The use of language has always fascinated me. We are born without it but relatively quickly we start communicating with those who speak the same language and what's amazing is the vast number of languages, dialects and accents that exist and show little sign of becoming obsolete despite the 'shrinking' of the world through the access to technology. Languages get modified and through shared words, eg 'iPad', do show some signs of convergence but attempts to introduce universal languages , like Esperanto, have failed miserably.
My early experimentation with language, or rather accent, came at the age of thirteen when I moved with my parents from London, UK, where I was born, to Manchester, UK, which was where my father had taken on a new job. Changing schools at that age is never easy for any child and isn't helped if you don't speak the same as your peers. I tolerated the jibes about my southern accent for a while but gradually, over a period of a couple of years, I changed my accent to an almost perfect Mancunian drawl. If I'd chosen an acting career, I might have got a part in Coronation Street! At the age of eighteen, higher education took me to the south of England. I retained my accent for a while, which some members of the opposite sex seemed to find attractive! But gradually I reverted to my native tongue. To this day, I don't have difficulty mimicking any UK regional accent and I am usually able to determine which part of the UK someone comes from by listening to his or her accent.
So what my early years taught me was just how easy it is to modify the way we speak. In fact children who move to a different country at a young age usually have no difficulty speaking a completely different language very quickly. If only it was that easy when you get older. I now live in Turkey and I soon realised that I wouldn't learn Turkish just by exchanging pleasantries with the local shopkeepers, so I decided to embark on one-to-one lessons. It's hard! I console myself by assuming it is difficult to teach a new language to an old brain but I am not sure that's true, particularly when I see old brains learning new languages and many more picking up trendy lingo - which brings me on to 'You know....'
Throughout the ages there have been trendy words and phrases. 'No way', 'look' and 'huge' are examples and most recently 'you know'. I am not going to name names but 'you know' is prevalent amongst UK and US politicians although certainly not exclusive to political circles. Here's how it might be used:
"You know society needs strong leadership at times like this and you know a good leader needs a vision. You know visions don't grow on trees and the electorate deserves better........"
As illustrated, 'you knows' can sometimes be used more frequently than full stops! The Urban Dictionary has a rather graphic way of defining 'you know':
"Something that jackasses say EVERY FUCKING OTHER WORD! You know! You know! You know! No I don't know cocksucker, why don't you fucking tell me!"
Picking up trendy words and phrases by mature people shows how adaptable the brain is at ages when you might think it would be more set in its ways. So there's hope for me yet with my aspiration to learn Turkish! But YOU KNOW as my Turkish improves there is a danger YOU KNOW that I might YOU KNOW get out of touch with trendy English lingo and thus lose a source of knowledge for future blogs....... YOU KNOW!! :-)
Tuesday 18 December 2012
Wednesday 12 December 2012
Farewell little friend
As well as our resident two dogs and a cat, we have many non-human visitors to our home and some are from my point of view, more welcome than others. My wife's caring and compassionate attitude to all creatures great and small, is to be commended and as an example, when we discovered a massive hornets nest in the loft last year, she was insistent it was removed without harming the hornets, which we managed to do. I did, however, have to wait until the winter months when the insects were no longer active!
Other creatures that have literally become part of our home are the geckos. These reptiles are part of the lizard family and the ones that co-inhabit our residence are mediterranean house geckos. They are frequent visitors and the picture is of one in our living room that is eyeing up a tasty morsel! Unfortunately some are not so lucky, which leads me into my main story.
In the region where we live in Turkey, the summers are long and hot. For several months the temperatures are in the mid 30s and can exceed 40 degrees C. So air conditioning is highly desirable. The winter temperatures, whilst somewhat higher than central and northern Europe, can nevertheless be in single figures particularly at night. So the air conditioners are often used 'in reverse' to provide room heating. A couple of weeks ago when I found it necessary to warm the bedroom, I was disappointed to discover the air conditioner didn't work. I contacted the local service centre who promptly sent a technician to our home. He diagnosed the problem to be a faulty fan motor and later returned with a new unit. He connected it up, only to find it wasn't the solution to the problem. He then decided it must be the control card, a sub unit that takes in the mains power, as well as the command signals from the remote controller, and generates all the necessary outputs to the heating and cooling units. He returned a couple of days later with a new control card, installed it and we now have a working air conditioner. But what was interesting and sad was why the old card had given up the ghost. When the technician removed the old card he noticed that part of it was badly burnt and connecting two contacts that shouldn't be connected, was a stiff and lifeless gecko!
My wife's reaction to the incident was predictable. She felt very sorry for the gecko. I have to admit that my own immediate reaction was less compassionate as I was presented with the financial consequences of the gecko's action - a bill for 140 Turkish Lira. Upon reflection, however, I do believe the tragedy might have been avoided as I will now explain. There are two parts to an air conditioner, one inside the house and the other mounted externally. Between the two units there is a hole in the wall for the interconnecting cables and pipes. The technician pointed out to me that the geckos were using the hole as the entry point to our home, via the internal unit. I have since siliconed the holes for the unit that was repaired and the other units in our property so hopefully the geckos' hazardous entry points have been blocked, although I am sure they will find other ways in, which hopefully will be less risky.
So farewell little friend, you will not be remembered as a martyr but your tragic end has perhaps removed one man-made risk to your species' future survival in our home.
Other creatures that have literally become part of our home are the geckos. These reptiles are part of the lizard family and the ones that co-inhabit our residence are mediterranean house geckos. They are frequent visitors and the picture is of one in our living room that is eyeing up a tasty morsel! Unfortunately some are not so lucky, which leads me into my main story.
In the region where we live in Turkey, the summers are long and hot. For several months the temperatures are in the mid 30s and can exceed 40 degrees C. So air conditioning is highly desirable. The winter temperatures, whilst somewhat higher than central and northern Europe, can nevertheless be in single figures particularly at night. So the air conditioners are often used 'in reverse' to provide room heating. A couple of weeks ago when I found it necessary to warm the bedroom, I was disappointed to discover the air conditioner didn't work. I contacted the local service centre who promptly sent a technician to our home. He diagnosed the problem to be a faulty fan motor and later returned with a new unit. He connected it up, only to find it wasn't the solution to the problem. He then decided it must be the control card, a sub unit that takes in the mains power, as well as the command signals from the remote controller, and generates all the necessary outputs to the heating and cooling units. He returned a couple of days later with a new control card, installed it and we now have a working air conditioner. But what was interesting and sad was why the old card had given up the ghost. When the technician removed the old card he noticed that part of it was badly burnt and connecting two contacts that shouldn't be connected, was a stiff and lifeless gecko!
My wife's reaction to the incident was predictable. She felt very sorry for the gecko. I have to admit that my own immediate reaction was less compassionate as I was presented with the financial consequences of the gecko's action - a bill for 140 Turkish Lira. Upon reflection, however, I do believe the tragedy might have been avoided as I will now explain. There are two parts to an air conditioner, one inside the house and the other mounted externally. Between the two units there is a hole in the wall for the interconnecting cables and pipes. The technician pointed out to me that the geckos were using the hole as the entry point to our home, via the internal unit. I have since siliconed the holes for the unit that was repaired and the other units in our property so hopefully the geckos' hazardous entry points have been blocked, although I am sure they will find other ways in, which hopefully will be less risky.
So farewell little friend, you will not be remembered as a martyr but your tragic end has perhaps removed one man-made risk to your species' future survival in our home.
Thursday 6 December 2012
Beyond Borders
"Nature (and that includes us) is not made of parts within wholes. It is made up of wholes within wholes. All boundaries, national boundaries included, are fundamentally arbitrary. We invent them and then, ironically, we find ourselves trapped within them."
These are the profound words of Peter Senge, founder and director of the Society for Organisational Learning and a senior lecturer at MIT. Here's another pearl of wisdom:
"When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world."
That came from John Muir, the naturalist. The point I wish to extract from these two quotes is that we live in a world of interconnections and interdependencies. It's nice to think we can break down problems into small chunks and deal with them individually but it doesn't always work. And yet it feels natural to think in 'straight lines' of cause - effect - cause - effect - ........ It's called linear thinking. Whereas in reality things tend to happen in circles rather than linearly. In short we live in a non-linear world where the results of well-intended actions, although seemingly successful at the time, can come back to bite us!
To make things more difficult for ourselves, we add constraints in the form of man-made boundaries. These occur in every aspect of life, the obvious one being territorial. But religion, race, politics, personal mindsets, organisations........ are all subject to artificial boundaries. There are always conflicts on this planet and at the time of writing these include, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Syria, the economies of the Euro zone, UK and US, rising levels of poverty, ........ to name but a few. On each of these issues, so called 'experts' appear on the media and announce quick-fix solutions. Let's take as an example the UK economy and I will try not to portray myself as a quick-fix expert! The Chancellor's (not very) quick- fix solution to the country's malaise is 'austerity'. Drive down the debt by increased taxation and reduced public expenditure and if that doesn't work blame factors beyond your control! But the factors beyond the Chancellor's control are a fundamental and integral part or the UK's fiscal problem. So by trying to separate the UK as a 'chunk' and dealing with its income and expenditure in isolation, is tackling the symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental problem.
There are those who would go further with the 'chunk theory' and separate the UK from the rest of the world, starting by severing the link with Europe. As well as those who would separate Scotland from the UK. But why stop there? Most of the UK's wealth is generated in the south east of England so perhaps the citizens of the home counties should be pushing for independence!
I would suggest the logic for such reductionist thinking is flawed. We need to think beyond the boundaries we have created and succeeded in trapping ourselves. Despite numerous man-made boundaries, we are ONE species, homo sapien. Our ingenuity, compared with other species on the planet, has been unrivalled. Bur our naivety, in terms of survivability, is scary. To believe in perpetual growth on a finite planet, one must be mad or an economist! That is what we are doing and continue to do. What's more, through the creation of artificial divisions within our species, some parts of the planet have benefited from growth, whilst other parts haven't. The developing (another word for 'poor') part of the world now, unsurprisingly, wants to catch up. But this can only happen if the developed (another word for 'rich') part of the world gives something up because the world's resources are limited and some commodities, like fossil fuels, are fast running out. In my humble opinion, that is the fundamental problem facing the planet and other 'parochial' problems are symptoms of this underlying malaise.
So we need to think beyond borders, which means remembering we are but one species as part of many, co-existing on one planet. We need to think about DEVELOPMENT, which means getting better, rather than GROWTH, which means getting bigger, because the latter is unsustainable. If we agree with the previous two sentences then traditional boundaries - territorial, religious, racial, and so on - become less relevant and therefore more manageable.
This blog isn't going to change the world but I am convinced radical change will happen although regrettably it will probably take a few more disasters - climatic, political, economic, social - before common sense will prevail. Sad isn't it?!
These are the profound words of Peter Senge, founder and director of the Society for Organisational Learning and a senior lecturer at MIT. Here's another pearl of wisdom:
"When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world."
That came from John Muir, the naturalist. The point I wish to extract from these two quotes is that we live in a world of interconnections and interdependencies. It's nice to think we can break down problems into small chunks and deal with them individually but it doesn't always work. And yet it feels natural to think in 'straight lines' of cause - effect - cause - effect - ........ It's called linear thinking. Whereas in reality things tend to happen in circles rather than linearly. In short we live in a non-linear world where the results of well-intended actions, although seemingly successful at the time, can come back to bite us!
To make things more difficult for ourselves, we add constraints in the form of man-made boundaries. These occur in every aspect of life, the obvious one being territorial. But religion, race, politics, personal mindsets, organisations........ are all subject to artificial boundaries. There are always conflicts on this planet and at the time of writing these include, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Syria, the economies of the Euro zone, UK and US, rising levels of poverty, ........ to name but a few. On each of these issues, so called 'experts' appear on the media and announce quick-fix solutions. Let's take as an example the UK economy and I will try not to portray myself as a quick-fix expert! The Chancellor's (not very) quick- fix solution to the country's malaise is 'austerity'. Drive down the debt by increased taxation and reduced public expenditure and if that doesn't work blame factors beyond your control! But the factors beyond the Chancellor's control are a fundamental and integral part or the UK's fiscal problem. So by trying to separate the UK as a 'chunk' and dealing with its income and expenditure in isolation, is tackling the symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental problem.
There are those who would go further with the 'chunk theory' and separate the UK from the rest of the world, starting by severing the link with Europe. As well as those who would separate Scotland from the UK. But why stop there? Most of the UK's wealth is generated in the south east of England so perhaps the citizens of the home counties should be pushing for independence!
I would suggest the logic for such reductionist thinking is flawed. We need to think beyond the boundaries we have created and succeeded in trapping ourselves. Despite numerous man-made boundaries, we are ONE species, homo sapien. Our ingenuity, compared with other species on the planet, has been unrivalled. Bur our naivety, in terms of survivability, is scary. To believe in perpetual growth on a finite planet, one must be mad or an economist! That is what we are doing and continue to do. What's more, through the creation of artificial divisions within our species, some parts of the planet have benefited from growth, whilst other parts haven't. The developing (another word for 'poor') part of the world now, unsurprisingly, wants to catch up. But this can only happen if the developed (another word for 'rich') part of the world gives something up because the world's resources are limited and some commodities, like fossil fuels, are fast running out. In my humble opinion, that is the fundamental problem facing the planet and other 'parochial' problems are symptoms of this underlying malaise.
So we need to think beyond borders, which means remembering we are but one species as part of many, co-existing on one planet. We need to think about DEVELOPMENT, which means getting better, rather than GROWTH, which means getting bigger, because the latter is unsustainable. If we agree with the previous two sentences then traditional boundaries - territorial, religious, racial, and so on - become less relevant and therefore more manageable.
This blog isn't going to change the world but I am convinced radical change will happen although regrettably it will probably take a few more disasters - climatic, political, economic, social - before common sense will prevail. Sad isn't it?!
Friday 23 November 2012
THEY SAY........
I have met many THEY SAYers from different walks of life - relatives, friends, social acquaintances, business associates, broadcasters, newspapers - in fact a THEY SAYer can be any conveyor of knowledge. Here are some examples from the THEY SAYers' knowledge base:
* THEY SAY the winters will get colder and the summers will get hotter.
* THEY SAY tsunamis and earthquakes will become more frequent.
* THEY SAY eating carrots helps you see in the dark.
* THEY SAY you should eat five vegetables a day to keep fit and healthy.
* THEY SAY alternative treatments such as special diets, herbal potions and faith healing can cure apparently terminal illness.
* THEY SAY (or rather SAID thirty years ago) North Sea oil would run out within thirty years........and it didn't!
The examples are endless and the last example of thirty years ago is when I started following and getting thoroughly pxxxxd off with THEY SAYers! The punch lines are usually employed to support an argument, so a mother trying to encourage her child to eat his carrots might quote the benefit of being able to see in the dark. As the child gets older and plucks up courage to challenge his mother, perhaps by asking "Who are THEY?", a typical response is "It's a well known fact!".
Well who the fxxk are THEY? A very good question! Newspapers can be a source of THEY particularly the 'popular press' that creates news rather than just reporting it. TV all-day news programmes often flash up one-liners between programmes to whet the appetite with headlines such as "Researchers believe that drinking alcohol in moderation can reduce the risk of heart disease" or conversely, "Studies show a strong link between alcohol consumption and cancer".
As I grow older, I like to think I am getting wiser. In my view wisdom includes looking at things objectively. Purists would say that's impossible because any opinion, by definition, is subjective. OK, we'll my response to the purist is that we should form opinions on as much evidence as possible, rather like a court of law does before arriving at a verdict. So when a THEY SAYer fires a shot across your bow, the counter attack could be "Where's the evidence?". If the evidence is "I read it in the newspaper" or "I saw it on TV", well sorry but that's not good enough. Francis Bacon said "It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than negatives." In other words, we believe what we want to believe and we have a tendency to find evidence that supports our pet theories. So if the THEY SAYers' 'evidence' cannot be supported by well documented and validated research programmes then it should be dismissed out of court! Maybe the mother's statement to the child who won't eat his carrots should be "There are those who believe eating carrots can improve night vision but I know of no reputable evidence to support this theory". The trouble is that such a statement is unlikely to affect the child's dislike of the taste of carrots, so if mum doesn't want the child to grow up into a faddy eater, maybe a better tactic is "Take it or leave it, there's nothing else on offer!".
Well as I write, the sun is setting and THEY SAY a blog written in daylight hours attracts a greater readership than dusk-to-dawn material........BULLSHIT!
* THEY SAY the winters will get colder and the summers will get hotter.
* THEY SAY tsunamis and earthquakes will become more frequent.
* THEY SAY eating carrots helps you see in the dark.
* THEY SAY you should eat five vegetables a day to keep fit and healthy.
* THEY SAY alternative treatments such as special diets, herbal potions and faith healing can cure apparently terminal illness.
* THEY SAY (or rather SAID thirty years ago) North Sea oil would run out within thirty years........and it didn't!
The examples are endless and the last example of thirty years ago is when I started following and getting thoroughly pxxxxd off with THEY SAYers! The punch lines are usually employed to support an argument, so a mother trying to encourage her child to eat his carrots might quote the benefit of being able to see in the dark. As the child gets older and plucks up courage to challenge his mother, perhaps by asking "Who are THEY?", a typical response is "It's a well known fact!".
Well who the fxxk are THEY? A very good question! Newspapers can be a source of THEY particularly the 'popular press' that creates news rather than just reporting it. TV all-day news programmes often flash up one-liners between programmes to whet the appetite with headlines such as "Researchers believe that drinking alcohol in moderation can reduce the risk of heart disease" or conversely, "Studies show a strong link between alcohol consumption and cancer".
As I grow older, I like to think I am getting wiser. In my view wisdom includes looking at things objectively. Purists would say that's impossible because any opinion, by definition, is subjective. OK, we'll my response to the purist is that we should form opinions on as much evidence as possible, rather like a court of law does before arriving at a verdict. So when a THEY SAYer fires a shot across your bow, the counter attack could be "Where's the evidence?". If the evidence is "I read it in the newspaper" or "I saw it on TV", well sorry but that's not good enough. Francis Bacon said "It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than negatives." In other words, we believe what we want to believe and we have a tendency to find evidence that supports our pet theories. So if the THEY SAYers' 'evidence' cannot be supported by well documented and validated research programmes then it should be dismissed out of court! Maybe the mother's statement to the child who won't eat his carrots should be "There are those who believe eating carrots can improve night vision but I know of no reputable evidence to support this theory". The trouble is that such a statement is unlikely to affect the child's dislike of the taste of carrots, so if mum doesn't want the child to grow up into a faddy eater, maybe a better tactic is "Take it or leave it, there's nothing else on offer!".
Well as I write, the sun is setting and THEY SAY a blog written in daylight hours attracts a greater readership than dusk-to-dawn material........BULLSHIT!
Thursday 1 November 2012
In all probability........
We live in a world of information overload. Sorting out the wheat from the chaff is never easy particularly when so many of the 'facts' cannot be specified precisely. It is often difficult to make judgements from any set of data but when the information is known to be imprecise, drawing conclusions can be fraught with problems. Let's take the world of statistics and probabilities, starting with the former.
Benjamin Disraeli is attributed by many to have originated the phrase: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Well perhaps before before exploring this statement further, it is worth drawing the distinction between statistics and probabilities. Statistics are numbers that represent facts and as such, deal with certainties, as long as good counting methods are employed. Probabilities, on the other hand, deal with the unknown. So Disraeli's statement is false if the implication is that statistics are a higher form of untruths than 'damned lies'. It is the misuse of statistics, very often linked with probabilities, that can result, intentionally or unintentionally, in something worse than 'damned lies'.
If the residents of a town, who are aged ten or over, are asked to report to a medical centre to have their heights and weights measured, then these measurements can be compared with the criteria for obesity and a statistic of the obesity of the population can be assessed. Let's assume the result was 34% of the population aged ten or over were, at the time the measurements were taken, technically obese. That measurement of 34% is a statistic. Now, if a government bureaucrat decides to use that statistic for other means, for example assessing the probability of obesity in the nation as a whole and publishes a statement to the effect: "it is likely that one in three of the nation's inhabitants over the age of ten, is obese", then the 34% is now a probability rather than a statistic. It would only become a statistic if it was supported by measurements taken of the entire nation's population. An assessment of probability based on the results of one town can be very misleading if the sample that was measured was not truly representative of the country as a whole.
One of the websites that I use for local weather forecasts, provides 'probability of precipitation' information, which is another way of saying the likelihood of rain. There is no indication of how that figure has been computed but there is likely to be a computer algorithm that might use current and historic data to assess the likelihood of rain. Note the last sentence used the words 'likely to be' and 'might use'; that sentence, therefore, has a probability of being correct and likewise a probability of being incorrect - just what can you believe these days?! Returning to the weather forecast, if the probability of rain is 70%, then the probability of no rain is 30%. This means that if I plan my day on the assumption that it is going to rain, then I might be (I've used the word 'might' again!!) very disappointed if it doesn't rain but I can't complain to the forecaster because he or she would point out that there was always a 30% probability of the rain not materialising. So what use is the forecast?!
I suppose our conversations would be very limited if all we communicated were certainties. There are very few certainties and none if we are talking about the future. Also the high probability, low impact events might be interesting but don't change our lives significantly. So if it doesn't rain tomorrow and I planned on it being wet, because the forecaster told me there was a 70% probability of precipitation, then my change of plan might be to do some gardening rather than work in the house. So what?! The real life-changers are the low probability, high impact events, very often not even considered. So if my house was hit and destroyed by a meteorite, oh boy that would be a life changer.
The more I think about probabilities, the more convinced I am that detailed long-term planning of our lives is a waste of time. We should live for the present, trying to improve our actions by learning from the past (positive and negative experiences) and attempt to use the present to make some positive impact on the future. In all probability you will agree with that........but then again, you might not! :-)
Benjamin Disraeli is attributed by many to have originated the phrase: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". Well perhaps before before exploring this statement further, it is worth drawing the distinction between statistics and probabilities. Statistics are numbers that represent facts and as such, deal with certainties, as long as good counting methods are employed. Probabilities, on the other hand, deal with the unknown. So Disraeli's statement is false if the implication is that statistics are a higher form of untruths than 'damned lies'. It is the misuse of statistics, very often linked with probabilities, that can result, intentionally or unintentionally, in something worse than 'damned lies'.
If the residents of a town, who are aged ten or over, are asked to report to a medical centre to have their heights and weights measured, then these measurements can be compared with the criteria for obesity and a statistic of the obesity of the population can be assessed. Let's assume the result was 34% of the population aged ten or over were, at the time the measurements were taken, technically obese. That measurement of 34% is a statistic. Now, if a government bureaucrat decides to use that statistic for other means, for example assessing the probability of obesity in the nation as a whole and publishes a statement to the effect: "it is likely that one in three of the nation's inhabitants over the age of ten, is obese", then the 34% is now a probability rather than a statistic. It would only become a statistic if it was supported by measurements taken of the entire nation's population. An assessment of probability based on the results of one town can be very misleading if the sample that was measured was not truly representative of the country as a whole.
One of the websites that I use for local weather forecasts, provides 'probability of precipitation' information, which is another way of saying the likelihood of rain. There is no indication of how that figure has been computed but there is likely to be a computer algorithm that might use current and historic data to assess the likelihood of rain. Note the last sentence used the words 'likely to be' and 'might use'; that sentence, therefore, has a probability of being correct and likewise a probability of being incorrect - just what can you believe these days?! Returning to the weather forecast, if the probability of rain is 70%, then the probability of no rain is 30%. This means that if I plan my day on the assumption that it is going to rain, then I might be (I've used the word 'might' again!!) very disappointed if it doesn't rain but I can't complain to the forecaster because he or she would point out that there was always a 30% probability of the rain not materialising. So what use is the forecast?!
I suppose our conversations would be very limited if all we communicated were certainties. There are very few certainties and none if we are talking about the future. Also the high probability, low impact events might be interesting but don't change our lives significantly. So if it doesn't rain tomorrow and I planned on it being wet, because the forecaster told me there was a 70% probability of precipitation, then my change of plan might be to do some gardening rather than work in the house. So what?! The real life-changers are the low probability, high impact events, very often not even considered. So if my house was hit and destroyed by a meteorite, oh boy that would be a life changer.
The more I think about probabilities, the more convinced I am that detailed long-term planning of our lives is a waste of time. We should live for the present, trying to improve our actions by learning from the past (positive and negative experiences) and attempt to use the present to make some positive impact on the future. In all probability you will agree with that........but then again, you might not! :-)
Thursday 13 September 2012
After all, we're related!
I am currently tending a very sick palm tree in my garden, which I think has had its roots attacked by hungry beetles. The symptom is a loss of leaves (fans) at an alarming rate and in the past week I have removed over twenty. I had a palm with a similar problem last year, which regrettably ended with the tree being chopped down. There is a small glimmer of hope with the current ailing patient because there is still some new growth from the crown, which might survive and if so, possibly grow and lead to further new shoots. But I know from my previous experience that I'm clutching at straws so as well as removing the poorly fans, I have tidied up the trunk and tried to give the tree a little bit of TLC and dignity during what could be the twilight of its life - after all, we're related! Now before you conclude that I'm off my trolley, let me explain my views on the relationships between me, the rest of mankind and other living species.
Let's start with our own species, homo sapiens. I am the result of a relationship between my two parents (two people). My parents were the results of relationships between two sets of parents (four people). My grandparents were the results of relationships between four sets of parents (eight people). Continuing this historic extrapolation and assuming my ancestral line remains 'pure' (an assumption that I will prove to be invalid later in this blog), let's look at how many people were associated with my current existence, at various points in history. If we go back eight generations, around the time Abraham Lincoln was born, there were 256 people responsible for my birth. Back to the time of Shakespeare and the number becomes 16,384. Twenty generations ago the number has risen to 1,048,576. This doubling every generation means that sixty-four generations ago, around the peak of the Roman empire, the number becomes one million trillion, which is several thousand times the number of people who have ever lived. If I now return to the assumption that my ancestral line is 'pure', clearly that can't be true and my existence, you're existence, everyone's existence is the result of a considerable amount of incest but far enough removed from the main family line so it wouldn't be obvious. This means that most people you come in contact with, including your partner, are probably relatives.
That's all very interesting but what does it have to do with my palm tree? The evidence for evolution is very strong. Indeed, biologists often make a distinction between the FACT of evolution (i.e. all living things are cousins) and the THEORY of what drives it (natural selection versus rival theories). The current estimate for the number of living species is around ten million. To draw all the relationships between the species in the form of a family tree on a manageable-sized piece of paper, is clearly impossible. The best illustration I have seen is the Hillis plot, which transforms the classic plot of a family tree into a more compact circular illustration stripped down drastically to around three thousand species in order to fit into even this huge diagram. In my view, what is more exciting than visual representations of genetic family trees, is what will be possible from processing genetic-relationship information. Over the past fifty years, computer processing power has followed something called Moore's Law. It is an empirical law and can be observed as the doubling of computer processing power in a given volume every eighteen months to two years. In financial terms, this means the cost of processing information is rapidly reducing. Current extrapolations suggest that by 2040 it should be technically possible and affordable to create a massive database of DNA sequences across all the animal and plant species.
So what about my palm tree? Well clearly there is very strong evidence that I have a genetic relationship with it and at some time in the future, probably after I have departed this world, it might be possible to 'plot' our relationship. So why shouldn't I show it the same respect as I should have for my own or any other species on the planet? I'll let you know if it survives.
Let's start with our own species, homo sapiens. I am the result of a relationship between my two parents (two people). My parents were the results of relationships between two sets of parents (four people). My grandparents were the results of relationships between four sets of parents (eight people). Continuing this historic extrapolation and assuming my ancestral line remains 'pure' (an assumption that I will prove to be invalid later in this blog), let's look at how many people were associated with my current existence, at various points in history. If we go back eight generations, around the time Abraham Lincoln was born, there were 256 people responsible for my birth. Back to the time of Shakespeare and the number becomes 16,384. Twenty generations ago the number has risen to 1,048,576. This doubling every generation means that sixty-four generations ago, around the peak of the Roman empire, the number becomes one million trillion, which is several thousand times the number of people who have ever lived. If I now return to the assumption that my ancestral line is 'pure', clearly that can't be true and my existence, you're existence, everyone's existence is the result of a considerable amount of incest but far enough removed from the main family line so it wouldn't be obvious. This means that most people you come in contact with, including your partner, are probably relatives.
That's all very interesting but what does it have to do with my palm tree? The evidence for evolution is very strong. Indeed, biologists often make a distinction between the FACT of evolution (i.e. all living things are cousins) and the THEORY of what drives it (natural selection versus rival theories). The current estimate for the number of living species is around ten million. To draw all the relationships between the species in the form of a family tree on a manageable-sized piece of paper, is clearly impossible. The best illustration I have seen is the Hillis plot, which transforms the classic plot of a family tree into a more compact circular illustration stripped down drastically to around three thousand species in order to fit into even this huge diagram. In my view, what is more exciting than visual representations of genetic family trees, is what will be possible from processing genetic-relationship information. Over the past fifty years, computer processing power has followed something called Moore's Law. It is an empirical law and can be observed as the doubling of computer processing power in a given volume every eighteen months to two years. In financial terms, this means the cost of processing information is rapidly reducing. Current extrapolations suggest that by 2040 it should be technically possible and affordable to create a massive database of DNA sequences across all the animal and plant species.
So what about my palm tree? Well clearly there is very strong evidence that I have a genetic relationship with it and at some time in the future, probably after I have departed this world, it might be possible to 'plot' our relationship. So why shouldn't I show it the same respect as I should have for my own or any other species on the planet? I'll let you know if it survives.
Monday 3 September 2012
Thinking About Thinking
On a couple of occasions my wife has made the following comment on my behaviour: "You think too much". I have thought deeply about her observation! Human beings communicate using languages they have learnt but whatever the native tongue, language is full of ambiguities and prone to misinterpretation. So what did my wife mean by her comment? I don't think (there I go again!) that she could possibly mean I should stop thinking; after all, thought is the basis for almost all our actions and interactions, so it is going on all the time. If she had said: "You spend too much time thinking and not enough time doing", then I would understand where she was coming from, particularly as my 'doing-to-thinking ratio' is a considerably lesser quantity than my wife's.
One of the discussion groups I am currently participating in, on the subject of thinking(!), has touched on the issue of male versus female thought processes and particularly the key differences. A view has been expressed that women's thoughts tend to relate to the natural (real) world whereas men use their ideas to relate to the conceptual world and I quote one comment: "I think a woman might generalise men as dreamers who get wrapped up in their theories". Well I have to admit to being able to relate to that point of view and one of my favourite pastimes is thinking about thinking.
We are part of a complex system that we try to understand by using simple mental models of what we think is going on around us. Sometimes our mental models become very rigid preconceived ideas and even when 'reality' doesn't match our model, we are still reluctant to modify our ideas. What is 'reality'? Is my view of the world, which is my 'reality', the same as your 'reality'? We are each using our sensors - seeing, hearing, smelling, touching - together with complex processing, which draws upon experience, intuition, tradition, preconceived ideas - and forming opinions of the 'reality' that surrounds us. Sometimes we attempt to breakdown the complexity of the environment into simple building blocks. But that doesn't always work. Colours should be simple, easy-to-understand components but why does, for example, the colour of my house appeal to me but look crap to you? Are we seeing the same colour but processing it differently, or vice versa?
There can be a danger of trying to squeeze a non-linear world into our linear mental models. Cause and effect is a common view of 'reality' - this affects that, which affects this, which affects those........ etc - but it doesn't always work like that! A affects B, which affects C, which after time modifies A, which affects B, which after time also modifies A. So the simple linear model has time- dependent feedback loops creating a non-linear function. To understand even a comparatively simple non-linear A-B-C model, we have to view it from a system perspective, understanding not just the constituent building blocks, but also the relationships between them.
As we move from concepts to 'reality', we can direct our thoughtful energies towards trying to understand issues such as why did the economic crisis occur, how do we solve our financial woes, how many species are there on the planet, are homo sapiens the only mammals that pop up everywhere, are we taking more out of the planet than we are putting back in, is the planet warming, if so what can we do about it, why do we have wars,........???? The issues go on and on but every time we try to simplify them and tackle them in isolation, we usually fail. So that's why I see a benefit in thinking about thinking, because although traditional thinking has resulted in tremendous developments for mankind, we don't seem to be able to solve some of the real crunchy and destructive issues that we have created, which face us and will plague future generations. So OK perhaps I should spend more time doing rather than thinking but if we carry on doing what we're doing, why should anything change? We will only change what we are doing if we stop doing and think about it........just a thought!
One of the discussion groups I am currently participating in, on the subject of thinking(!), has touched on the issue of male versus female thought processes and particularly the key differences. A view has been expressed that women's thoughts tend to relate to the natural (real) world whereas men use their ideas to relate to the conceptual world and I quote one comment: "I think a woman might generalise men as dreamers who get wrapped up in their theories". Well I have to admit to being able to relate to that point of view and one of my favourite pastimes is thinking about thinking.
We are part of a complex system that we try to understand by using simple mental models of what we think is going on around us. Sometimes our mental models become very rigid preconceived ideas and even when 'reality' doesn't match our model, we are still reluctant to modify our ideas. What is 'reality'? Is my view of the world, which is my 'reality', the same as your 'reality'? We are each using our sensors - seeing, hearing, smelling, touching - together with complex processing, which draws upon experience, intuition, tradition, preconceived ideas - and forming opinions of the 'reality' that surrounds us. Sometimes we attempt to breakdown the complexity of the environment into simple building blocks. But that doesn't always work. Colours should be simple, easy-to-understand components but why does, for example, the colour of my house appeal to me but look crap to you? Are we seeing the same colour but processing it differently, or vice versa?
There can be a danger of trying to squeeze a non-linear world into our linear mental models. Cause and effect is a common view of 'reality' - this affects that, which affects this, which affects those........ etc - but it doesn't always work like that! A affects B, which affects C, which after time modifies A, which affects B, which after time also modifies A. So the simple linear model has time- dependent feedback loops creating a non-linear function. To understand even a comparatively simple non-linear A-B-C model, we have to view it from a system perspective, understanding not just the constituent building blocks, but also the relationships between them.
As we move from concepts to 'reality', we can direct our thoughtful energies towards trying to understand issues such as why did the economic crisis occur, how do we solve our financial woes, how many species are there on the planet, are homo sapiens the only mammals that pop up everywhere, are we taking more out of the planet than we are putting back in, is the planet warming, if so what can we do about it, why do we have wars,........???? The issues go on and on but every time we try to simplify them and tackle them in isolation, we usually fail. So that's why I see a benefit in thinking about thinking, because although traditional thinking has resulted in tremendous developments for mankind, we don't seem to be able to solve some of the real crunchy and destructive issues that we have created, which face us and will plague future generations. So OK perhaps I should spend more time doing rather than thinking but if we carry on doing what we're doing, why should anything change? We will only change what we are doing if we stop doing and think about it........just a thought!
Sunday 12 August 2012
Memes and Genes
First here are two definitions from Dictionary.com:
Meme - a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.
Gene - the basic physical unit of heredity; a linear sequence of nucleotides along a segment of DNA that provides the coded instructions for synthesis of RNA, which, when translated into protein, leads to the expression of heredity character.
Meme is a much newer entrant to the English language than gene but which has a greater impact on our lives? That's a rhetorical question but even if it wasn't, the answer would probably be the type you would expect from an economist when you try to get her to commit to one of two possible economic forecasts - IT DEPENDS!
Genes travel vertically down family trees, from great grandmother to grandfather to mother to son........and so on. There is a 'dilution of the mix' through each hereditary step; we have 50% of our father's genes and 50% of our mother's genes. So the factor of relatedness becomes less with each generation, i.e. the great grandmother is less related to the mother's son, than the mother is to her son. Genes travel vertically but not horizontally, i.e. the father passes on genes to his daughter but not to his wife. Physical similarities can be genetic - 'he's got his father's nose', 'I can see you are mother and daughter'. But what about, for example, tempers and mood swings; are they hereditary (genetic) or copied behaviour (memetic)? Let's take a look at memes.
Memes are copied behaviour and although, as the definition implies, are analogous to genes, they are not constrained to be transmitted vertically down family trees and their 'mix' need not be 'diluted' when they are passed on. On the other hand, whereas genes are accurately copied, as DNA code, memes are very often approximated. If you have a particular religious belief, for example Christianity, you were not born a Christian but probably born from Christian parents. So at an early age you picked up Christian behaviour but YOUR version of Christian behaviour. Whereas your mother's and father's genes were faithfully reproduced to define the shape of your nose, your religious belief is one that you have formed and possibly continued to evolve, starting with the parental memes and picking up many other memetic influences as your mind and body develop.
Have you ever admired someone in authority, maybe a particular teacher when you were at school? Did your admiration cause you to pick up subconsciously some of his or her mannerisms? It does happen and that is a classic example of memetic behaviour.
Now let's return to my original rhetorical question, which has a greater impact on our lives - memes or genes? I said it depends, but on what? Genes and memes are inextricably linked because living organisms create memes. Genes can only be transmitted from parent to offspring and genetic transmission from generation to generation, takes many years. By contrast, memetic transmission is extremely rapid, often in hours rather than years, because the number of individuals that an individual can transmit a meme to is unlimited. Over the past ten thousand years, there hasn't been much change in humans at the genetic level but their culture, which is memetic, has experienced rapid developments. There is an on-going debate over 'nature versus nurture' on human behaviour, which in effect is questioning whether human attributes are inherited genetically, or developed through life memetically.
I still haven't given an opinion on whether genes or memes are the dominant factor on our behaviour and I won't! I would suggest you, the reader of this blog, should look back on your life and critically examine what has influenced your behaviour, positively and negatively. If you are able to undertake that analysis, you will be analysing memes. But you will still be left wondering whether your genetic make-up rendered you more susceptible to receiving particular types of memes and I am not sure you will ever be able to solve that conundrum, so the 'nature versus nurture' debate will continue!
Meme - a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.
Gene - the basic physical unit of heredity; a linear sequence of nucleotides along a segment of DNA that provides the coded instructions for synthesis of RNA, which, when translated into protein, leads to the expression of heredity character.
Meme is a much newer entrant to the English language than gene but which has a greater impact on our lives? That's a rhetorical question but even if it wasn't, the answer would probably be the type you would expect from an economist when you try to get her to commit to one of two possible economic forecasts - IT DEPENDS!
Genes travel vertically down family trees, from great grandmother to grandfather to mother to son........and so on. There is a 'dilution of the mix' through each hereditary step; we have 50% of our father's genes and 50% of our mother's genes. So the factor of relatedness becomes less with each generation, i.e. the great grandmother is less related to the mother's son, than the mother is to her son. Genes travel vertically but not horizontally, i.e. the father passes on genes to his daughter but not to his wife. Physical similarities can be genetic - 'he's got his father's nose', 'I can see you are mother and daughter'. But what about, for example, tempers and mood swings; are they hereditary (genetic) or copied behaviour (memetic)? Let's take a look at memes.
Memes are copied behaviour and although, as the definition implies, are analogous to genes, they are not constrained to be transmitted vertically down family trees and their 'mix' need not be 'diluted' when they are passed on. On the other hand, whereas genes are accurately copied, as DNA code, memes are very often approximated. If you have a particular religious belief, for example Christianity, you were not born a Christian but probably born from Christian parents. So at an early age you picked up Christian behaviour but YOUR version of Christian behaviour. Whereas your mother's and father's genes were faithfully reproduced to define the shape of your nose, your religious belief is one that you have formed and possibly continued to evolve, starting with the parental memes and picking up many other memetic influences as your mind and body develop.
Have you ever admired someone in authority, maybe a particular teacher when you were at school? Did your admiration cause you to pick up subconsciously some of his or her mannerisms? It does happen and that is a classic example of memetic behaviour.
Now let's return to my original rhetorical question, which has a greater impact on our lives - memes or genes? I said it depends, but on what? Genes and memes are inextricably linked because living organisms create memes. Genes can only be transmitted from parent to offspring and genetic transmission from generation to generation, takes many years. By contrast, memetic transmission is extremely rapid, often in hours rather than years, because the number of individuals that an individual can transmit a meme to is unlimited. Over the past ten thousand years, there hasn't been much change in humans at the genetic level but their culture, which is memetic, has experienced rapid developments. There is an on-going debate over 'nature versus nurture' on human behaviour, which in effect is questioning whether human attributes are inherited genetically, or developed through life memetically.
I still haven't given an opinion on whether genes or memes are the dominant factor on our behaviour and I won't! I would suggest you, the reader of this blog, should look back on your life and critically examine what has influenced your behaviour, positively and negatively. If you are able to undertake that analysis, you will be analysing memes. But you will still be left wondering whether your genetic make-up rendered you more susceptible to receiving particular types of memes and I am not sure you will ever be able to solve that conundrum, so the 'nature versus nurture' debate will continue!
Monday 23 July 2012
Jack and Jill
Jack and Jill went up the hill........
It was the second time around for both of them. Jack had previously attempted a hill with Judy. Jill's previous partner was John. Their previous and latest partnerships were those well known legal contracts known as 'marriage'. In many countries more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, often acrimonious and very costly (financially and emotionally), and yet the majority of those divorced get married again!
So why was it going to be different for Jack and Jill this time around? Well they were both older, wiser and had the benefit of knowing what went wrong with their respective previous marriages. Those previous marital experiences had followed similar patterns. When the honeymoon was over, the partnership developed and enjoyed many pleasurable times as well as some inevitable difficulties and obstacles. If the problems are difficult to solve, many couples give up there and then but that was not the case for Jack, Judy, Jill and John. Instead each couple went down the path of pursuing separate interests, initially unintentionally, for many years, united only by the roof over their heads as well as sharing meals, domestic chores and the basic cost of living. Only when Jack met Jill did the two sets of marital equilibria become unstable.
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water........
Yet most water collects in the valleys. Jack and Jill had got more than a modicum of brain cells between them so why weren't they aware of this basic physical fact? Were their aspirations unrealistic and could this have been a possible cause of their previous failed relationships?
Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after........
The stories of this event suggest that the water had been collected before the accident so at least part of the aspiration had been achieved. That said, it is highly likely that Jack and Jill were absolutely knackered after climbing the hill and then to be loaded up with a heavy bucket of water, little wonder there was a mishap waiting for them on the way back.
Metaphorically speaking, the 'hill' could be mortgage commitments, children, pressure of work, extended family........life's a bitch! It still doesn't explain why having seen it before, Jack and Jill still persisted in climbing yet another hill. Maybe there was a difference, circumstances had changed and climbing the hill was less of a necessity than in times gone by. They had got enough water stored for their basic needs and so the venture became a shared and enjoyable means of creating a challenge to keep their bodies and minds fit and healthy. In short, they enjoyed climbing the hill because it might be the last hill they would climb.
Anyone who has read my blogs and books will know that I am not inclined to write fiction but like all good invented stories, there is usually a heavy injection of fact!........Happy climbing!! :-)
It was the second time around for both of them. Jack had previously attempted a hill with Judy. Jill's previous partner was John. Their previous and latest partnerships were those well known legal contracts known as 'marriage'. In many countries more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, often acrimonious and very costly (financially and emotionally), and yet the majority of those divorced get married again!
So why was it going to be different for Jack and Jill this time around? Well they were both older, wiser and had the benefit of knowing what went wrong with their respective previous marriages. Those previous marital experiences had followed similar patterns. When the honeymoon was over, the partnership developed and enjoyed many pleasurable times as well as some inevitable difficulties and obstacles. If the problems are difficult to solve, many couples give up there and then but that was not the case for Jack, Judy, Jill and John. Instead each couple went down the path of pursuing separate interests, initially unintentionally, for many years, united only by the roof over their heads as well as sharing meals, domestic chores and the basic cost of living. Only when Jack met Jill did the two sets of marital equilibria become unstable.
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water........
Yet most water collects in the valleys. Jack and Jill had got more than a modicum of brain cells between them so why weren't they aware of this basic physical fact? Were their aspirations unrealistic and could this have been a possible cause of their previous failed relationships?
Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after........
The stories of this event suggest that the water had been collected before the accident so at least part of the aspiration had been achieved. That said, it is highly likely that Jack and Jill were absolutely knackered after climbing the hill and then to be loaded up with a heavy bucket of water, little wonder there was a mishap waiting for them on the way back.
Metaphorically speaking, the 'hill' could be mortgage commitments, children, pressure of work, extended family........life's a bitch! It still doesn't explain why having seen it before, Jack and Jill still persisted in climbing yet another hill. Maybe there was a difference, circumstances had changed and climbing the hill was less of a necessity than in times gone by. They had got enough water stored for their basic needs and so the venture became a shared and enjoyable means of creating a challenge to keep their bodies and minds fit and healthy. In short, they enjoyed climbing the hill because it might be the last hill they would climb.
Anyone who has read my blogs and books will know that I am not inclined to write fiction but like all good invented stories, there is usually a heavy injection of fact!........Happy climbing!! :-)
Saturday 23 June 2012
The Psychology of Spending Money
Perhaps the title of this blog should be 'The Psychology of Spending or NOT Spending Money'. What fascinates me and has encouraged this short article is people's views on the rights and wrongs or parting with their hard-earned cash. But first let's get back to basics - what is money? Money is purely and simply a means of trading. In my opinion it is one of the best of inventions in the history of mankind. Imagine living in a cash-less society, where trading is by bartering - my horse for your cow, my eggs for your beetroot, my iPad for your ??!!**! However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that money per se, the coins, notes, bank and credit card statements, have little material value. It is the trading ability that is valuable. So my iPad might be bought by you for £200, which I could use to buy a pair of spectacles. The second-hand iPad has been traded for new spectacles using a third party. This demonstrates the flexibility and power of money.
The psychology of transactions really interests me and in particular how people tend to focus on the financial values of expenditure and income rather than how to use money to satisfy their needs and wants. Let's look at typical behavioural patterns for three examples of monetary transactions - buying and selling property, paying for medical treatment and buying insurance cover.
If you've decided to down-size your property in order to realise some cash and perhaps travel to places where you've always wanted to go but could never afford it, well that should be a fairly simple monetary transaction. You might think your house is worth £250k, you only need property for say £150k and so after an estimated £10k expenses you might net £90k for your travels. The property market is declining and after having your house for sale for 6 months you decide to suspend looking for your next property until your sale has been confirmed. You have also suffered the disappointment of several prospective buyers' views of the value of your house being lower than your expectation. It looks as though you're not going to get more than £225k and after about a year on the market, a cash buyer offers £220k. The £30k drop becomes a major issue to you. Why should I drop my price? I don't need to move. The buyer's offer is insulting. Three years ago my neighbour's house went for £260k (the fact that the housing market has dropped around 15% in that timeframe doesn't enter into your thinking!). The psychology of the monetary transaction comes into play because the £30k reduction is the new issue rather than what you want to do with your life, i.e. reduce your living space and travel. The £30k could probably be easily recovered by a combination of getting a good deal for your next property because you are a cash buyer and searching for bargains in the travel market for your worldwide excursions.
The next example is paying for medical treatment. Some countries such as the UK have 'free' medical treatment through, in the case of the UK, a National Health Service (NHS). It's not really free because it is funded by taxation so everyone pays whether or not they 'enjoy' any benefits. Now you would think any citizen who loves life would regard their own well-being as a number one priority. But when that priority is put to the test, it's not always demonstrated to be number one! In the UK, for example, the 'free' NHS treatment is seen as a basic right and the idea of paying to get a faster service for a non-urgent but nevertheless uncomfortable condition, is, for many people, not an option to be considered. The NHS does not have an unlimited budget and has to prioritise its treatments. So, for example, heart surgery would be a high priority, the removal of a benign external cyst might be a medium priority and an in-growing toe nail could be at the tail end (or even the foot end!) of the priority list. If your cyst operation has an 18-week waiting list but you can get private surgery next week for, say, £3k, you might think to yourself, why should I pay? In fact it could be a very small price to pay compared with the cost over the year of the substances you might buy to abuse your body, like too much salt, fat, carbohydrate, alcohol, cigarettes, junk food....do I need to name more?! Also the essential food items are very often consumed in excess or even thrown out.
My final example is insurance cover - the 'peace of mind' expenditure. Let me start with an indisputable fact - insurance companies make money. This means that their income from people paying insurance premiums, less the amount they pay out in claims, less their operating expenses, leave them with a very large operating profit. Do some simple calculations for yourself. How much have you paid out, during your driving career, for car insurance and is that more than the total cost of your claims? How much have you paid out for house insurance and is that more than the total cost of your claims? How much have you paid for medical insurance and is that more than the total cost of your claims? For most people the answers will be YES, YES and YES. There will be some variations but the reason I am confident with my 'most people' prediction is because that's why the insurance industry is so profitable. In other words, life is not as risky as we are led to believe but our fear of the unknown causes us to view insurance as a worthwhile expenditure. Perhaps it would be better to accumulate your own funds for unforeseen circumstances.
So there you have it folks, our spending habits are very often irrational and maybe that's because money distorts our perception of what we are trying to achieve, which, in the previous examples, were a rewarding lifestyle, a healthy body and a balanced view towards what reserves we require for unknown circumstances.
The psychology of transactions really interests me and in particular how people tend to focus on the financial values of expenditure and income rather than how to use money to satisfy their needs and wants. Let's look at typical behavioural patterns for three examples of monetary transactions - buying and selling property, paying for medical treatment and buying insurance cover.
If you've decided to down-size your property in order to realise some cash and perhaps travel to places where you've always wanted to go but could never afford it, well that should be a fairly simple monetary transaction. You might think your house is worth £250k, you only need property for say £150k and so after an estimated £10k expenses you might net £90k for your travels. The property market is declining and after having your house for sale for 6 months you decide to suspend looking for your next property until your sale has been confirmed. You have also suffered the disappointment of several prospective buyers' views of the value of your house being lower than your expectation. It looks as though you're not going to get more than £225k and after about a year on the market, a cash buyer offers £220k. The £30k drop becomes a major issue to you. Why should I drop my price? I don't need to move. The buyer's offer is insulting. Three years ago my neighbour's house went for £260k (the fact that the housing market has dropped around 15% in that timeframe doesn't enter into your thinking!). The psychology of the monetary transaction comes into play because the £30k reduction is the new issue rather than what you want to do with your life, i.e. reduce your living space and travel. The £30k could probably be easily recovered by a combination of getting a good deal for your next property because you are a cash buyer and searching for bargains in the travel market for your worldwide excursions.
The next example is paying for medical treatment. Some countries such as the UK have 'free' medical treatment through, in the case of the UK, a National Health Service (NHS). It's not really free because it is funded by taxation so everyone pays whether or not they 'enjoy' any benefits. Now you would think any citizen who loves life would regard their own well-being as a number one priority. But when that priority is put to the test, it's not always demonstrated to be number one! In the UK, for example, the 'free' NHS treatment is seen as a basic right and the idea of paying to get a faster service for a non-urgent but nevertheless uncomfortable condition, is, for many people, not an option to be considered. The NHS does not have an unlimited budget and has to prioritise its treatments. So, for example, heart surgery would be a high priority, the removal of a benign external cyst might be a medium priority and an in-growing toe nail could be at the tail end (or even the foot end!) of the priority list. If your cyst operation has an 18-week waiting list but you can get private surgery next week for, say, £3k, you might think to yourself, why should I pay? In fact it could be a very small price to pay compared with the cost over the year of the substances you might buy to abuse your body, like too much salt, fat, carbohydrate, alcohol, cigarettes, junk food....do I need to name more?! Also the essential food items are very often consumed in excess or even thrown out.
My final example is insurance cover - the 'peace of mind' expenditure. Let me start with an indisputable fact - insurance companies make money. This means that their income from people paying insurance premiums, less the amount they pay out in claims, less their operating expenses, leave them with a very large operating profit. Do some simple calculations for yourself. How much have you paid out, during your driving career, for car insurance and is that more than the total cost of your claims? How much have you paid out for house insurance and is that more than the total cost of your claims? How much have you paid for medical insurance and is that more than the total cost of your claims? For most people the answers will be YES, YES and YES. There will be some variations but the reason I am confident with my 'most people' prediction is because that's why the insurance industry is so profitable. In other words, life is not as risky as we are led to believe but our fear of the unknown causes us to view insurance as a worthwhile expenditure. Perhaps it would be better to accumulate your own funds for unforeseen circumstances.
So there you have it folks, our spending habits are very often irrational and maybe that's because money distorts our perception of what we are trying to achieve, which, in the previous examples, were a rewarding lifestyle, a healthy body and a balanced view towards what reserves we require for unknown circumstances.
Wednesday 13 June 2012
Cause and Effect fooled me again!
I believe that over the years I have developed many of the skills of a systems thinker. What does that mean? Well basically I try to take a helicopter view of life, issues, problems, whatever. Looking at the relationships between issues as well as the detail of life's 'building blocks'. One of the attributes of a systems thinker is the ability to think beyond seemingly obvious cause and effect relationships and particularly not to jump to simplistic conclusions like, for example, A caused B, which caused C, which caused D. Therefore, A caused D - maybe! Life's relationships are rarely as simple as A, B, C and D. Cause and Effect are not always obvious. Here's a statement, which might not register immediately, but is very profound:
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation, the apparent dependency of two events, does not mean that one event caused the other to happen. Every morning at sunrise I hear a cockerel crowing and I also hear the Imam chanting a call to prayer from a nearby mosque. Does the cockerel crowing cause the Imam to chant? Unlikely. Does the Imam chanting cause the cockerel to crow? Also unlikely. Do either the Imam or the cockerel cause the sun to rise? IMPOSSIBLE? What is most likely is that the Imam's chant is timed to take place at sunrise and the transition from dark to light also stimulates the cockerel to crow.
Does the cockerel only crow at sunrise? I don't claim to be an expert on cockerels' habits but I'm sure I have heard cockerels crow at other times of day. Could the cockerel crow at midnight? Possibly. Would that cause the sun to rise? DEFINITELY NOT! So now I hope you have grasped the fact that correlation definitely doesn't imply causation BUT causation requires correlation.
Now let's move on to a recent example of correlation and therefore cause and effect, playing games with me. Every morning I charge my two phones, a BlackBerry and a Nokia. They don't always need it but rather than get caught with a flat battery I developed this daily routine, which I rarely forget to do, rather like cleaning my teeth. Earlier this week I went through my charging routine, first plugging the BlackBerry in to charge and automatically looking at the face of the phone to note the little icon signifying the phone was accepting a charge. Then I followed the same procedure for the Nokia. I first plugged it in to charge, looked at the face of the phone and there was no icon, it apparently wasn't charging! Without pausing for a period of rational thinking to explore the possible cause and effect scenarios, my mind went into auto! The charger must be defective so I will go into the town and buy a replacement. Should I buy a branded Nokia device or a cheaper alternative? If, say, the Nokia product cost 20% more than the alternative brand but would have twice the life, then the Nokia route would be preferable. In the meantime, my wife, Sandie, also has a Nokia phone, a different model to mine but the charger might be compatible, in which case I would borrow it as an interim solution. I left my chargers and went to see my wife, but before I could explain the problem she informed me we had just had a power cut! In the period of time between plugging in the BlackBerry and noting it was charging and plugging in the Nokia and noting it wasn't charging, the mains electricity supply had been cut - ELEKTRİK YOK as we say in Turkish!
Now you might be sympathetic towards me thinking it's a fair assumption that the charger wasn't working but I can assure you I do not deserve your sympathy. In the area where we live, the probability of a power cut is far greater than the probability of a Nokia charger failing. So the fact that the phone didn't indicate it was charging correlated with the charger being plugged into the mains should not, on that occasion, imply the charger was defective. I can wax eloquently on the virtues of systems thinking, the danger of using linear models for a non-linear world and the nuances of correlation and causation but........life's a bitch!
Correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation, the apparent dependency of two events, does not mean that one event caused the other to happen. Every morning at sunrise I hear a cockerel crowing and I also hear the Imam chanting a call to prayer from a nearby mosque. Does the cockerel crowing cause the Imam to chant? Unlikely. Does the Imam chanting cause the cockerel to crow? Also unlikely. Do either the Imam or the cockerel cause the sun to rise? IMPOSSIBLE? What is most likely is that the Imam's chant is timed to take place at sunrise and the transition from dark to light also stimulates the cockerel to crow.
Does the cockerel only crow at sunrise? I don't claim to be an expert on cockerels' habits but I'm sure I have heard cockerels crow at other times of day. Could the cockerel crow at midnight? Possibly. Would that cause the sun to rise? DEFINITELY NOT! So now I hope you have grasped the fact that correlation definitely doesn't imply causation BUT causation requires correlation.
Now let's move on to a recent example of correlation and therefore cause and effect, playing games with me. Every morning I charge my two phones, a BlackBerry and a Nokia. They don't always need it but rather than get caught with a flat battery I developed this daily routine, which I rarely forget to do, rather like cleaning my teeth. Earlier this week I went through my charging routine, first plugging the BlackBerry in to charge and automatically looking at the face of the phone to note the little icon signifying the phone was accepting a charge. Then I followed the same procedure for the Nokia. I first plugged it in to charge, looked at the face of the phone and there was no icon, it apparently wasn't charging! Without pausing for a period of rational thinking to explore the possible cause and effect scenarios, my mind went into auto! The charger must be defective so I will go into the town and buy a replacement. Should I buy a branded Nokia device or a cheaper alternative? If, say, the Nokia product cost 20% more than the alternative brand but would have twice the life, then the Nokia route would be preferable. In the meantime, my wife, Sandie, also has a Nokia phone, a different model to mine but the charger might be compatible, in which case I would borrow it as an interim solution. I left my chargers and went to see my wife, but before I could explain the problem she informed me we had just had a power cut! In the period of time between plugging in the BlackBerry and noting it was charging and plugging in the Nokia and noting it wasn't charging, the mains electricity supply had been cut - ELEKTRİK YOK as we say in Turkish!
Now you might be sympathetic towards me thinking it's a fair assumption that the charger wasn't working but I can assure you I do not deserve your sympathy. In the area where we live, the probability of a power cut is far greater than the probability of a Nokia charger failing. So the fact that the phone didn't indicate it was charging correlated with the charger being plugged into the mains should not, on that occasion, imply the charger was defective. I can wax eloquently on the virtues of systems thinking, the danger of using linear models for a non-linear world and the nuances of correlation and causation but........life's a bitch!
Wednesday 30 May 2012
Sweet Memories
Since I met my lovely wife in 2002, I have created a new photo computer file for each year that we have been together and I will continue to do so, hopefully for many more years to come. The ten-year photographic record has seen three generations of digital camera including my latest DSLR. My photography is getting more ambitious, the latest shots include birds of prey, swallows swooping for refreshment from our pool and a gecko stalking a small bug. I have been an 'on and off' amateur photographer for the past 40 years, but technology has made the task much easier now than when I acquired a 35mm film SLR camera in the 1970s. That said, having an eye for a good shot is a skill that does not always come naturally (my wife is much better at it than me) and my engineering background sometimes encourages me to become too seduced with the technicalities of photography (ISO, aperture, speed, etc) rather than the picture I want to capture!
I have never shared my photos beyond close friends and family. I am not one for uploading thousands of photos on to Facebook probably because even prior to the digital revolution, I was bored to tears by other peoples' photos. I can remember 35mm slide shows round at friends' homes, the lights went out and shortly afterwards someone nudged me when I started snoring!
Despite the wealth of technology that we now enjoy, there is no doubt in my mind that there is no man-made wizardry that can match the human brain with its integrated memory. Memories are interesting and the data storage capacity of the brain is phenomenal but the retrieval process is not always as efficient as a modern search engine like Google. I am often frustrated by my 'senior moments' forgetting recent events, faces, names or even the pin number of one of my credit cards. On the other hand, I can remember childhood events with clarity. For example, my parents moved house in north London when I was three years old. The garden was overgrown and my father used a scythe to cut the grass. I fell on it and still have a faint scar on my knee to prove it. I have no problem retrieving that memory from my grey matter. Memories are not just visual, as we all know it is easy to memorise taste and other sensations. So I can re-live the sensation of eating a toffee apple, even though I haven't had one for years - decades in fact!
Sharing memories with others is interesting because the memory has to be communicated as a story in words and the recipient will use his or her imagination to create a picture, if indeed he or she is interested! So the 'copying' from one brain to another is not as precise as, for example, sharing photographs on Facebook. However, it is the lack of precision that, in my opinion, makes memories so exciting compared with photographic records. Our brains can fool us into remembering what we want, or maybe don't want, to see - like the heat haze in the desert that transforms dry sand into a refreshing lake. False images can be retained and passed on to others as 'facts', very often spreading negative thoughts like unwanted viruses or conversely, creating enthusiasm in a discontented society.
The mind doesn't need adjustment to capture an event. The equivalents of ISO, aperture and speed are all taken care of for is. So I can vividly recall the swallows swooping into my pool but to capture the event photographically was time-consuming and challenging, involving the use of a high-quality telephoto lens and multi-shot photography.
Technology is fantastic and I'm a bit of a geek, but I never lose sight of the fact that the human ability to memorise and recall masses of events beats any competitive hardware and software processing solutions.......but will I remember writing this article in five years time?.......Maybe!
I have never shared my photos beyond close friends and family. I am not one for uploading thousands of photos on to Facebook probably because even prior to the digital revolution, I was bored to tears by other peoples' photos. I can remember 35mm slide shows round at friends' homes, the lights went out and shortly afterwards someone nudged me when I started snoring!
Despite the wealth of technology that we now enjoy, there is no doubt in my mind that there is no man-made wizardry that can match the human brain with its integrated memory. Memories are interesting and the data storage capacity of the brain is phenomenal but the retrieval process is not always as efficient as a modern search engine like Google. I am often frustrated by my 'senior moments' forgetting recent events, faces, names or even the pin number of one of my credit cards. On the other hand, I can remember childhood events with clarity. For example, my parents moved house in north London when I was three years old. The garden was overgrown and my father used a scythe to cut the grass. I fell on it and still have a faint scar on my knee to prove it. I have no problem retrieving that memory from my grey matter. Memories are not just visual, as we all know it is easy to memorise taste and other sensations. So I can re-live the sensation of eating a toffee apple, even though I haven't had one for years - decades in fact!
Sharing memories with others is interesting because the memory has to be communicated as a story in words and the recipient will use his or her imagination to create a picture, if indeed he or she is interested! So the 'copying' from one brain to another is not as precise as, for example, sharing photographs on Facebook. However, it is the lack of precision that, in my opinion, makes memories so exciting compared with photographic records. Our brains can fool us into remembering what we want, or maybe don't want, to see - like the heat haze in the desert that transforms dry sand into a refreshing lake. False images can be retained and passed on to others as 'facts', very often spreading negative thoughts like unwanted viruses or conversely, creating enthusiasm in a discontented society.
The mind doesn't need adjustment to capture an event. The equivalents of ISO, aperture and speed are all taken care of for is. So I can vividly recall the swallows swooping into my pool but to capture the event photographically was time-consuming and challenging, involving the use of a high-quality telephoto lens and multi-shot photography.
Technology is fantastic and I'm a bit of a geek, but I never lose sight of the fact that the human ability to memorise and recall masses of events beats any competitive hardware and software processing solutions.......but will I remember writing this article in five years time?.......Maybe!
Monday 7 May 2012
Do you know what you are drinking?
I like this argument put forward by Richard Dawkins:
The biologist Lewis Wolpert calculates 'that there are many more molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the sea'. Since all water on the planet cycles through the sea, it would seem to follow that every time you drink a glass of water, the odds are good that something of what you are drinking has passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell.
The biologist Lewis Wolpert calculates 'that there are many more molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the sea'. Since all water on the planet cycles through the sea, it would seem to follow that every time you drink a glass of water, the odds are good that something of what you are drinking has passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell.
Monday 23 April 2012
If I knew then what I know now.
I don't know if it's a symptom of approaching life's twilight years, but I do seem to spend some of my spare thinking time reflecting on my history. It's amazing how much I can recall from the dim and distant past, for example the names of friends at primary school and yet I very often forget what I did last week! The functioning of the brain and in particularly it's memory, is fascinating and will perhaps feature in a future blog but on this occasion I want to share some of my past experiences and in particular the application of that well-worn phrase, 'If I knew then what I know now.'
OK, you might be thinking this is just a 'with the benefit of hindsight' feature but that is not my intention. Closer to the mark would probably be 'growing older and wiser', but again I don't want that to be the sole message retained by the readers. I am only just coming to grips with the complexity of life and understanding some of the previously-missing pieces of life's jig saw puzzle. So yes, I am wiser now than I was, say, forty years ago and my current knowledge base should mean that I am better-equipped to deal with some of the challenges that I faced in my youth, but I don't have the energy now to tackle some of the key issues of yesteryear that moulded my journey through life. It's the determination of life's journey that really does interest me because it is affected by every choice, every action, right or wrong. Who is to judge the correctness of our actions, what is right, what is wrong, what is the truth? We are where we are because of the decisions that we took, over which we had varying degrees of control, and because of the decisions of others, over which we had varying degrees of influence, and a whole host of day-to-day evolutionary events, over which we have absolutely no control or influence. Against this background of chaotic uncertainty, why do I think the past could have benefited from me knowing then what I know now?
At this point I am going to extol the virtues of systems thinking, which I can best describe by John Muir's quote: "When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world". So systems thinking is all about interconnectivity. Interconnection not just in space but also in time. Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline, said: "Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space". I believe this truism is very often ignored at all ages but is most likely, through experience, to be appreciated in later years. Certainly that is true in my case and how I wish my systemic thinking could have played a prominent part on my earlier years, in family, social and business affairs.
Clearly there is more to systems thinking than understanding the complexities of cause and effect, but when I look back at some of my bad decisions, a common thread of impulsiveness, quick fix, instant gratification....etc, seems to run through some of my bad 'life choices'. That said, and this is where I am in danger of contradicting the entirety of this blog thus far, I am perfectly happy with my lot. I want for no more emotionally or materially and I am where I am because of all my past good and bad decisions! So what could have been different? Well maybe I might have got to my current paradise quicker! Who knows, I could explore a plethora of hypotheses until the cows come home.
At the beginning of this blog I said I would share some of my experiences. Well here's a couple, one from the world of business and another from my social life.
In the commercial world, those who run businesses are driven by the 'bottom line', doing everything possible to maximise short-term profitability, often at the expense of longer-term performance. 'If I knew then....' I wouldn't have succumbed to short-term pressures unless I could reconcile in my own mind there were no other adverse ramifications, in time or space. Who knows what impact that would have had on my career, but I still believe it is wrong to do things you know are wrong.
In my social life, selfishness and short-term gratification have been my major vices coupled with being too easily influenced by others. The student excesses of boozing, smoking and partying (but never drugs) went on far too long, way beyond college days, and had a negative impact on some social and family relationships in my mid-life years. 'If I knew then....' I would have questioned my social habits much earlier and tried to live a more balanced and altruistic life. We share this planet with billions of humans and other species so for a balanced society we surely can't always put ourselves first.
So that's it guys, I don't know what my hypothetical different life would have done for me or others and I'm more than happy with what I've got. But I'm hopefully not at the end of the road yet and so maybe I can practice what I preach in the concluding chapters of Alan's biography!
Tuesday 3 April 2012
Blueprints and Recipes - the Clock and the Cake
I have a clock and I want to know how it works because there's always been an enquiring mind in me. So I take it to pieces and lay all the component parts on the table. I ought to add that it's quite an old clock with cogs and springs, all powered by a wind-up mechanism. I sit and ponder what has been revealed and establish a mental model of how the wound spring drives the second, minute and hour hands, through a series of gears, to provide a picture of time.
So that was an interesting exercise but the whole is worth more to me than the sum of the parts and having increased my knowledge base, I'm now keen to reassemble the clock - but how?! Well I might have remembered how the parts fitted together, perhaps even taken notes. Alternatively the original manufacturer of the clock might be able to provide me with a blueprint for the clock, which would list all the components and explain how they fit together. The point is that it is possible to take the clock to pieces, find out how it works and then reassemble it. The reassembly can be achieved with the original blueprint or indeed it is possible to create a new blueprint by recording the component parts and the steps needed to reconstruct the clock.
Now let's look at a completely different scenario. A friend provides me with a sample of his freshly baked carrot cake, which I decide to try shortly afterwards with a cup of coffee on my balcony. The sun is shining, I feel relaxed and ready to sample my newly acquired culinary delight.......delicious!!!! I'm not a professional cook but I do like to dabble and this carrot cake is simply the best I have ever tasted, so I'm keen to reproduce it, but how? I decide to ask my friend for the recipe and he obliges. There's no reason why he shouldn't really because the recipe is contained within a well known cook book so it's well and truly in the public domain. I haven't completely finished my friend's carrot cake and I reserve a bit to compare with my own creation when available. I bake my cake, do the comparison and guess what.........there's a difference! My friend's cake is definitely tastier than mine.
Unlike the clock, it is impossible to take the cake to pieces and establish exactly how it was made. I used a recipe but a recipe is NOT a blueprint and the difference between a clock and a cake is the difference between complicated and complex. I collect my freshly-made loaf of bread from a local bakery every morning. It's warm, delicious but always slightly different! The shape, texture and hardness of the crust all show variations from day to day. I am sure my friend would admit to his carrot cakes varying to some degree each time he makes one. On the other hand, the clock will always be the same each time I disassemble and reassemble it provided that I follow the blueprint. So the difference between the clock and the cake is not only complicated vs complex but also certainty vs probability. I will talk more about certainties and probabilities in a future blog.
Life is full of blueprints and recipes and from my experience, we all too often confuse a recipe for a blueprint. In other words we assume that a particular course of action will lead to a certain (rather than a probable) outcome. Let me give you an example - The Miracle Diet, a blueprint for successfully losing weight. There are loads of them on the market! So you weigh-in, collect your special dietary pack and pay a hefty fee for all this 'expert' advice. Maybe things go well initially and you lose a few kilos but one year later you're back to square one. Body weight is a function of a number of variables including input (food) and output (exercise). But it is a complex, rather than complicated, matter and I defy anyone to understand it fully and to be able to predict individual outcomes to dietary plans. The plan itself is a recipe not a blueprint.
I could cite many examples of recipes that are presented as blueprints in life, including politics, financial services, personal well-being, macro economics, sport........to name but a few. Interestingly, rarely are blueprints misrepresented as recipes. So if ever you are asked the question 'What's the difference between a clock and a cake?', you'll know it's not the lead-in to a joke!........or is it?
So that was an interesting exercise but the whole is worth more to me than the sum of the parts and having increased my knowledge base, I'm now keen to reassemble the clock - but how?! Well I might have remembered how the parts fitted together, perhaps even taken notes. Alternatively the original manufacturer of the clock might be able to provide me with a blueprint for the clock, which would list all the components and explain how they fit together. The point is that it is possible to take the clock to pieces, find out how it works and then reassemble it. The reassembly can be achieved with the original blueprint or indeed it is possible to create a new blueprint by recording the component parts and the steps needed to reconstruct the clock.
Now let's look at a completely different scenario. A friend provides me with a sample of his freshly baked carrot cake, which I decide to try shortly afterwards with a cup of coffee on my balcony. The sun is shining, I feel relaxed and ready to sample my newly acquired culinary delight.......delicious!!!! I'm not a professional cook but I do like to dabble and this carrot cake is simply the best I have ever tasted, so I'm keen to reproduce it, but how? I decide to ask my friend for the recipe and he obliges. There's no reason why he shouldn't really because the recipe is contained within a well known cook book so it's well and truly in the public domain. I haven't completely finished my friend's carrot cake and I reserve a bit to compare with my own creation when available. I bake my cake, do the comparison and guess what.........there's a difference! My friend's cake is definitely tastier than mine.
Unlike the clock, it is impossible to take the cake to pieces and establish exactly how it was made. I used a recipe but a recipe is NOT a blueprint and the difference between a clock and a cake is the difference between complicated and complex. I collect my freshly-made loaf of bread from a local bakery every morning. It's warm, delicious but always slightly different! The shape, texture and hardness of the crust all show variations from day to day. I am sure my friend would admit to his carrot cakes varying to some degree each time he makes one. On the other hand, the clock will always be the same each time I disassemble and reassemble it provided that I follow the blueprint. So the difference between the clock and the cake is not only complicated vs complex but also certainty vs probability. I will talk more about certainties and probabilities in a future blog.
Life is full of blueprints and recipes and from my experience, we all too often confuse a recipe for a blueprint. In other words we assume that a particular course of action will lead to a certain (rather than a probable) outcome. Let me give you an example - The Miracle Diet, a blueprint for successfully losing weight. There are loads of them on the market! So you weigh-in, collect your special dietary pack and pay a hefty fee for all this 'expert' advice. Maybe things go well initially and you lose a few kilos but one year later you're back to square one. Body weight is a function of a number of variables including input (food) and output (exercise). But it is a complex, rather than complicated, matter and I defy anyone to understand it fully and to be able to predict individual outcomes to dietary plans. The plan itself is a recipe not a blueprint.
I could cite many examples of recipes that are presented as blueprints in life, including politics, financial services, personal well-being, macro economics, sport........to name but a few. Interestingly, rarely are blueprints misrepresented as recipes. So if ever you are asked the question 'What's the difference between a clock and a cake?', you'll know it's not the lead-in to a joke!........or is it?
Wednesday 21 March 2012
Where I have and have not been.
I have been in many places, but I've never been in Cahoots. Apparently, you can't go alone. You have to be in Cahoots with someone. I've also never been in Cognito. I hear no one recognizes you there.
I have, however, been in Sane. They don't have an airport; you have to be driven there. I have made several trips there, thanks to my friends, family and work.
I would like to go to Conclusions, but you have to jump, and I'm not too much on physical activity anymore.
I have also been in Doubt. That is a sad place to go, and I try not to visit there too often & I've been in Flexible, but only when it was very important to stand firm.
Sometimes I'm in Capable, and I go there more often as I'm getting older. One of my favorite places to be is in Suspense! It really gets the adrenalin flowing and pumps up the old heart! At my age I need all the stimuli I can get!
But one place I don’t ever want to be is in Continent.
Have a nice day!
I have, however, been in Sane. They don't have an airport; you have to be driven there. I have made several trips there, thanks to my friends, family and work.
I would like to go to Conclusions, but you have to jump, and I'm not too much on physical activity anymore.
I have also been in Doubt. That is a sad place to go, and I try not to visit there too often & I've been in Flexible, but only when it was very important to stand firm.
Sometimes I'm in Capable, and I go there more often as I'm getting older. One of my favorite places to be is in Suspense! It really gets the adrenalin flowing and pumps up the old heart! At my age I need all the stimuli I can get!
But one place I don’t ever want to be is in Continent.
Have a nice day!
My Books
The Oxymoron of Managerial Wisdom is available at
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1303895
Food for Thought is available at
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/2611356
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1303895
Food for Thought is available at
http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/2611356
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)