Thyme Machine

When a friend that you know well is very disappointed with something, anything, that you did in the past, here are your options…

1. Do nothing, say nothing. It’ll either blow over, or your friend will.

2. Apologise profusely, even if there is no need to. This approach runs the risk of repeat events based upon your gullibility.

3. Use facetiousness to pointlessly make your point. You know, ‘I’ve bought a time machine to go back and fix things’. Bound to never work.

4. Sit down with the pig in an attempt to teach it to think. You won’t be thanked and it won’t work.

5. Send in a village elder as a proxy, to fix things. This is the only strategy that has any merit.

Nor could I make this up…

“I am emailing you because I need to ensure you receive the news that reluctantly we have decided to cancel our UN Day Ceremony and associated activities tomorrow.  We have felt compelled to do this given the Bureau of Meteorology predictions of heavy rain and high winds.  We have no capacity for our students to prepare for the National Dress and Flag Parades under cover in our School Hall and they would therefore be open to the weather in moving to and from the Hall.  We also have our food stalls and a lot of activities in the open under marquees which we believe would not be safe in high winds.  Further, several of our guest performers and event presenters have cancelled in response to the predicted bad weather.

This is such a special day that I am sure our students will be very disappointed.  I can assure you that staff are equally sad.  An enormous amount of preparatory work has been carried out by staff, students and parents, particularly with regard to the food stall delights and it is so regrettable that we will not all be able to enjoy the results of that work.

As UN Day is so special to our school community, we will try to include a slightly reduced event in our calendar in term 3.  We would not be able to include the food stalls again but we could have an Opening Ceremony with Flag and National Costume Parades.  It is should still be possible to have a concert as well.  Further details will be provided next term when we have a chance to liaise with our wonderful EALD Department whose members coordinate our UN Day celebrations.

As I said to students, we hope that the serious weather conditions anticipated for tomorrow do not eventuate and that our decision to cancel UN Day was a mistake.  However, in the event that the predictions translate into reality, please take care and I hope that you remain safe and secure as the weather front passes over.”

download

Good Science

Nothing to add here…

“If you were to tally up all the food eaten by the world’s entire spider population in a single year, how much would it be?

Martin Nyffeler and Klaus Birkhofer published their estimate in the journal the Science of Nature this month, and the number they arrived at is frankly shocking.

The world’s spiders consume between 400 and 800 million tonnes of prey in any given year. That means that spiders eat at least as much meat as all 7 billion humans on the planet combined, who the authors note consume about 400 million tonnes of meat and fish each year.

Or, for a slightly more disturbing comparison, the total biomass of all adult humans on earth is estimated to be 287 million tonnes. Even if you tack on another 70 million or so tonnes to account for the weight of kids, it’s still not equal to the total amount of food eaten by spiders in a given year, exceeding the total weight of humanity.”

18C or cyclo-vilification

I recall a day, about a year ago, in Brisbane where I was offended, insulted and intimidated, not once, but thrice!

Just for the record, I can’t be humiliated because I don’t care that much what other people think of me.

All three incidents occurred whilst pedaling my bike. 

Incident one was par for the course. A tradie blew his horn at me and then yelled some abuse at me as he accelerated past me. 

He was attempting to insult and intimidate me, ostensibly to make me re-think my inconvenient (to him) mode of transport. 

Of course he was really just indulging in his own personal addiction, reveling in the anger at the recognition of his own individuality.

My response? I smiled at him, knowing that would him make even crazier. My sport, his loss.

The second incident was far more interesting. Cruising along the bike path next to the river I was passed by a bunch of pot-bellied corporate types, dressed to the nines in le Tour Lycra.

The last of the pelaton, as he passed me, screeched ‘bloody fixie’. To which the pelaton snickered.

Factually incorrect, by the way, not even close to a fixie. My bike is a free wheeler and has a hidden second overdrive gear in the rear hub, activated by a kick back mechanism.

This was an attempt at offence and insult. I responded by engaging said second gear and riding straight past them. That is, I responded with humiliation.

The third incident was by far the best. At a quiet cross roads with no cars in sight I decided to cruise through a red light rather than wait for no man.

Another commuting cyclist, that I was completely unaware of, decided to catch up with me in order to share his mania.

‘You’re the type of fuckwit that gives us cyclists a bad name’ he shouted at me from behind.

In his stupidity this one was attempting to offend, insult and intimidate, all at once. The trifecta!

It goes without saying that I responded with complete intimidation, to the point that he become worried for his personal safety.

Which was my point. Fools need to be concerned with their own safety rather than the salving of their need to share their personality disorders. 

I like to think he might have learned a lesson. Probably not.

Section 18C makes it unlawful to publicly offend, insult, intimidate or humiliate anyone on the basis of their race, colour, or national or ethnic background.

Note, there’s no mention of their choice of transport. Clearly an omission.

Being unlawful, this means that the party that is offended, insulted, intimidated or humiliated, can take the other party to court in a civil action.

Which is an expensive and difficult process that can lead to even further humiliation. Not for the feint hearted.

There needs to be an ‘eye for eye clause’ inserted into section 18c. That is, it is not unlawful to respond to attempts at ‘offence, insult, intimidation or humiliation’ with the same.

One Winged Dove

There are some personality types that seem to be unable to be content.

These people aren’t mad in the DSM sense; they aren’t a danger to society or themselves.

But they suffer just for being themselves.

I suspect there’s an option to diagnose and treat them with modern psychiatry, as if they were over the DSM line 

CBT and drugs. It’s worth a shot.

G.

My guess. 

She’s got a character trait anyway. High maintenance and high volume. Probably a borderline personality disorder.

She feels less loved than Jamie. And now there’s a new sibling coming along. She could slip even further down the totem pole.

Mum tries to love her. Dad just tolerates her and tells her to get in line, or else.

The step parents? Well I do my best to be nice to her and not be harsh or tough, within reason. My sanity is more important. 

Interestingly, she doesn’t like me. Probably because I let her know that her style doesn’t work with me. It disempowers her.

The other one? Ella. I’ve never met her but I’m guessing that she’s somewhat less tolerant than I.
The Little Girl, she’s seeking love and attention and making it worse at the same time. 

She’s already, at the age of seven, aware of the fact that she’s in the grip of an addiction.

She knows that her attention seeking behaviour, that which she can’t control, is making her unliked.

She needs help. Proper help. 

Love

Related to my last blog is the issue of love.

I now have a woman that seems to love me completely.

First time ever.

How to trust this love? Which must be a pre-requisite for reciprocating without fear.

The answer is simple. Just do it!

What’s the worst thing that could happen?

Alone, unloved, shamed … Trailer Park.

You’d be there anyway, if you weren’t here. It’s your character, as we can see.

Make what you can of this. Time is short. This is it. Don’t waste your chance.

Enlightenment is the reward.

Cherish this opportunity. Treat it carefully, far more carefully than you have done up until now. 

Fear not it’s loss, but do realise that this opportunity is unlikely to appear again.

The equation will solve itself in your favour if you do these things.

Shakespeare said “This above all: to thine ownself be true. And it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man”

I say “This above all: to thine destiny be true. And it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to yourself or any man”

Denial of Fear

In the enneagram system there are 9 personality types which match pretty much anyone you know. A useful shortcut.

The personality types are supposedly formed when we are infants, when we become aware of our individuality.

There are three types of responses to this early awareness of individuality; shame, fear and anger.

The are three responses to these; denial, change and justification.

Hence the nine enneagram types.

The enneagram people say that we aren’t trapped by our types. That we can become enlightened and move above our types.

No one knows anyone that has done this though.

My own type is a 5.The Intense, Cerebral Type: Perceptive, Innovative, Secretive, and Isolated.

I have a wing of a type 4.

Here I am – http://structuralenneagram.com/?page_id=177

Five-wing-Fours are continually creating new and original works in order to make something of themselves and distinguish themselves from others.

They want to be loved but think they have to prove themselves worthy of love; to that end, they can be seductive and anxious to please.

My personality arose from the fear of being alone. I reacted with denial. My wing says I also had a shame of being me, and I reacted with change, away from my character.

The key question is how to move on from this? How to become enlightened?

The first step is to accept the contents of this blog and then be aware of how I am trapped in my feelings, behaviour and thoughts by this formative template.

Like any addiction, I’ve revelled in it until the point that I am nauseous. Time to move on.

My mantra for any change; be the change that you want to see in yourself.
Step one; revel in your addiction.

Step two; recognise the resulting boredom with yourself, and become nauseous

Step three; observe your repetitive behaviours.

Step four; use that observation to correct your behaviours in real time. Learn new habits.

Step five; eventually these habits become you.

The new habits, in no particular order.

In my case:

1. Try to become less detached from my environment

2. Fear not rejection by others

3. Do not try to prove my worth with my intellect and creativity

4. Don’t get bogged down in negative emotions

5. Don’t be provocative.

6. Have not contempt, even in private

7. Lay off seductiveness and be not eager to please

8. Trust in the love of someone(s)

9. Practice analytical thinking and procedural planning

10. De-emphasise irony, surrealism, pessimism, and nihilism. 

11. Focus on the agendas of others rather than my own.

12. Seek company even when you are exhausted by company

13. Say this mantra. “There is nothing to fear, soon it will be over. Enjoy what time you have left. Don’t waste it by re-living that infant fear of being alone. You aren’t.”

Lane Merging

I do believe that I’ve found proof that immigration leads to a merging of cultures and not assimilation of the incoming into the general morass.

Driving. Cars. Roads. You know…

When I was young the general level of technical driving skills in Australia was just that much higher.

The speed limit was seen as a guideline and no one drove at it or under it.

Rain did not weary them, nor slow them down.

Lane changing did not come with the risk of coronaries.

In fact lane changing always occurred from the lane closest to the turn and at speed, not from the middle of the road at near zero velocity.

Wing mirrors were used prior to pulling out from the parked position.

Reverse-parking was a one-handed art-form, and not a cause for the prescription of Valium.

Noisy and distracting kids in the backseat were slapped into submission.

Cars drove straight in lanes and didn’t wander about seeking external guidance.

Acceleration and braking was smooth. Jerking was reserved for home.

Awareness of others on the road wasn’t limited to the view through the windscreen.

Driving with no hands while eating a hamburger and changing gears was unnoticeable to anyone outside of the car.

Turning right at busy traffic lights meant sitting out on the middle, waiting for the lights to change for a quick turn. Now they stay behind at the line; probably still there since last Christmas.

Cyclists had no rights.

Being tooted was a social faux pas, avoided at all costs.

Social norms meant that we worried about those behind us getting through the red lights, so we made sure all was done to make this possible.

Merging was a non issue.

Despite the fact that cars were agricultural, brakes that faded, all manuals, no power steering, only a vague connection between cornering and what was happening at the steering wheel, the rate of accidents was much lower. If you take alcohol out of the equation.

Overtaking was a sport.

It wasn’t ok to just stop in the middle of the road to ponder your next move, if confounded by place, time or whatever the fuck else runs through their minds.

Taxi drivers were the best on the road.

The cops just fined those that were a genuine danger to themselves and others.

Just about everyone could drive on dirt with no noticeable change in velocity. Now it requires a 4WD guided at 10kph.

Look what we have now. It’s a disaster that barely moves. I know this because I discovered some time back that cycling is a far more efficient means of transport. This can’t be explained away just by congestion, unless you are completely deluded.

I track the decline and fall of driving skills to the influence of immigrants from countries where driving is rare. They learn to drive at mature age and, thus, their level of skill is what it is.

There’s enough of them to influence the rest. It’s been a slow decline. We are frogs that have been well and truly boiled, skinned and stewed into a ragout of indeterminate origins. But it tastes bloody awful.

Thus you see, we have a merger of cultures, not assimilation. In the case of driving, we lost out. But in almost every other aspect, we gained by assimilation.

Before cars we had horses. Same, same.

Joseph Furphy in “Such is Life” made the same point, that a lifelong adherence to the skills is required to make the grade.

“For it should be known that the perfect rider ‘nascitur, non fit’, to begin with; that his training must begin in early boyhood, and be followed up sans intermission; that his system of horse-breaking must be the Young–Australian, which is, beyond doubt, the most trying in the world.”

And then after being suckered into breaking a colt.

“The chap draws the handkerchief from the colt’s eyes, and walks backward. The colt catches sight of your left foot, and skips three yards to the right. In doing so, he catches sight of the other foot, and skips to the left. Then everything disappears from in front of the saddle — the wicked ears, now laid level backward — the black, tangled mane — the shining neck with the sweeping curve of a circular saw — the clean, oblique shoulders — they have all disappeared, and there is nothing in front of the saddle but a precipice. There is something underneath it, though.”

“And yet you’ve been riding all manner of horses, on and off (mark the significance of that expression) since you were a mere kiddie. However, you have stuck to him for a good solid sixty seconds; now, one of your knees has slipped over the pad, and your stirrup is swinging loose. Good night, sweet prince.”

Happy High Herbs

Proposition(s): “do you think that being a high achiever makes you happy? If not, why do you do it?”

I see ‘happiness’ as a social emotion, one shared with others. Also it is transient, here one minute and then gone. It is not a state of being.

So I would say that happiness can’t be brought about by directly by achievements, but contentment may (more on this later).

I believe that there are three reasons why people seek high achievements. Either they succumb to direct pressure from parents, or they care greatly what other people, known to them or otherwise, think of them, or they worry that they may miss out on something (they know not what) – a mix of envy and fear.

They may fail to achieve highly, or they may get there and stop, or they can set new agendas for even greater greatness and never stop.

Dealing with the last mob first; they aren’t ever content because contentment would ruin their drive. Usually, any displays of happiness are fake.

The ones that sit back and rest, they get to learn the lessons of life, and may move on from their early life emotional driving forces. They may even become wise. These are the lucky ones. Once having achieved some goal these people can often maintain their position with very little effort, especially if they aren’t focused on the next great leap of achievement. I call this cruise control, and it’s very relaxing.

If someone has set their sights on high achievements, and failed, this may block one from being happy from time to time, through a general depression of mood. But note all the double negatives in there carefully. They can also just put it all down to learning and move on.

Care Factor

The woman next to me on this flight is, firstly, elderly. My guess is that she’s had six or seven kids, maybe nine even, and looks ten years older than she is.

Mottled skin. Dark red patches everywhere. Short grey bowling club hair, intermittently interspersed with brown. White pants. A curtain fabric blouse, home made.

She’s quite over-weight. Incursions left and right into the air space of innocent others. Me, being one. 

Her many rings are going with her to the grave. They are half lost in flesh.  

There’s also a horizontal stomach projection that prevents her tray table from doing what it should.

Working class, she is, in the old fashioned sense. When that term described what it was, had genuine meaning.

Conniptions. She’s out of her comfort zone. She can’t get her tray down properly. She’s pinned in by unknown assailants that are busily looking the other way. The free food’s coming and she isn’t ready.

Her solution? Keep trying with the tray, getting agitated, short and sharp movements in all directions. No help is coming love; we, me and the unknown hipster, aren’t here, not really. We’ve flown the coop. Care factor none.

The empath is learning. Slowly but well, as is my wont.

Hank

Watching Californication one couldn’t help but notice Hank Moody’s steadfast refusal to defend himself in any number of situations where others proclaimed his guilt or poor character.

This despite the fact that his life could have been much easier with the odd sharing of facts or feelings.

But it wasn’t that easy for Hank.

He was just being himself and didn’t want to get dragged into being the respondent to someone else’s Gestalt.

From Shakespeare in Polonius;

“This above all: to thine ownself be true. And it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man”

Hank was being authentic, and letting others own their version of truth and trust, and whatever else was eating their innards.

Also, once in the whirlpool, Hank knew that there was no getting out. It’s just down and down until you eventually drown, many years later.

I suspect that Hank would have been very happy to discuss just about anything, so long as it wasn’t in the context of justifying being himself.

You see, Hank was a thinker and an observer. He needed time to absorb the so-called facts so he could run a million scenarios and cross check them with his own models of everything.

The wife, Karen, she never gave him that chance. If she didn’t get immediate satisfaction then another dart was permanently fired into the narrative of the bad Hank.

She was desperately trying to kill the very thing that made Hank unique and compelling. If she got what she wanted, she wouldn’t have a Hank. 

He didn’t try to edit her, knowing that it was a hopelessly flawed idea. She couldn’t edit him and have him, but she tried anyway. 

And he knew this the whole time, and loved her despite this.

It’s what you would call tragic comedy, doomed to fail.

Shakespeare said this a tad more eloquently in As You Like It;

“For your brother and my sister no sooner met, but they looked; no sooner looked, but they loved; no sooner loved, but they sighed; no sooner sighed, but they asked one another the reason; no sooner knew the reason but they sought the remedy.”

“Lord, what fools these mortals be”

Meating

The etymology of the word “meeting”; it is derived from the expression “I’m eating”.

As in “what are you doing in there” – “m’ eating”.

That is, a bunch of people sitting around a table with either a good or a very poor excuse for communing.

Black Cats

Any explanation of the causes of human behaviour that refers to the ‘truth’ is probably false.

A truth could only be proven by statistical analysis of data collected from a number of alternative scenarios of a single event relating to the human behaviour in question.

You’d need to run the scenario more times than there are variables (like Infinity minus one, or so) in order to get enough data to avoid over-fitting your model.

Without wormholes and time machines this is not as yet possible.

In the meantime, anyone is free to interpret human behaviour and assign semi-rational explanations as to the causes. 

But these are guesses at best, and most probably only ever correct by accident. When, you’d never know.

This is especially the case if the observer is another black cat in the same box, impacting the results of the experiment.

It is worth noting that, in reality, explanations of human behaviour are usually derived from patterns of repeat behaviours rather than a single event.

The human brain then runs a Fourier transform over the morass of data to derive a result that is improved by using the square root of the signal to noise of the data, but the result is most likely still rooted because of the black cat problem.

Conniptions

The word conniption arrived on our planet in the mid eighteenth century. 

It has no known source and is believed to have been invented by an individual, as opposed to evolving from earlier words.

In essence, it was an act of reverse-essentialism.

Someone noticed a set of attributes to something unnamed, which lacked identity but had plenty of function, and set about to correct the situation. Probably inspired by watching his or her pet cat failing to catch a cockroach.

Unusually, although defined in the singular it is just about always used in the plural. No one has ever had just the one conniption.

E-isms

Essentialism is the philosophical theory based on the concept that for any specific entity there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function. Proof: how else could we communicate via language?

Empericism is the philosophical theory that hypothesises that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. Proof: computers have none.

Existentialism is ​the philosophical theory based on the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. Proof: why else would certain Parisian cafes have been full after the war?

Extensionalism is the philosophical theory based on the principle that the true meaning of life is the acquisition and retention of real estate. Proof: just ask any Sydney-sider.

Essennie

Essentialism is the view that for any specific entity there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function.

Which would explain, for example, why we use language to describe things (an interesting proof of Essentialism, that) and also why Enneagrams flourish, especially among those with diminished identity and function.

220px-Enneagram.svg

Mansplaining

I was once accused of mansplaining.

That is, I was accused of being a man, explaining something to a woman, in a manner that yet another woman regarded as sexist and patronizing.

Implied in this accusation was the groundless assumption that this was a systematic defect in my character resulting from some inherent disregard for the intelligence and/or education of half of the planet’s population of people.

It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

In my mind, l was being a person, explaining something to a moron, in a simple-to-understand manner that another moron, one that I had little regard for, regarded as sexist and patronizing.

Implied in this was an unstated conjecture that there was a systematic defect in the second moron’s character.

What we need, clearly, is an equivalent to Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Vilification Act. Something along the lines of:

“It is unlawful for a person to have an offensive thought;
(1) In the hypothetical circumstance where that offensive thought were to influence an action, and
(2) Where said action would reasonably likely, in all circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people
(3) Regardless of whether the action takes place or not.”

Use of That

So much of what I read misses the complementizer, that.

An example; “At fifty, they say, a man has the face he deserves” or “At fifty, they say, a man has the face that he deserves.”

In speech, short cuts do we take. It works because intonation and context imply the missing special subordinating conjunction, also known as the empty complementizer.

The complementizer can be inserted between the verb and the embedded clause without changing the meaning, or not.

In reading, well, the absence can jar. But sometimes so does the complementizer. One word too far, that.

In which case the sentence just needs rearranging. 

Consider; “Ultimately, that using the word ‘that’ as a conjunction is often superfluous cannot be denied.”

I say; using the word ‘that’ as a conjunction is often superfluous, and sometimes not. 

If you happen to be caught betwixt, then engineer yourself a solution without.

Invention of the Day

An eyebrow trimmer that cuts eyebrow hairs to a fine taper, rather than a blunt cylindrical edge. This imitates the appearance of naturally growing hairs.

Unlike all previous inventions of the day, I have absolutely no idea how to solve this one. Lasers, nanobots, superbugs, quantum enzymes; one of these might work.

Mergers & Assimilations

The Hansonites of Australia have any number of issues that motivate them. A biggie amongst them is ‘assimilation’.

They say that they aren’t against immigration, they are against immigrants that don’t assimilate. Such as the Muslims. Well, the ones that don’t assimilate.

The Hansonites want all immigrants to become like ‘us’, or don’t bother coming here. 

Which is an incredibly conservative position; they want us to remain as we are. For how long? Maybe forever.

These are people that hate change and, because of their insecurities, they are scared of anything or anyone that is different.

The history of immigration in Australia is one of a merging of cultures, not assimilation. Well, except for the first effort which was neither.

The Greeks and Italians, for example, they changed Australia oh so much for the better. And the Asians are very busy modifying us right as we speak, all the way to the Down syndrome farewell handshake.

I don’t think many Australians want to see enclaves of culturally isolated immigrants. But the argument against this would have greater support if debated in the context of a merger rather than assimilation.

But it does beg the question; what exactly is so scary about cultural enclaves? 

I suspect that there’s a confirmation bias going on here. Many disputes around the world are between different cultural groups with entwined borders. Hence it is easy to assume that all such groupings lead to disputes.

But maybe there’s many more that we don’t hear about, simply because they are all happily getting on with each other. This isn’t very newsworthy.

Some data on the subject word be useful. And then a little insight into why some mixed cultural enclaves have disputes whereas other don’t.

Who knows, it might not be that scary after all.

I think of immigration like a salad dressing. Oil and water with a bit of balsamic vinegar. Mix it and it merges. Or so you think. Wait a while and it separates again, highlighting your first generation delusions. 

Add some mustard and honey, surfactants for the chemically minded amongst you, shake again and, presto, you have a second generation merging. And it tastes that much better. 

But there’s still globs and blobs of this or that in there. Unmerged bits that don’t really spoil the salad. 

Its worth remembering that childlike souls won’t touch anything green anyway. So you can’t please them all anyway. Just ignore them, I say.

Don Q.

The penny just dropped. On the subject of CEO salaries, that is.

It’s been a subject of media abuse for some time now. Over the last 30 years CEO salaries, as a multiple of the mean salary, have gone up and up, and up.

The issue for many of the envious and the entitled is that quite a few of the CEOs of Australia’s large entities still get multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, even if they oversee massive corporate losses.

It has the sniff of self-serving entitlement to it, enabled by a lack of proper governance.

The counter-argument is this; CEO packages are set by the market, and markets aren’t wrong, or are the least wrong. Further, if you pay peanuts and you will get a monkey.

Back to the penny that has dropped.

The incremental value of a CEO to an entity is easily at its greatest when there is a large transaction such as merger, acquisition or trade sale. The good CEO, being a great negotiator and strategist, will add large percentage benefits to such a transaction thus easily justifying multi-million dollar packages.

Thus is the market for CEO salaries set.

However, here in Australia such large transaction are rare. The CEOs get the large salaries but don’t need or have the opportunity to justify them. Nor could they in most instances; the skills are missing.

The argument against their salary packages would be much more effective if the protagonists were to have this particular insight.

However, I suspect that most of them don’t even know enough to understand this argument. Which only highlights the root cause of their ineffectiveness, upon which the pig-trough classes rely in order to reward themselves so generously.

Luxury

See exhibit below. I would counter that ‘luxury’ is the wrong adjective.

That which is desirable is now unique, rare, novel or refined. But not luxurious, which implies comfort, flashy and expensive.

The underlying motivations of envy, and entitlement remain in place. 

But there’s too much wealth sloshing around these days, so ‘expensive’ has become a poor proxy for uniqueness.

The engendering of envy can only be achieved with a far more subtle approach.

Untitled.png

It was all yellow

I have quite a few friends and I’ve noticed that about one third of them can’t listen.

And I mean can’t and not don’t.

They have absorbed whatever is currently floating their boat from some dickhead drunken mate, YouTube or Life Philosophy class, and they are usually very eager to shout you the details.

Their cartoon-like theses are usually rooted in the emotions of their envy, entitlement and alienation. But indirectly mind you; this is all about crafty projection and sublimation.

Not only are they completely disinterested in anything that you may have to share, they don’t even want your feedback on their sharing. You learn to say “that’s good mate.”

They are simply protecting their house of cards by deflecting feedback and avoiding anything but the most facile and spurious application of logic, when it suits them, to make a point.

In a way, I have empathy for them. It’s usually a sign that things have got away from them. At some point they have lost the plot for some reason or another, and couldn’t find it again.

I’ve yet to see one remediate. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just saying I’ve never seen it. Partly, I suspect, this is because they rarely accept their own situation.

They build a facade of reasonableness and even superiority, based on their rare insights. They are the seers, enlightening us poor deluded wage monkeys.

Without any recognition of their own clanging inconsistencies and shrillness, whence comes any motivation to get well? 

And I say ‘well’ because it’s a sickness; they are all mentally unwell and this I know because it’s making them all unhappy. Quite unhappy, all the way down to the yellow in their eyes.

It’s very tiring, engaging with them. You do it because they are old mates and you don’t just abandon mates when they’re not well. 

But in fact you do, slowly. If they show no inclination to get well, it’s too easy to decrease the frequency of your chats and beers. Until you don’t.

I had no idea why I was recording these thoughts until just then. Clearly, the path to their redemption is writing

Writing forces one to a logical construct, if one has any formal qualifications or intelligence. 

If I could just get them blogging then I’d have the ammunition that I need to viral into their system and inculcate the unraveling of their madness.

But the buggers won’t write. In fact they won’t even read the writings of friends. Their madness has its own cunning, and it avoids the illumination of its own delusions.

I find it all very sad.

Holodeck

My solution for the current ‘free range’ versus ‘caged’ debate that is raging on Facebook (and the like) is this:

  1. Add a little treadmill to the chicken’s cage so they can move around unhindered
  2. Cover the 4 sides and roof of their cages with 5 little 30″ computer monitors
  3. Play a nice farm scene on the so-constructed holodeck
  4. If needed, for extra reality add a fan (for wind), a spray nozzle (for rain) and a speaker (for farm noises). The smell comes for free.

This is the Matrix for chickens. And they are so, so dumb that even the RSPCA couldn’t argue that they wouldn’t be happy chooks.

The eggs from these chooks would be good enough to chuck at your best mate’s cheating ex-husband’s house.

holodeck_display_by_cmdrkerner.png

Interest

Scene: Thailand – a good luck coin-chucking wishing-well pond, complete with a 25 year old turtle for extra good luck. Or to be more precise, the promise of long life for the coin chuckers, and not the turtle it would seem.

Why? Well you’d have to be Asian to understand this one. Maybe the idea is to see if you can get the coins to bounce off the turtle’s shell. And if you pull off that feat then magically you will live to a hundred or so.

The turtle has been eating the coins for some time now and just had emergency surgery to remove 5 kgs, or about 1000 coins, from its gut. It was just about to kark it.

Me, I do the same with the washing machine.

Snail Trail

“ISO 37001 is the first international anti-bribery management system standard designed to help organizations combat bribery risk in their own operations and throughout their global value chains.”

Facetiousness is not required for this one. I’d like to see the Australian Parliament run this one.

download

The Discipline of Science

The discipline of science includes:

  1. Gathering data
  2. Regathering data to check it was done right the first time
  3. Refining and improving the techniques used to gather data
  4. Analyzing data for any unexpected results as compared to current mythology
  5. Analyzing data to show that current mythology is just OK, thanks very much
  6. Cherry-picking data in the interests of point 5
  7. Explaining unexpected results in a qualitative way – hypothesizing
  8. Testing hypotheses in a quantitative way – development of models
  9. Reducing models to limiting cases – the development of theories
  10. Finding more general theories compared to the current theories
  11. Summarizing periods of recent science in review articles and books – otherwise known as wrapping-up and moving on
  12. Using unexpected results to find inventions than can be exploited for gain
  13. Messing around systematically in an experimental space hoping to find an unexpected result that can be exploited, sometimes even using models and theories to guide one through
  14. Messing around randomly in an experimental space hoping to find an unexpected result that can be exploited
  15. Lying to the world and yourself about the potential value of any such results from 14
  16. Aiding and assisting the engineers when they exploit any such unexpected results from 12-14
  17. Not teaching science to high school students
  18. Teaching science to undergraduates and post-graduates
  19. Climbing the greasy pole of acceptance in a research peer group
  20. Communicating science information to a general audience when one gets tired of all the above
  21. Becoming a university administrator when one gets tired of all the above
  22. Becoming a business manager when one gets tired of all the above
  23. Retiring when one gets tired of all the above
  24. Not teaching any undergraduate or postgraduate student any of the details above

 ​​

Check Mate

There is good evidence that populism (think Trump, Brexit, and Hanson) thrives on “envy and a sense that others are about to seize what (sic) we are entitled to” (source; SMH).

I’d say it’s not just populism. The dating industry also thrives on envy and a sense that others are about to seize that which we are entitled to.

Dating is all about teaming up to game the system. To get ahead, to chase the white rabbit of consumerism, a team of two works best. Or so we’re told 

People believe that there is no winner’s flag for singles. The fact that there’s no actual winner’s flag for anybody, well that’s a well kept secret.

The risk in dating is that the team dissolves. Risk assessment; that’s what needed. What to do if this happens?

Phil and many others devolve to the obvious; only date humans with more assets and income than yourself. The gold-digger solution.

But what if your field of potential candidates are all thinking the same? Check mate.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, for them, most of them don’t have enough empathy to consider this scenario.




Gender Y

This came through the ether and into my inbox.

A conference with this byline: “Reimagine the way you learn, lead, and work”.

Is that a sneaky Gen-Y way of saying “How to earn more money without looking like a self-absorbed twat?”

Or maybe it’s how they meet potential partners, having failed at Tinder?

Who knows…

Untitled.png

Disputes

Here is my basic set of rules for negotiations…

There are two extreme ways to approach a business dispute (or any other sort of dispute for that matter):

1. The confrontational approach otherwise known as the Scorched Earth angle. As in, “I’m warning you that if I don’t get what I want then nobody gets anything.”
2. The consensus approach.

In terms of participants in a negotiation you have these 4 general behavioural types:

1. Declared (real) consensus types
2. Declared (real) confrontational types
3. Consensus types pretending to be confrontational types
4. Confrontational types pretending to be consensus types

Working through game theory, these are the likely outcomes:

1. Two declared consensus types in a negotiation makes for an efficient and fair outcome.
2. A confrontational type, declared or otherwise, should always win over a consensus type, declared or otherwise.
3. However the confrontational type risks all if he or she is up against another confrontational type, declared or otherwise.

In reality people don’t fit in such neat boxes. They often drift around the categories, subject to how they think they are going in the negotiation. For example, they may be genuinely all consensus-like, until something causes them to become emotional and completely confrontational. Later on, when they have calmed down, they may switch back.

Even so, it pays to dig into the psychology of your opponent in order to come up with a working hypothesis as to what type they are. And here is what you do with said results:

1. If the other party is a consensus type, real or otherwise, then you need to be a confrontational type, real or otherwise.
2. If the other party is a real confrontational type then you also need to be one, real or otherwise.
A. If you are both real, then the deal is off anyway.
B. If you are both fake, then the best faker will win, or you will both revert to a consensus decision.
C. If you are real and he/she is not, then you will win.
D. If you are fake and he/she is not, then you need to ensure they never find out and then the negotiation will naturally revert to a no-deal unless you lose your nerve.

Today I talked to a business colleague about an upcoming negotiation that could be quite heated. I said that at the age of 52 I would not be part of a confrontational approach anymore because I don’t like it and I want to enjoy life. The irony being that I was practicing a second order confrontational approach – if the other party couldn’t promise to act as a consensus type, then I would walk away.

A final word – if there are three parties in a deal then they had better all be consensus types or you are all wasting your time. The chances of this happening accidentally are pretty low, so you need to be very careful in these cases. And this is true even if that third party is a mediator.