people who were there," said Emmanuel Lopez, who helped plan the event, one of many sponsored nationwide on Dec. 30 by the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism ) Coalition.
Lopez, a state coordinator for ANSWER, admitted there is a problem with anti-Semitism within his organization's ranks. But then he went on to call the supporters of Israel across the street "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists.
"Zionism in general is a barbaric, racist movement that really is the cause of the situation in the entire Middle East," Lopez said.
I'm just glad that Joe the Plumber is on the job giving the MSM hell over in Israel about their bias. Lord knows, somebody needs to.
Why can't a lumberjack be happy?
I was reading CNBC this morning and they had a slideshow where they ranked the best and worst jobs in America. The best job? A mathematician. The worst? A lumberjack. You can see how your job stacks up here.
I read up on the methodology used to determine how jobs rank and it seemed that jobs requiring physical energy were determined to be more negative. That is, the more energy required the more likely the job was to be in the "worst" category. This methodology seems flawed to me. What if moving around is something you love. Some people would die in some of the less active jobs mentioned as "best" jobs. I think whether your job is the best or worst depends on how you perceive and feel about the work you are doing. I understand that some of the jobs described as "worst" are dangerous, but does that always mean that the person doing them is unhappy? What if they felt miserable as an accountant or statistician?
It seems to me that people would be better off choosing a job based on their strengths-- even if those strengths happen to be in one America's worst jobs. A book like What Color Is Your Parachute? 2009: A Practical Manual for Job-Hunters and Career-Changers
would be a more helpful way of deciding on a career than ditching a job choice because CNBC or some study group called it "the worst job in America."
I read up on the methodology used to determine how jobs rank and it seemed that jobs requiring physical energy were determined to be more negative. That is, the more energy required the more likely the job was to be in the "worst" category. This methodology seems flawed to me. What if moving around is something you love. Some people would die in some of the less active jobs mentioned as "best" jobs. I think whether your job is the best or worst depends on how you perceive and feel about the work you are doing. I understand that some of the jobs described as "worst" are dangerous, but does that always mean that the person doing them is unhappy? What if they felt miserable as an accountant or statistician?
It seems to me that people would be better off choosing a job based on their strengths-- even if those strengths happen to be in one America's worst jobs. A book like What Color Is Your Parachute? 2009: A Practical Manual for Job-Hunters and Career-Changers
would be a more helpful way of deciding on a career than ditching a job choice because CNBC or some study group called it "the worst job in America."
From fiction to fact in 52 years (via Should schools pick applicants based on their adherence to "social justice"?
I received an alumni newsletter from the University of Tennessee and read up on some of the changes going on in the Psychology Department. One segment that caught my eye stated "New emphasis on social justice training." The website is here.
"Oh lord," I thought, as I read about the "buzz" in the faculty discussions and the agreement among each member that "we should add a new component to our training model." It seems that this new training model will be a two-semester course sequence of "social justice practica" which will teach students to conduct social justice research, and to gain skills in consultation, program development, and intervening at a systemic level to bring about social change.
The most troubling part of this little exercise was yet to come, however. It seems the psychology program has received double the number of applications for the doctoral program in Counseling in 2008 as they received in 2007 and the newsletter went on to mention that the doctoral students in 2008 were selected, in part, for their interest in developing social justice advocacy skills [emphasis mine].
My guess is that social justice is just another buzzword for adherence to liberal and left-leaning dogma. How many people will they turn away due to their politics? No one will ever really know.
I wonder what would happen if clinical and counseling doctoral programs across the country announced that applicants would be chosen for their "interest in liberty and free market ideas?" Should these programs really be choosing candidates based on their politics, because ultimately, that's what they are doing. As much as the Counseling psych website advocates that they are proud of the "diversity of their student body," I wonder how much diversity of political thought they allow?
"Oh lord," I thought, as I read about the "buzz" in the faculty discussions and the agreement among each member that "we should add a new component to our training model." It seems that this new training model will be a two-semester course sequence of "social justice practica" which will teach students to conduct social justice research, and to gain skills in consultation, program development, and intervening at a systemic level to bring about social change.
The most troubling part of this little exercise was yet to come, however. It seems the psychology program has received double the number of applications for the doctoral program in Counseling in 2008 as they received in 2007 and the newsletter went on to mention that the doctoral students in 2008 were selected, in part, for their interest in developing social justice advocacy skills [emphasis mine].
My guess is that social justice is just another buzzword for adherence to liberal and left-leaning dogma. How many people will they turn away due to their politics? No one will ever really know.
I wonder what would happen if clinical and counseling doctoral programs across the country announced that applicants would be chosen for their "interest in liberty and free market ideas?" Should these programs really be choosing candidates based on their politics, because ultimately, that's what they are doing. As much as the Counseling psych website advocates that they are proud of the "diversity of their student body," I wonder how much diversity of political thought they allow?
Ask Dr. Helen: Men who give too much (including internal organs)
My PJM column is up:
Read the rest here.
Giving your wife an expensive gift � even a kidney � to save your marriage will never work.
Read the rest here.
In a crisis, innovate
Recently, an executive � an ex-student � told me about his company. The company has a handful of competitors (it is a local business) highly similar to itself, and they�re all losing money in the current economic climate. Now one competitor � the worst-performing of the lot � has started to accept assignments for a fee below its cost price, just enough to cover its variable costs and at least earn back a tiny bit of its fixed costs. My ex-student asked me, �What can we do?�
The answer isn�t easy. But it is of course a rather typical situation to be in. It happens in most industries in trouble; some bloody competitor � often the lousiest one of all � starts to sell below cost price, out of pure desperation. Actually, my ex-student�s company responded in a way that is just as typical: they said, �But their product is inferior; we deliver quality, and customers will always want to pay for that� (and stuck to their comparatively high price). But customers didn�t. And they seldom do. Even if there is a minor quality difference � and it�s usually just minor; at least in the eyes of the customer � if the price difference is large enough, you�ll lose a lot of clients; more than you can afford.
So what can you do? What else can you do than lower your prices too, tighten your belt, hold your breath, and hope the crisis blows over before you bankrupt yourself? Because that�s what companies usually do.
I�d say the phenomenon is rather common, so the solution can�t be.
It reminded me of the English newspaper business some years ago. All quality newspapers were in trouble; stuff had started to move on-line big time, free newspapers such as the Metro had flooded the market and, on top of that, the general trend was that people simply read less. The four main players in London � The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent � were all in decline but The Independent was the one widely expected to fall the first. The others had deep pockets due to rich owners and, due to a price war several years earlier, which had hit The Independent hardest, it was basically broke.
Now, The Independent could have done what most companies in such a situation do: moan about it, cut some more costs (or whatever is left of it) and attempt to prolong an inevitable death. But it didn�t. It took a plunge. It launched a small-sized version of its newspaper; the denounced �tabloid� format. All newspapers had been talking about it for a long time, but everyone had dismissed it as too risky (customers won�t like it), phoney or plain cheap. But The Independent launched it, and it worked (customers loved it). They survived.
Was it a coincidence that out of the four main players it was The Independent that launched the thing? Of course not. It was The Independent who basically had nothing to lose; it would have been the first one to go under had the industry continued as is. But it chose to not just prolong its demise: it took a plunge, and recovered.
The same happened to the famous Southwest Airlines. In its early days, when it was in deep trouble, it had to sell one of its four planes. Yet, it didn�t try to just save some more costs and continue with 75 percent of its operations, prolonging an inevitable decline; it took a plunge. It said �we�re going to run 100 percent of our operations but with just three planes!� and, in the process, invented the widely successful low-cost airline model, having scrapped all frills and complications, combined with the emergence of a must-succeed culture.
So, when you�re down: innovate. Don�t just wait for the inevitable to happen; prolonging your decline out of some false hope that you�ll weather the storm. Storms kill; get out of it while you can.
The answer isn�t easy. But it is of course a rather typical situation to be in. It happens in most industries in trouble; some bloody competitor � often the lousiest one of all � starts to sell below cost price, out of pure desperation. Actually, my ex-student�s company responded in a way that is just as typical: they said, �But their product is inferior; we deliver quality, and customers will always want to pay for that� (and stuck to their comparatively high price). But customers didn�t. And they seldom do. Even if there is a minor quality difference � and it�s usually just minor; at least in the eyes of the customer � if the price difference is large enough, you�ll lose a lot of clients; more than you can afford.
So what can you do? What else can you do than lower your prices too, tighten your belt, hold your breath, and hope the crisis blows over before you bankrupt yourself? Because that�s what companies usually do.
I�d say the phenomenon is rather common, so the solution can�t be.
It reminded me of the English newspaper business some years ago. All quality newspapers were in trouble; stuff had started to move on-line big time, free newspapers such as the Metro had flooded the market and, on top of that, the general trend was that people simply read less. The four main players in London � The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent � were all in decline but The Independent was the one widely expected to fall the first. The others had deep pockets due to rich owners and, due to a price war several years earlier, which had hit The Independent hardest, it was basically broke.
Now, The Independent could have done what most companies in such a situation do: moan about it, cut some more costs (or whatever is left of it) and attempt to prolong an inevitable death. But it didn�t. It took a plunge. It launched a small-sized version of its newspaper; the denounced �tabloid� format. All newspapers had been talking about it for a long time, but everyone had dismissed it as too risky (customers won�t like it), phoney or plain cheap. But The Independent launched it, and it worked (customers loved it). They survived.
Was it a coincidence that out of the four main players it was The Independent that launched the thing? Of course not. It was The Independent who basically had nothing to lose; it would have been the first one to go under had the industry continued as is. But it chose to not just prolong its demise: it took a plunge, and recovered.
The same happened to the famous Southwest Airlines. In its early days, when it was in deep trouble, it had to sell one of its four planes. Yet, it didn�t try to just save some more costs and continue with 75 percent of its operations, prolonging an inevitable decline; it took a plunge. It said �we�re going to run 100 percent of our operations but with just three planes!� and, in the process, invented the widely successful low-cost airline model, having scrapped all frills and complications, combined with the emergence of a must-succeed culture.
So, when you�re down: innovate. Don�t just wait for the inevitable to happen; prolonging your decline out of some false hope that you�ll weather the storm. Storms kill; get out of it while you can.
Is right-leaning policy easier to pass with a Democratic President?
This article in the New York Times entitled, "Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending" caught my attention this morning:
Of course, the details of how Obama will change these entitlements is not clear, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they will be reasonable. Is it just me or is Obama taking a very moderate and almost right-leaning approach to the economy in some ways?
If so, I think it's easier for a Democrat to do this. Republicans are afraid of being seen as "mean" and hurting the old and poor and tend to take on Democratic policies. Obama, on the other hand, may have more freedom to change these entitlement programs just as Clinton did with welfare reform. The media is on their side and though it may grumble, will not denigrate them the way they would a Republican. This more favorable treatment, in turn, will help the electorate swallow a bitter pill more readily than they would if they were being told they were being screwed by "the man." Maybe the only way to get right-leaning policies through is to elect a Democrat.
President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be �a central part� of his administration�s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.....
Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees.
Of course, the details of how Obama will change these entitlements is not clear, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they will be reasonable. Is it just me or is Obama taking a very moderate and almost right-leaning approach to the economy in some ways?
If so, I think it's easier for a Democrat to do this. Republicans are afraid of being seen as "mean" and hurting the old and poor and tend to take on Democratic policies. Obama, on the other hand, may have more freedom to change these entitlement programs just as Clinton did with welfare reform. The media is on their side and though it may grumble, will not denigrate them the way they would a Republican. This more favorable treatment, in turn, will help the electorate swallow a bitter pill more readily than they would if they were being told they were being screwed by "the man." Maybe the only way to get right-leaning policies through is to elect a Democrat.
Score one for couples counseling
Blogger Stuart Schneiderman has a post entitled, "Does couples counseling work?" He mentions an article in Cosmo describing the advice given to split couple Madonna and Guy Ritchie:
Marriage therapy isn't always about staying together, sometimes it can help a lucky person like Guy realize that he is better off apart.
Thanks to their counselor Madonna and Guy posted "a list of relationship guidelines" on the walls of their New York apartment. Of course, if you have children who can read or friends coming in and out, this is not a great idea.
Guy was instructed to "enrich his wife's spiritual and emotional well-being," and to study the Kabbalah with her. And both parties were told: "not to use sex as a stick to beat one another."
For my part I cannot even venture to guess whose stick was being used to beat on whom.
Be that as it may, the tenor of the advice tells me one thing: that Madonna was paying for it. I hate to attribute even unconscious venal motives to anyone, no less a professional, but the counselor's advice is clearly one-sided....
The counselor told Ritchie to serve his wife, to attend to her spiritual and emotional needs, and to worship with her at the same altar.
Perhaps that was just what he needed to see clearly what he had gotten involved in. Couples counseling helped Guy Ritchie to see the writing on the wall, and he decided to cut his losses. Score one for couples counseling.
Marriage therapy isn't always about staying together, sometimes it can help a lucky person like Guy realize that he is better off apart.
The Carnival of Homeschooling is up at the Why HomeSchool blog. My post on the double standard at school between boys and girls after sex in the stairwell is there in the section "Why people homeschool."
Should you throw a tantrum because you have to go to work?
Okay, this article (via Drudge) has to be the silliest things I've read this year (the year has just begun, I wonder what other nonsense is awaiting us). Anyway, the article says that if you feel stressed today about going back to work after the holidays, just throw a tantrum:
I love the causes of work stress that a poll in the article found:
So, in response to these petty annoyances, one is to get angry and shout (luckily, the article does report doing so in a quiet place)? I hardly think this is sound psychological advice. Some of the commenters appear much more psychologically astute than the so-called expert Big Brother psychologist who (I think) incorrectly advocates a tantrum:
What is called for if one is upset at work might be assertiveness, not necessarily aggression. How about talking to the loud person on the phone and asking them to be a little less loud. Taking calm, deep breaths is relaxing and helpful--so is counting to ten. Taking a walk or clearing your mind is also good.
I don't understand encouraging people to engage in tantrums, it sounds like a recipe for increasing one's anger and frustration. It teaches nothing about self-control or problem solving and does not seem at all helpful. Or try reading a self-help book like Albert Ellis's How To Control Your Anger Before It Controls You
before going into work, it just might have some better suggestions than the Big Brother psychologist noted in the article.
What do you do if stressed at work?
The end of the holidays, cold weather and economic gloom will make today one of the most stressful days of the year for returning to work.
But experts have come up with an unlikely remedy - throwing a tantrum.
'Releasing tension through shouting and screaming is a really beneficial way to expel the negative energies caused by stress,' said body language expert Judi James, the Big Brother psychologist.
I love the causes of work stress that a poll in the article found:
The advice comes as a survey reveals that people are most likely to be irritated by colleagues eating noisily (28 per cent), sniffing (26 per cent), talking too loudly on the phone (21 per cent) and even singing (5 per cent).
So, in response to these petty annoyances, one is to get angry and shout (luckily, the article does report doing so in a quiet place)? I hardly think this is sound psychological advice. Some of the commenters appear much more psychologically astute than the so-called expert Big Brother psychologist who (I think) incorrectly advocates a tantrum:
Oh how misunderstood this is. If anyone knew about human behaviour they would know that trying to vent stress or anger through shouting, screaming, throwing a tantrum or even using a punch bag will only result in you becoming more stressed and angry. If this was the case, Buddhists would be constantly shouting and punching walls. No, they relax and take deep breaths.
These so called experts need to get a grip on reality. Throwing tantrums & behaving badly is so 2008, get out & get some control over your life.
Screaming & shouting & behaving badly might de-stress you but it would not help those around you.
As for a tantrum they are for toddlers, which most of the adult population seem to behave like sometimes.
What is called for if one is upset at work might be assertiveness, not necessarily aggression. How about talking to the loud person on the phone and asking them to be a little less loud. Taking calm, deep breaths is relaxing and helpful--so is counting to ten. Taking a walk or clearing your mind is also good.
I don't understand encouraging people to engage in tantrums, it sounds like a recipe for increasing one's anger and frustration. It teaches nothing about self-control or problem solving and does not seem at all helpful. Or try reading a self-help book like Albert Ellis's How To Control Your Anger Before It Controls You
before going into work, it just might have some better suggestions than the Big Brother psychologist noted in the article. What do you do if stressed at work?
Library use booming
It seems that because of the economy, library use is booming (via Newsalert):
So, I wonder if book sales are down at Borders or Barnes & Noble as a result? I read recently that Amazon sales are up, but then, they sell much more than books.
In the fast-paced, instant message, Internet era, public libraries have often struggled for attention from patrons. But with the economy sputtering, unemployment rising, and no relief in sight, Massachusetts libraries, long the victim of budget cuts, are busier than ever before, said Robert Maier, director of the state Board of Library Commissioners.
Attendance is surging. Check-out rates are soaring. At some libraries, circulation - the number of items checked out in a given month - is up as much as 33 percent since last summer. And for the unemployed, libraries have become something like an office, with computers, Internet access, and even classes that teach how to write a r??sum?? and peddle it online. In a tough time, it seems, people are returning to a place where whispering trumps shouting and no credit card is necessary. At the library, just about everything is free.....
And without the library, Kathleen Foster, a mother of two, would still be spending a lot of money on books.
"In the past, I would take the girls to Borders, or Barnes & Noble, and let them pick out a book," said Foster one day last week, walking the aisles of the Thomas Crane Public Library in Quincy with her daughters, Abigail, 8, and Clare, 6. "I just don't do that now. We come here instead."
So, I wonder if book sales are down at Borders or Barnes & Noble as a result? I read recently that Amazon sales are up, but then, they sell much more than books.
Operation Market Garden
My father was a young boy during World War II. He grew up in a small village in the Netherlands just south of the river Maas, which, parallel to two arms of the river Rhine, flows from East to West, cutting the country in the half. In 1944, while the Allied Forces were moving north, approaching the Netherlands from Belgium after having landed in Normandy, the barn behind his home served as a make-shift German army hospital, while their commanders took up headquarters in the family�s living room. When the German soldiers left, the barn filled up with wounded allied soldiers instead, and the German commanders at his dinner table were replaced with their english speaking counterparts.
He never told me about what he saw in the barn. He did recall with fondness the sweets and cigarettes that the soldiers used to give him (he was 10 years old) � Germans and Americans alike.
Anyway, he used to tell me about the operations that the allied forces conducted to get across the big rivers, trying to advance into the North of the Netherlands. One of them was Operation Market Garden. Operation Market Garden was a huge operation � involving some 35,000 troops � in which soldiers, weaponry, vehicles and equipment were dropped near the bridges crossing the three rivers, to occupy and hold them while the Allied forces advanced through the south of the Netherlands, preventing the German troops from blowing them up.
Years later, I saw the (apparently very accurate) film �A Bridge too Far�, with the likes of Dirk Bogarde, James Caan, Michael Caine, Robert Redford, Sean Connery, Anthony Hopkins, and so on; clearly, a 1970s star cast.
I had become a professional student of organisations by then, having accepted a position as an assistant professor of strategy at the London Business School. It was then that I was struck by how similar the processes are that lead up to spectacular business failures to the processes that made Operation Market Garden a disaster.
Because Operation Market Garden was a huge failure. It became one of the biggest massacres of the whole war; for instance, more people died in Operation Market Garden than on D-day itself. The Allied Forces did not manage to hold the third bridge at Arnhem, and it took another 8 months before the north of the Netherlands was liberated; during the preceding winter, thousands of people, cut off from the agricultural lands of the south, perished in a famine known as �the hungerwinter�.
Yet, the commanders in charge of the operation had received many early warning signs that it was going to be a challenge; perhaps a bridge too far. The Dutch resistance had sent coded messages that that at least one German tank division was located unexpectedly close to the Allied Forces� drop zone (their warnings were ignored); english spy plane pictures examining the drop zones had taken photographs of the tanks (the photographs were brushed aside), officers and a Polish general had expressed doubts about the preparations for the operation (their hesitations were dismissed), and soldiers questioned whether the radios, to be used for vital coordination and communication on the ground, would work (they didn�t).
So why did the general in charge of the operation (General Browning) ignore all these warning signs and proceed as is? Well, for the same reasons as why top executives go ahead with a big acquisition despite due diligence suggesting it�s a bad idea, and why companies go ahead with a planned product launch despite retailers and sales people warning the product isn�t ready yet: We call it �escalation of commitment�: There is a lot riding on the project, both in terms of what is at stake (the future of the company; the war) and in terms of the personal reputation of the individual in charge. Pulling the plug will make you look stupid and incompetent; succeeding will make you a hero. And you have made a very public commitment to seeing the project through, having championed it from the start. There is no way of stopping it now.
And when you plan an operation of this size � whether it is Operation Market Garden or a huge acquisition � you�re never going to be sure, and nothing is ever going to be perfect. When you pull the plug each time something is amiss, you�re never going to achieve anything; you need a high level of commitment and persistence in the presence of setback.
However, at some point, your commitment may escalate: Your persistence is no longer brave but foolish, as the warning signs are too ubiquitous. The trick is knowing when to pull the plug � but unfortunately it�s not like you can put that in a spreadsheet, hit enter and see the answer; it�s a judgement call.
And being too late to make this call � not realising it is has become too much � is, I am afraid, only human. It is difficult to bite the bullet and pull the plug. Yet the consequences of being human can be disastrous, and truly a bridge too far.
He never told me about what he saw in the barn. He did recall with fondness the sweets and cigarettes that the soldiers used to give him (he was 10 years old) � Germans and Americans alike.
Anyway, he used to tell me about the operations that the allied forces conducted to get across the big rivers, trying to advance into the North of the Netherlands. One of them was Operation Market Garden. Operation Market Garden was a huge operation � involving some 35,000 troops � in which soldiers, weaponry, vehicles and equipment were dropped near the bridges crossing the three rivers, to occupy and hold them while the Allied forces advanced through the south of the Netherlands, preventing the German troops from blowing them up.
Years later, I saw the (apparently very accurate) film �A Bridge too Far�, with the likes of Dirk Bogarde, James Caan, Michael Caine, Robert Redford, Sean Connery, Anthony Hopkins, and so on; clearly, a 1970s star cast.
I had become a professional student of organisations by then, having accepted a position as an assistant professor of strategy at the London Business School. It was then that I was struck by how similar the processes are that lead up to spectacular business failures to the processes that made Operation Market Garden a disaster.
Because Operation Market Garden was a huge failure. It became one of the biggest massacres of the whole war; for instance, more people died in Operation Market Garden than on D-day itself. The Allied Forces did not manage to hold the third bridge at Arnhem, and it took another 8 months before the north of the Netherlands was liberated; during the preceding winter, thousands of people, cut off from the agricultural lands of the south, perished in a famine known as �the hungerwinter�.
Yet, the commanders in charge of the operation had received many early warning signs that it was going to be a challenge; perhaps a bridge too far. The Dutch resistance had sent coded messages that that at least one German tank division was located unexpectedly close to the Allied Forces� drop zone (their warnings were ignored); english spy plane pictures examining the drop zones had taken photographs of the tanks (the photographs were brushed aside), officers and a Polish general had expressed doubts about the preparations for the operation (their hesitations were dismissed), and soldiers questioned whether the radios, to be used for vital coordination and communication on the ground, would work (they didn�t).
So why did the general in charge of the operation (General Browning) ignore all these warning signs and proceed as is? Well, for the same reasons as why top executives go ahead with a big acquisition despite due diligence suggesting it�s a bad idea, and why companies go ahead with a planned product launch despite retailers and sales people warning the product isn�t ready yet: We call it �escalation of commitment�: There is a lot riding on the project, both in terms of what is at stake (the future of the company; the war) and in terms of the personal reputation of the individual in charge. Pulling the plug will make you look stupid and incompetent; succeeding will make you a hero. And you have made a very public commitment to seeing the project through, having championed it from the start. There is no way of stopping it now.
And when you plan an operation of this size � whether it is Operation Market Garden or a huge acquisition � you�re never going to be sure, and nothing is ever going to be perfect. When you pull the plug each time something is amiss, you�re never going to achieve anything; you need a high level of commitment and persistence in the presence of setback.
However, at some point, your commitment may escalate: Your persistence is no longer brave but foolish, as the warning signs are too ubiquitous. The trick is knowing when to pull the plug � but unfortunately it�s not like you can put that in a spreadsheet, hit enter and see the answer; it�s a judgement call.
And being too late to make this call � not realising it is has become too much � is, I am afraid, only human. It is difficult to bite the bullet and pull the plug. Yet the consequences of being human can be disastrous, and truly a bridge too far.
77% of Americans blame the media for making the economic situation worse
It appears I'm not the only one who thinks the media is feeding the economic problems in this country; 77% of my fellow Americans feel this way according to a new poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation :
I wonder what the economic situation would look like without the media hype?
Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe that the U.S. media is making the economic situation worse by projecting fear into people's minds [emphasis mine].
The majority of those surveyed feel that the financial press, by focusing on and embellishing negative news, is damaging consumer confidence and damping investment, making a difficult situation much worse. The poll was conducted via telephone, December 4 - 7.
The US survey of 1000 adults was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation and is statistically representative of the total U.S. population. The survey question: "Do you think the financial press is making the economic crisis worse by projecting fear into people's minds?" While the overall response indicated that 77% of Americans answered YES, here are highlights of note: Household Incomes: $25k - $35k -- 79% answered YES $35k - $50k -- 88% answered YES $50k - $75k -- 76% answered YES $75k - more -- 78% answered YES Demographics: 85% of young adults (18-24 yrs old) answered YES 77% of males and females alike answered YES 65% of blacks answered YES
I wonder what the economic situation would look like without the media hype?
Political intolerance at the New School
I was dismayed to read about a protest at my Alma mater, The New School for Social Research. It seems that Bob Kerrey, the president, is not sufficiently lefty enough for the school:
It seems that the intolerant students have joined their professors in protest-- but rather than settle things peacefully, they chase, taunt and throw things at a crippled man:
I must say that I was not impressed with the political tolerance at the time I went to graduate school there and now, I am less so. I hope these cowardly students rot in hell.
Here is video of the students insulting Kerrey--honestly, they look and sound more laughable and silly then anything else:
Mr. Kerrey has clashed with some professors since the day of his appointment as the New School�s president, with complaints that he lacks a Ph.D. and that his politics �particularly his early support for the Iraq war � were too moderate for the unabashedly liberal campus.
It seems that the intolerant students have joined their professors in protest-- but rather than settle things peacefully, they chase, taunt and throw things at a crippled man:
A little after 11:30 p.m., Mr. Kerrey emerged from a university building on Fifth Avenue south of 14th Street to a sea of a few hundred protesters chanting for his resignation. As Mr. Kerrey walked down Fifth Avenue toward 12th Street, about 30 protesters began following him, some of them shouting insults.
As the crowd�s pace quickened, so did Mr. Kerrey�s. Then, Mr. Kerrey, who lost a part of his leg in Vietnam and wears a prosthesis, broke into a run. The protesters gave chase. Mr. Kerrey turned left on a cross street and ducked into a brownstone.
At some point in the confrontation, a protester threw a tomato at Mr. Kerrey.
I must say that I was not impressed with the political tolerance at the time I went to graduate school there and now, I am less so. I hope these cowardly students rot in hell.
Here is video of the students insulting Kerrey--honestly, they look and sound more laughable and silly then anything else:
Are economic woes as much perception as reality?
On CNBC and other stations I have watched lately, the news is typically that the economy in 2009 will begin to improve. This, after months prior to the election of harping on the horrible economic situation. Now, most Americans under 70 apparently think that 2008 was the worst year they have ever seen economically.
Yet, whenever I talk to people, they always tell me that they, themselves are doing fine. I realize this is anecdotal but it left me wondering if at least a portion of the economic doom and gloom is caused by perception, not reality. For example, in a "Wealth survey" conducted by CNBC on why people were spending less at the holidays--many of the reasons struck me as perception as opposed to current reality. Here are the findings:
Okay, the inflation argument doesn't hold up too well currently-- lots of prices have fallen, not risen, such as gas and home prices. The Consumer Price Index fell in November by 1.7% so that would mean that deflation may be the problem, not inflation. Yes, prices were up in the summer but they seem to have come down and deflation is the issue for the moment. In addition, a full 19% of people are spending less due to talk about the economy, no doubt coming from the media and 17% are spending less due to uncertainty about the future, again driven most likely by the negative media talk prior to, and after the election.
Note that only 15% are spending less because they are having trouble paying bills and only 1% due to lack of credit so the credit crisis doesn't seem to have much to do with it--despite all the talk about it.
Has the media produced a self-fulfilling prophecy by going so negative? I think that partly, yes. I see news shows now trying to talk up the turnaround in 2009 (maybe because the election is over?) but they have scared people to the point that they don't want to spend, even if things are looking up. Will this change? Maybe, but sometimes, fear and panic can cause the very situation the government is now trying to prevent. I hope people figure this out.
Yet, whenever I talk to people, they always tell me that they, themselves are doing fine. I realize this is anecdotal but it left me wondering if at least a portion of the economic doom and gloom is caused by perception, not reality. For example, in a "Wealth survey" conducted by CNBC on why people were spending less at the holidays--many of the reasons struck me as perception as opposed to current reality. Here are the findings:
Very few consumers cite lack of access to credit as a reason for why they plan to spend less this holiday season:
Will spend less due to inflation: 26%
Will spend less to save more: 20%
Will spend less due all the talk about the economy: 19%
Will spend less due to uncertainty about the future: 17%
Will spend less due to loss / risk of loss of jobs: 16%
Will spend less due to having trouble paying current bills: 15%
Will spend less due to lack of access to credit: 1%
Okay, the inflation argument doesn't hold up too well currently-- lots of prices have fallen, not risen, such as gas and home prices. The Consumer Price Index fell in November by 1.7% so that would mean that deflation may be the problem, not inflation. Yes, prices were up in the summer but they seem to have come down and deflation is the issue for the moment. In addition, a full 19% of people are spending less due to talk about the economy, no doubt coming from the media and 17% are spending less due to uncertainty about the future, again driven most likely by the negative media talk prior to, and after the election.
Note that only 15% are spending less because they are having trouble paying bills and only 1% due to lack of credit so the credit crisis doesn't seem to have much to do with it--despite all the talk about it.
Has the media produced a self-fulfilling prophecy by going so negative? I think that partly, yes. I see news shows now trying to talk up the turnaround in 2009 (maybe because the election is over?) but they have scared people to the point that they don't want to spend, even if things are looking up. Will this change? Maybe, but sometimes, fear and panic can cause the very situation the government is now trying to prevent. I hope people figure this out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)