Flies in your eyes.

As I gaze from my balcony across the countryside, I often see a swarm of flies, although not as many as in the photo!  Sometimes I track them, watching the group as it moves around.  Occasionally it will move towards me and just as I think it is within spitting distance (not that I would!), it disappears.  I have confirmed my sightings with my wife, who has also seen the flies and has been pleased that they have disappeared rather than landed!

Recently my wife visited the optician to collect some new spectacles and mentioned the flies only to have our observations shattered!  The 'flies' are 'floaters' - yes, what we have been observing are floaters, which are deposits of various size, shape and consistency, within the eye's vitreous humour, which is normally transparent.  The common type of floater, which is present in most people's eyes, is due to degenerative changes of the vitreous humour.  Sometimes, these floaters are called Muscae volitantes, which is Latin for 'flying flies'.  The objects exist within the eye itself and so are not optical illusions but are entropic phenomena.

Well that's interesting isn't it?!  Yes, I think it is.  The flies in my eyes were until recently, real flies.  Particularly as we live in a part of the world where, at certain times of the year, we battle against mosquitoes, which includes ensuring we have nets on all the windows and doors - but still the little buggers manage to get into the house!  So we have an awareness of the unwelcome presence of flying insects.  Whilst we have this in the back of our minds, why wouldn't we mistake floaters in the vitreous humour for flying insects?!

"Perception is Reality."

Albert Einstein said: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."  Douglas Adams said: "Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you.  You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you."  So whereas my perception of the flies changed because of information my wife received from an optician, which I subsequently researched and confirmed, my perception could change again if, for example, another expert had an alternative plausible theory.  We can only base our view of specific situations and indeed, life in general, on what we perceive using our sensors.  But what my 'flies in your eyes' experience has demonstrated is you shouldn't always believe what you see.  As Douglas Adams points out, it is all specific to the individual observer.  If I should question what I see, then likewise I shouldn't necessarily believe what others tell me they have seen.  Yet everyday I watch the News and mostly believe what I am told.  How naive is that?

I will draw this post to a close with a quote from W. Edwards Deming: "Without data you're just another person with an opinion."  Wise words, but can you believe the data, even if you've seen it with your own eyes?!

Collectively we work wonders.

Look around you and what do you see?  If you're in the city, your panorama is probably dominated by human constructions.  If you're in a rural environment, the natural world of trees, plants and other aspects of an organic landscape might come to the fore, but I bet there's also plenty of man-made material around, including whatever electronic device you're using to read this post.  The human species has certainly made its mark on the planet, a lot of it positive but regrettably, a huge amount of it has been negative.

I'd like the spin of this post to be primarily positive.  I'm fed up with moaning!  When we look around at what humans have designed and produced, how much do we personally feel able to reproduce?  I can drive a car, but could I design and manufacture an automobile?  Probably not, or at least I've never tried.  That's not to say I have no knowledge and skills.  Indeed there are many things I can do, which many others can't do.  However, my skills are not unique, so likewise many others are capable of doing what I can do. The point is that we are surrounded by human achievement, old and new, which has only been possible by collective efforts.  What's more, there is a 'force multiplier' that comes into play when we work together, so 1+1+1 is much greater than 3.

Human achievement throughout the ages has been phenomenal.  We marvel at Egyptian pyramids, Roman ruins and ancient cathedrals.  Likewise we should be equally impressed with televisions, computers and jet aeroplanes.  We will, of course, recognise the way that in all these examples and countless more, human effort has been brought together to achieve collectively wonderous outcomes, which each individual would be incapable of doing alone.

Some of the consequences of our ingenuity were no doubt unintended and in some cases potentially disastrous, like nucleur weapons, climate change and massive environmental damage.  That said, I don't want this post to be negative so let's look to a positive future.  If mankind has achieved so much to date, why aren't similar achievements possible in the future?  Of course anything is possible.  The benefit of hindsight has highlighted what went wrong, so let's learn from experience and correct some of our past mistakes as well as work towards some really positive outcomes.

I'll end this post with a lovely quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."

We are the 99%

The Occupy Movement, using the slogan 'We are the 99%', started in the USA with demonstrations on Wall Street, but subsequently spreading to centres around the world.  Their gripe is that 1% of the population controls 45% of global wealth and the focus of their attack is the financial community, particularly bankers, hence the demonstrations on Wall Street.

There is no doubt that there is massive income inequality across the world and I'm not going to use this blog post to spout numbers - the readers can look them up on the Internet.  If we are looking for solutions, then we need to try to understand the problem from a systemic perspective.  Someone once said there are two types of problems - clocks and clouds.

The clock can be taken apart and each of its constituent parts provides an understanding of how the clock works when it is re-assembled.  That is not true of a cloud, which is formed mainly from water and other airborne particles.  The cloud is what is known as an emergent behaviour of a highly complex weather system.  So to understand the cloud we need to observe the whole, rather than the constituent parts.  Income inequality is a cloud-type problem, emerging from a highly complex social system an inherent part of which is a man-made monetary system.

Now from my Internet research, the 99% activists' problems are articulated very succinctly, but nowhere did I find what they were proposing as a solution - perhaps a helpful reader might point me in the right direction but I doubt it somehow, simple solutions to cloud-type problems rarely exist.  It is easy to repair a clock by replacing a defective part, but how do you change the shape of a cloud?  Indeed, many of today's problems are as a result of yesterday's solutions.  In fact, the title of this post does not clearly define the 'problem'.  Firstly, the 1% is not just composed of bankers and financial sharks, but also includes, for example, world-class surgeons and some English Premier League footballers.  Secondly, within the 99% there are also tremendous disparities in income from, for example, people earning $100,000 per year, to many in poverty surviving on less than $2 per day.

There is only so much that can be done politically or through legislation.  Communist states have generally been unsuccessful.  Taxing the rich tends to lose its effectiveness over time.  Subsidies for the very poor are like sticking plaster solutions, tackling the symptom rather than the underlying problem.  On top of all this, wealth attracts wealth and, for example, $10 million sitting in a bank at 10% compound interest, will 'earn' $1 million in year 1, $1.1 million in year 2, and so on.

There are no simple solutions to this highly complex problem and in my opinion, large-scale philanthropy is the best way forward.  Bill Gates, for example, is gladly giving his wealth away to good causes because he feels the need to help the society that was responsible for his success.  That said, I still believe the protests should continue if only to ensure public awareness of the issue does not wane.

The greatness of man is not how much wealth he acquires, but in his ability to affect those around him positively.  (Bob Marley)

The Cobbler's Shop

When I was a young lad, many years ago, every village had one and the towns had loads - what? - The Cobbler's Shop.  In real terms, shoes were probably more expensive than they are now.  A good pair of shoes could last many years but not without repair.  So the cobbler's shop was one of the pillars of the community.  All he would do, and I never recall seeing a female cobbler, would repair shoes.  He would generally be an affable character, so a visit to his shop would include a few pleasantries.  But then down to business and the customer would place the shoes on the counter, explaining the problem.  The cobbler would attach a ticket to the shoes, place them on a rack, give a duplicate of the ticket to the customer and say: "Come back next week."

It would always take a week to repair a pair of shoes and it was easy to see why.  The racks of shoes behind the cobbler's counter would represent a week's backlog of shoe repairs!  So although it might take the cobbler, say, one hour to repair the customer's shoes, it would take a week before he would get round to doing it.  Business analysts seeking to improve the performance of companies often use a measure known as the velocity ratio.  In any business process, the velocity ratio is the ratio of productive to total elapsed and available time.  Let's assume the average time taken for the cobbler to repair a pair of shoes, was one hour.  When I was a lad, the working week was probably around 48 hours.  So the cobbler's velocity ratio was 1/48 x 100% = 2%.  In a super-efficient organisation, the aim would be for all productive processes to have velocity ratios as close to 100% as possible!  So the cobbler was very inefficient.

Time has moved on and there are still shoe repair facilities, although not as many as when I was a lad and there aren't many villages that have one.  The methods for repairing shoes haven't changed radically but what about the efficiency?  Well, it is now possible to go to the repairer, put your shoes on the counter and have them repaired while you wait.  The productive time equals the elapsed time, so the velocity ratio is 100%.  But what does the shoe repairer do with the time he has on his hands between repairs, because he no longer has a backlog of shoes to occupy his time?  He does other things like key cutting, engraving, mobile phone screen repairs, trophies, passport photos, watch repairs, etc.

Those who have stayed in business have done so by diversification.  This is a classic example of business improvement by looking at better ways of doing things rather than just automating by using new technology - fantastic!  But you know what?  I really miss The Cobbler's Shop!

I would like to thank Joe Booth at access2growth, who helped me through a business improvement programme in the mid 1990s, for the inspiration for this story.

Why I don't value value.

There are many words in the English language that are confusing and in my opinion, 'value' is a prime example.  Here are some definitions of value as a noun:

1. Importance, worth, usefulness.

1.1 Material or monetary worth.

1.2 The worth compared to the price paid, e.g. 'good value'.

2. Principles or standards of behaviour.

Value and worth, particularly monetary worth, are, in my opinion, disconnected and often contradictory.  This is particularly relevant in the context of 'adding value'.  Let's take the example of a construction project.  A builder buys a dilapidated property for £100,000.  He spends a further £100,000 renovating it and then sells it for £300,000.  So he has 'added value' to the tune of £300,000 - £200,000 = £100,000.  The monetary value of the property has increased by £100,000.  But I don't see that as an increase in value, I just view it as a price someone is prepared to pay, which provides the builder with £100,000 profit.

The builder's profit, which he might call 'added value', of £100,000, equates to $166,000.  Why have I done that conversion?  Because 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.  So if it took the builder, say, six months to complete his project, he will have earned (if that's the right word!) almost $1,000 per day, 100 times more than the highest paid in 80% of the world's population.  So what 'value' is the builder's 'added value' to society.  I would suggest very little because it will probably be ploughed back into more construction projects, with similar out-turns, which only privileged members of society can afford to purchase, certainly not 80% of the global population.

It might appear that I am just knocking the capitalist economy, which for centuries has widened the gap between the haves and have-nots and continues to do so.  But other forms of economic management, like that employed by the former Soviet Union, have also failed miserably.  No I am not knocking economic management systems per se, I am merely pissed off with the flowery rhetoric.  In the example of the building project, for 'added value' read 'excessive profit'.  The commercial businesses that might advertise their capabilities as providing 'value propositions' should really be described as offering products and services at 'rip off prices'.

So there we have it.  I've had my say.  I certainly do not value value!

Depression

The death of Robin Williams on 11 August 2014, shocked the world.  He was an extremely talented actor who was known to have suffered from depression for some years.  At 63 years of age, he decided to take his own life by hanging himself - his personal suffering had come to an end.  But what is depression?  We've all heard people say, or indeed have said it ourselves, "I'm depressed" when what is really meant is "I am fed up because I have had a row/failed an exam/lost my job/etc".  The ups and downs of life are common and natural.  That's not depression.  True depression results in a low mood and other symptoms, day after day, week after week, month after month.

I don't think I have ever suffered from depression, but I do know someone who did and also committed suicide at the age of 63 - my brother Gordon.  He didn't hang himself but instead jumped off Beachy Head, a chalk headland in Southern England.  No one witnessed the event and his body, washed up on the beach, was not discovered for some time and could only be identified from his dental records.

I remember it well and I am ashamed to say that my immediate reaction was anger.  How could he be so selfish and leave behind him so many loved ones, including his wife, a son and a daughter?  It was many years after the event, when in my own mind I started piecing together snippets of information from family and my own recollection of my brother's behaviour during the latter years of his life, that I realised he was probably suffering from depression.  Did that make me feel guilty?  No, not really.  It's easy to think I could have done this, I could have done that,....  I have learnt that an individual life is a complex part of an even more complex organic system and cause-and-effect analyses of human behaviour rarely expose the roots of systemic problems.

So there we have it, two men with very different backgrounds and lifestyles who in the end suffered from depression and the only way each could find to solve his problems, was to end his life.  I now believe I am beginning to understand depression, an understanding that was totally lacking when my brother died.  I think the illness is extremely well defined by the words of the American psychologist, Rollo May:

"Depression is the inability to construct a future."

RIP Gordon and Robin.

Three reasons why this post won't go viral.

Most bloggers wish for the lucky break, the day the latest post goes viral.  Maybe 100,000 views, perhaps a million, or with a world population of over 7 billion, maybe 10 million views are not unreasonable.  So why won't this post go viral?  Well here are three good reasons.

Reason 1: The Title

Readers apparently like precise conclusions, so 'Three reasons why....' Is a good start, but the title is negative.  It explains why something won't happen and readers want positive titles.  'Three reasons why your career aspirations will be achievable' is far more inviting, particularly for young, ambitious high-flyers, and there are millions of those Tweeting, LinkedIn-ing and Facebook-ing everyday!  The title has to be an attention grabber.  It must feed egos and a few #hashtags might give an appearance of appealing to a wider audience - wrongly in my opinion.  The title also needs to have some uniqueness. There have been lots of posts and tweets on the atrocities in Gaza over the past few weeks and if you add the number of views of all such posts, it would be a huge figure.  However, the views per post would be considerably smaller, because the topic Gaza is not unique.  But imagine the following I might get if I described my recent visit to the moon (I wish!), how I had encountered living creatures and my findings had been independently verified.  Oh and by the way, I had posted videos on YouTube of my experiences of meeting the little green men and women.  That would certainly be unique!

Reason 2: My Following

I'm not Richard Branson, Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.  I have a lot in common with them, including two arms, two legs and a brain.  I shit and fart like the rest of them, but the physical similarities are all we have in common.  They are very well known, whereas Alan Hayman, by comparison, has a much smaller following.  Success breeds success, so more people following Richard Branson encourages even more people to follow Richard Branson........and so on.  A large following will, in my opinion, instill even more confidence in the person being followed and therefore, possibly enhance my final reason for viral posts.........

Reason 3: The Content

If you look at TV ratings for various programmes, then in the UK, for example, a 'soap' like Coronation Street might have an audience of around 10 million, whereas a current affairs debate, like Question Time, will struggle to be viewed by more than 2 million.  An easy-viewing, fictional story like Coronation Street is far more popular than an intellectual debate on real events.  Content is a very important factor in the popularity of TV/radio programmes, books, newspapers and blog posts.  Take a look at Amazon.  A popular novel for a Kindle might be priced at £3, whereas a technical book could be as much as £50.  Why?  Because the novel will sell millions and even at a very low margin, will generate good profit.  The technical book with its less popular appeal, will have sales in maybe the low thousands and thus is priced much higher to generate an adequate return for the author, publisher and distributors (including Amazon!).  The content of my blog posts maybe a bit dry for many readers but hopefully stimulating and insightful for others.

So there you have it, three very good reasons why my blog posts are unlikely to go viral - Title, Following and Content.  Am I intending to do anything about this?  In a word -NO!  I aim to satisfy and achieve quality readership rather than quantity of readers.  Yes you, dear reader, are Quality with a capital Q.  I am extremely grateful for your following - Thank You!