22 July 2021
17 June 2021
As an immigrant to this country, I have always been appalled by the often blatant discrimination and always dumb prejudice against our Indigenous neighbours. As an academic, I have always been infuriated by the complicity and the hypocrisy of Canadian universities.
The wilful blindness towards "Truth and Reconciliation", like the Germans running the Nuremberg trials. The traditional land acknowledgements that "sound like microwave warranties" read by Prince Charles. The patronizing adoption of Indigenous rituals. The mindless "Indigenization" workshops with not a single Indigenous person in attendance.
Imagine if we actually did something meaningful to stand up for our Indigenous neighbours.
29 April 2021
Start with a particle so small that 100 million of them fit on the head of a pin. Each of these particles can replicate inside the human body, disable you, kill you. Each of them can mutate and become nastier. A lot nastier.
Add to this an array of professional politicians, administrative bureaucrats, health officers, statisticians, ecological modellers, epidemiologists, vaccination experts, drug regulators, welfare economists, financial experts, experts on trade agreements, on constitutional law, on law enforcement, ... This is your government. All imperfect people, all with imperfect information.
Add their constituents -- children, students, senior citizens, citizens informed, half-informed, misinformed, disinformed, people who fell ill, people who lost family or friends, ... Throw in different interest groups -- ethnic communities, congregations, small business associations, the nurses' union, the teachers' union, First Nations, doctors' associations, ...
Add actors from areas that are suffering economically -- face-to-face retail, restaurants, the travel industry, tourism, oil and gas, sports, concerts, theatres, ... Add actors from areas that are benefitting -- pharma big and small, e-commerce, streaming services, food delivery, hot-tub installers, ... Be sure to add some actors who are uncertain where they stand -- banks who suddenly see no need for expensive downtown office towers, credit card companies who see an explosion in credit card usage, universities who can operate at lower cost using blended course contents delivery, ...
Don't forget to add a few anarchists and archconseratives who share in their delusion that the best government is no government, some anti-vaxxers who think that the government is out to get them, some loud pundits trying to make a name for themselves, and a few people who are simply nasty for no particular reason.
Now, consider the demands on the government to fulfil the varied goals of all the different stakeholders. Consider that government actions are always limited. Consider that outcomes are always uncertain. Consider that indicators are often ambiguous. Consider that data are always incomplete and often inconsistent. Consider that no government action occurs in isolation.
Hey presto! The CoViD crisis.
I don't know where people like Dr. Henry and Mr. Horgan find the strength to get out of bed in the morning. But I for one thank them that they do.
(After I had finished my article, my wife and I had a discussion over dinner what it is that you can demand from your government. That they be honest with us and that they give it their best effort towards the public good, not less, not more. In Canada, we sometimes forget how lucky we have been. Think anything Trump, think Brazil, Russia, India, and China, think W.M.D.s in Iraq, think Iran-Contra, think Chernobyl, ...)
08 April 2021
It is baffling, the discrepancy between how ill-informed people are about vaccines in general and how everybody has become an instant expert on CoViD vaccines and risk.
I dare to say that few people would know who manufactured their last tetanus shot, what the brake failure rate of their car model is, or how many toxins, and how much of each, are contained in their beauty care products.
But with CoViD ...
Remember 2003 when everybody after reading Brown's The Da Vinci Code became an instant expert on Christian mythology. (It is a mystery novel, you know that?)
The following article is written for 12-year-old geeks. It is useful if you have the courage to admit that you know nothing about vaccines.
01 April 2021
On Tuesday I sat down for an hour to crunch the CoViD case data, specifically to find out which age classes contribute to the CoViD infections in British Columbia above their fair share. When I was done, I sent the graph you see below to my wife with the words:
"Dare I suggest that young people just shut the fuck up and do as they are told."
My judgement did not sit well with me. There is something sinister about blaming a group -- think race, national origin, colour, age, sex, sexual orientation, disability, et cetera. It goes against my sense of peace, and justice, and human dignity. We all act as individuals, and none of us acts in a vacuum.
Moreover, accusing you of being careless about CoViD goes against my personal experiences. I rarely see any of you blatantly violating the three W-s (Wear a mask, Watch your distance, Wash your hands), and we all forget some of the things some of the time. If anything, you seem to be more careful than I am, and I am careful.
Apart from that, I would not blame you for being uncooperative: We have left you with a planet in ruins, an education system that is joke, and an economy that is a war zone.
FIRST BUT ...
But the data speak for themselves. Your age classes have contributed to the CoViD infections in British Columbia above your fair share for a long time now. And while I believe that many of you are abiding by the rules, many of you are not.
(In crime a few very bad eggs can commit the majority of violations. In CoViD infection this is not the case. There is the possibility that you are more susceptible, but I have not seen evidence for that.)
What I think is going on is that you are doing something stupid when I do not see you. And it is up to you to figure out what that something stupid is and stop doing it.
I know, I know, infectious disease prevention is utterly unheroic, because the lives you protect, the economic losses you avert, the time you save us all to return to normality cannot be measured easily. Prevention seems nothing compared to the lifesaving actions of our frontline personnel. But prevention is all we can do. So, get your CoViD act together.
SECOND BUT ...
But you may argue that your sacrifices will be in vain, because your friend, classmate, cousin, co-worker, et cetera, continues to be CoViD stupid. So, stop your friend from being CoViD stupid. This is not rocket science. Find a way.
Let us bring CoViD behind us as quickly as possible, and then I hope you will fight us again on the real issues we old people have ruined for you.
25 March 2021
The Faustian bargain. Yes, you can put a monetary value to it. Here is the thought experiment.
1: Think of the evilest person that comes to mind -- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, more contemporary equivalents.
2: Imagine this person approaches you at a meeting. He hands you a suitcase with the words: "Here is a present for you. Money. You can use it for personal purchases -- properties, cars, yachts, ... You cannot use it for charity or for political purposes -- saving children from poverty, supporting democracy, equality, ..."
3: What is the lowest amount of money that you would accept -- any amount, $10, $1,600, $9 million, ...?
4: Hey presto! That is the price of your soul.
Does your soul have a price? Does the price vary over time? If the price is made public, does it change?
11 March 2021
Lunatics are gaining legitimacy. And here is my hypothesis.
In the past, if there was 1 lunatic in 1,000 people, lunatics had great difficulty finding each other. Today, thank you very much social media, lunatics can easily form groups.
Lunatics form groups. Groups shout louder. Loudness attracts publicity. Publicity legitimates lunacy.
We cannot control lunacy, or the forming of groups, or the shouting for that matter. The question is: Can we control publicity?
Unfortunately, in the evolution of democratic society, we have reached a stage where ignoring an opinion is considered an undemocratic act. Consequently, we patiently listen to even the most lunatic ideas, ideas that not only lack evidence but that often go against massive evidence to the contrary.
This practice has had dire consequences: The reinforcement of the lunatic's confidence that his conviction represents a legitimate position. The conclusion by the underinformed that facts are fewer and less certain than they in fact are. The folly to take the lunatic's confidence as a measure of the strength of his claims. The abuse of our good will by people with nefarious agendas. The catering of desperate politicians to lunatic superminorities. The adoption of the fear-and-anger business model in the media. The readiness of governments to disinform their own citizens and those of foreign nations. ...
And so, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 9-11 conspiracies, birtherism. And so, holocaust denial, climate change denial, mass shooting denial, CoViD denial. And so, QAnon, the "stolen" 2020 U.S. election, anti-vaccine delusion.
But here is the thing:
NOT ALL TRUTH PROPOSITIONS ARE EQUALLY PROBABLE.
And, yes, I am shouting this.
Would we give television time or newspaper space to someone who claims electricity does not work, or antibiotics, or bridges across rivers? To someone who believes water, or food, or gravity are social constructs? (Admittedly, the number of gravity deniers must be small, not because the evidence is literally just a stone's throw away, but because their lives must be so short.)
Yes, I do realize the irony of dedicating a couple of hundred words to lunatics. But let us just stop giving intellectual space to the perpetual re-examination of lunatic ideas. And let us use it to solve actual problems.
Now, about the U.F.O. that landed on my hiking boot ...
25 February 2021
Over dinner the other day, my wife and I were discussing a question I started asking my students about twenty years ago.
If you had to choose between the following two options, which person would you rather be?
1: Someone who is objectively knowledgeable and competent but who is always ignored by her/his peers.
2: Someone who is aware that she/he is an idiot but who through sheer luck is always successful.
(Or, in more abstract terms, following Success = Competence + Luck: Would you prefer Success = 0 or Competence = 0?)
I was always puzzled by the choice of most of my students. At least, until I heard the late Patrick Winston, of the M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, relate a conversation he had with Julia Child.
Julia Child: "You get used to [being famous]."
Patrick Winston: "[But] you never get used to being ignored."
04 February 2021
A QUESTION has been going through my mind lately: If concentration camps and systematic rape of internees in China, if nerve agent poisoning and frivolous show trials in Russia are not enough for our international community to restructure relationships with thug nation states, WHAT EXACTLY DOES A CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT HAVE TO DO IN ORDER FOR US TO ACT? There is precedent, you know.
#justintrudeau #emmanuelmacron #angelamerkel #giuseppeconte #yoshihidesuga #borisjohnson #joebiden
21 January 2021
"We will lead not merely by the example of our power, but by the power of our example."
These are the words from Mr. Biden's inaugural address yesterday. He is right, of course, and it comes natural to many of us. That said, I would go one step further.
Not only must we lead by example, we must also demand that our leaders -- political, social, business, church, administrative, etc. -- lead by example.
(I was reminded of a public university where the senior administration had no qualms spending $34,576 on retreats at a particular Resort and Spa, while denying the History department the $1,000 necessary to pay for a hot-dog lunch of their one hundred or so History students.)
26 November 2020
Last weekend my wife and I had a discussion about fairy tales. We came to the conclusion that it would be a strange child indeed that sided with the witch in Hansel and Gretel, or the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood, or Rumpelstiltskin. And yet by the time we reach adulthood, many of us have turned into nasty kings or evil queens, or at least vote for them.
What is it that changes the ethics of a child into the ethics of an adult? Is our education system failing us? Is it all caused by ill-conceived reward structures in our society? Is there something fundamentally wrong with us human beings?
15 October 2020
In 375 B.C., Plato wrote in The Republic (521b): "But what we need is that the only men to get power should be men who do not love it[.]"
In 1993, Robert Hare published Without Conscience, a book about psychopaths. In it you can find the key symptoms of psychopathy. It is a useful list to have ... in the workplace and apparently for elections.
01 October 2020
In 2014, Jacob Morgan painted a naive optimism into a pictograph he called THE EVOLUTION OF THE EMPLOYEE. By 2018, university administrators were mindlessly adopting his ideas, acting as if humanity had no choice in its fate and universities had nothing to do with it. Consequently, I amended Morgan's graphic.
Why am I alerting you to this?
Because CoViD-19 has accelerated changes in the workplace. Many executives have recently figured out that maintaining corporate towers, office buildings, and lecture halls does cut into profits. (Bewildering, I know.) And they have started to move.
My advice is trite: Be careful what you wish for, but be wise what you ask for.
11 July 2019
BEFORE THE INTERVIEW
- The day before the interview, confirm your interview attendance via email.
- Know your resume in terms of
- Quality of education
- Quality of work experience
- Discipline knowledge
- Transferable cognitive skills: Communication skills, quality of judgement, problem solving skills
- Transferable behavioural traits: Interpersonal skills
- Know the ethical standards of your profession.
- Learn about the organization: Assume that you will only be able to use up to 25% of your knowledge about the company, so do not force information into your interview answers.
- Learn about the people that will interview you. E.g. LinkedIn
AT THE INTERVIEW
- Dress professionally according to the tribal culture (e.g. journalists, programmers), conservatively but not too conservatively, something that shows your personality.
- Bring two copies of your resume to the interview, one for the interviewer(s) and one for yourself, in case you need a detail from it.
- Greet every interviewer with a good handshake.
- Be honest without malice. Honesty beats everything else by far. (And you wouldn't want to work for an organization that doesn't appreciate honesty.)
- Have good answers for the standard questions. (Google standard interview questions, if you don't know them.)
- Prepare three questions that you want to ask. They can be standard questions, but the must be relevant. E.g.: What does the work day/week/year look like for the holder of this position? Is there anything that I failed to address in my answers?
- Say good-bye to every interviewer with a good handshake.
AFTER THE INTERVIEW
- After the interview, send a genuine thank you note via email.
- Never ask for feedback from interviewers unless they offer it.
STANDARD INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
- Tell us about yourself.
- Why should we hire you?
- What are your strengths/weaknesses?
- Tell us about our organization.
- Tell us about a time when you had to handle a conflict. (Situation, action, result)
- How do you manage work/life balance?
- What is your leadership/management style?
- Do you have any questions for us?
- What are your salary expectations?
This last one is one annoying question. First, any organization should know the financial value of a position and have properly budgeted for it. Second, it always sounds to me as if an organization wants to see what little salary they can get away with. Third, candidates will feel that they have to underbid their competitors, when really they should be competing on merit rather than desperation. In fact, I would urge organizations to include a salary ranges in their job postings.
Still, if you are urged to give a number tell them: "Compensation is a complex utility function of responsibilities, workload, number of supervised staff, quality of supervised staff, work hours, benefits, vacation, work environment, collegiality, Pink's big three (autonomy, mastery, purpose), goals, resources, salary of supervisor, salaries of supervised staff, etc.." Then give them a range of what you think is the minimum to the maximum financial value of the position. The range may be quite large, e.g. $80,000 to 160,000, which is fine, they wanted a number, and you gave them one.
Apart from the quality of your education and the quality of your experience the following categories may apply.
TRANSFERABLE COGNITIVE SKILLS
- Creative: Innovation, authenticity
- Practical: Transferability from theory into practice
- Reading: Comprehension
- Writing: Clarity, conciseness
- Expressing ideas: Clarity, conciseness, confidence
- Evaluating: Comprehension
- Work ethics
- Understanding of hierarchies
TRANSFERABLE BEHAVIOURAL TRAITS
- Sense of responsibility
- Contribution to the organization's goals
Ability to work alone
Quality of work produced
Volume of work produced/Effectiveness/Efficiency
- Ability to work with others
- Civility/Courtesy/Good manners
- Decision making
- Sense of humour
Motivation of others
Sense of justice
17 January 2019
I am a zoologist by training, and as such my expertise lies in animal behaviour and system dynamics. I know little about the psychology of leadership, except for a couple of decades of informal observation. That's why two weeks ago I asked this question on LinkedIn:
Given that LinkedIn is so rich in leadership wisdoms -- some good, many trite -- tell me, why is the world so poor in good leaders?
The results are disappointing. In spite of 175 or so views, few tried to answer my question. But then many employees are LinkedIn with their bosses and may therefore be reluctant to attract attention to themselves(1).
In any case, I myself must give the question a shot.
PROPOSITION #1: I AM WRONG.
This is the null hypothesis, if you will, and it is always a possibility: There is nothing interesting going on, the world is in fact not poor but rich in good leaders. And it is just I who wouldn't recognize good leadership if it hit me in the face.
But why then would the world be so rich in leadership advice(2)? If good leadership is a ubiquitous phenomenon, why are people spending time writing books, developing courses, or designing websites about it. We usually don't spend intellectual effort on things that are trivial(3).
That said, one human's dream is another human's nightmare.
PROPOSITION #2: BAD LEADERS DON'T LEARN.
I have yet to meet the bad leader who doesn't think she/he is a good leader. And if you think you are good at something, you wouldn't pick up a book or take a course to teach you the basics. There are two forces at play, both revealed in a study by Kruger and Dunning in 1999(4).
First: "[T]hose with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it."
Second: "[O]ne would have thought negative feedback would have been inevitable at some point in their academic career. So why had they not learned? One reason is that people seldom receive negative feedback about their skills and abilities from others in everyday life[.]"
Promotion may lead to the delusion of infallibility. True information rarely makes it up the chain of command. How many people do you know who told their bosses that they are morons, or monsters, or marionettes?
PROPOSITION #3: GOOD LEADERSHIP IS HARD.
What is good leadership, anyway? My incomplete list is this, but make your own:
A good leader is competent and diligent in work and judgement.
A good leader is confident, self-reflective, and humble.
A good leader is honest and transparent.
A good leader is open to criticism and ideas.
A good leader is aware what is going on in the organization.
A good leader gives credit and takes blame.
A good leader is kind, and tough, and fair, and can laugh about herself/himself.
A good leader builds workplaces "where standards are high and fear is low"(5).
A good leader knows her/his subordinates and protects them when necessary.
A good leader understands hierarchy.
Nobody is perfect, and that is all right. It takes talent, and education, and experience to get better at leadership. None of this matters, however, if your behaviour is not genuine.
And one thing is certain: If your natural inclination is to be selfish or lazy, to lie and to hide things, to be nasty or disinterested, leadership is not for you.
PROPOSITION #4: LEADERSHIP -- NATURE RED IN TOOTH AND CLAW
The question is this: How do so many bad leaders reach and maintain their positions?
This is a problem of natural selection, or rather unnatural selection: The character traits that cause people to move up the hierarchy may be very different from the character traits that make people good leaders(6).
I will leave it to you to explore which character traits and professional skills lead to promotion at your organization -- competence/sycophancy, humility/arrogance, honesty/pretence/scheming, realism/unbridled optimism, et cetera.
It may be argued that it is half a miracle that a few good people make it to the top. Not necessarily. Good leaders will hire good people and sack bad ones. Bad leaders will hire bad people and lose good ones(7). Consequently, we should expect to see in nature two extremes, meritocracies and kakistocracies.
Does that mean that we may be condemned to suffer bad leaders(8). I am not sure. Whether they like it or not, leaders usually feel obliged to agree that leaders should be held to the highest standards.
Let's start holding our leaders to the highest standards. Accountability should scare at least the worst people.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) I believe it is fair to say that in the history of humankind people were usually shot for the questions they asked, not for the answers they gave. Still, silence is golden.
(2) As of 17 Jan 2019, amazon.com lists over 60,000 books for "leadership", there are an unbelievable 23,853 groups on LinkedIn that contain the word "leadership", and a Google search on "good leadership" returned "[a]bout 4,560,000 results".
(3) One should never underestimate the capacity of universities to develop programs in about anything. As Robert A. Heinlein has his protagonist say in his 1961 novel: "But when they began handing out doctorates in comparative folk dancing and advanced flyfishing, I became too stinkin' proud to use the title. I won't touch watered whiskey and take no pride in watered down degrees." 1961, Ladies and Gentlemen, 1961.
(4) Justin Kruger and David Dunning (1999), Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6): 1121-1134
(5) "Ethical leadership … is about building workplaces where standards are high and fear is low." James Comey (2018), A Higher Loyalty: xi
(6) "But what we need is that the only men to get power should be men who do not love it[.]" Plato (ca. 375 B.C.E.), The Republic: The Simile of the Cave: 521b
(7) It is the privilege of leaders to hire their subordinates. But we can also imagine a world where the workforce elects their leader. In fact, that is what we are doing in representative democracies.
(8) Is it better to have a bad leader or none at all? With the emergence of new hierarchies where everybody is a leader and few do the actual work, something to think about.
02 August 2018
So you want to make this world a better, a more civil place(1)? We all do. Here are a few things I have learned.
1: You cannot change the world on a global scale.
I knew an analyst who genuinely wanted to make this world a better place. She would tell you about her ideas how to end world hunger and reduce poverty, yet if things did not go her way in the office, she would stab any colleague in the back. That is not how it works.
If you are lucky, you can change the small world that you inhabit -- your spouse, your family, your friends, your co-workers. You can change society, but only one person at a time, and only very quietly.
2: Everybody has a boss.
A monarch is dependent on her subjects. A C.E.O. is reporting to a board of directors, which is reporting to shareholders(2). A prime minister is at the mercy of his constituency. A business owner is dependent on her customers.
Because the first goal of leadership is to maintain leadership(3), all leaders act in accordance with the wishes of those who keep them in power. Therefore, you won't change a leader's mind, if the outcome weakens his position. Besides, "justice is simply what is in the interest of the stronger party."(4) And the stronger party usually does not call you to the table, except maybe to clear the dishes.
So what to do if the leader is only acting rationally(5), nobody in the system can be held responsible, and you are not invited anyway? That is when you study the facts, the laws and policies, and the common beliefs.
For example, one common belief is that corporate leaders have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and shareholder value. Yet, "[m]odern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not."(6)
3: Knowledge is power(7).
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say, so make sure your good intentions are well informed. Get a good education(8). Read, read, think, and read some more. Become good at thinking. It takes time.
Keep in mind the First Law of Ecology: Everything is connected to everything else. Anything you do will have consequences, whether they are intended or not.
Most importantly, if you don't know, remain silent(9). Silence is good protector(10), but also a good countermeasure(11).
4: If you want to be credible, you must live by example.
You cannot advocate against injustice, corruption, or stupidity by being unjust, corrupt, or stupid yourself. That doesn't mean you never will be, but that you must try. Sometimes you have to compromise, and even Hannah Gadsby recently remarked: "I am left with a choice. I either be an idiot or a hypocrite … Like ... I'll be a hypocrite."(12)
Your methods must be unassailable in principle -- authentic, civil, honest, and transparent.
Yes, it is tempting to fall into dirty trickery. Donald Trump's trifecta comes to mind -- inventing falsehoods, diverting from issues, and inciting emotional responses(13). Or Russian "active measures"(14). The brutes and the crooks seem to have it so much easier.
But keep in mind that you are in for the long haul, and that in fact credibility is your most precious weapon, in both attack and defence.
5: You stand alone, alone.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."(15)
Our Western societies usually grant us this right in some form or another. This right we hold as private citizens; it does not extend into our workplaces. Consequently, I do not recommend to try to spread your ideas in the workplace unless you are very very good.
An acquaintance of mine once questioned the fairness of faculty promotions at the University of British Columbia. He had gathered support from faculty colleagues, and they met with the dean to discuss the issue. "Remember the scene in Robocop," he told me after the meeting. "When the prototype malfunctioned, and everybody started running for their life. That's pretty much how the meeting went after the dean started talking."(16)
If you do bring your ideology to the workplace, expect to stand alone, alone(5).
6: Don't die on every hill.
You cannot make the world a better place by being nice. And you cannot make the world a better place by insulting people. Making the world a better place is a tightrope walk on an invisible tightrope made of snakes and landmines.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) I define "a better, a more civil place" as a place where all of us experience more peace, freedom, justice, liberty, equality, solidarity, honesty, transparency, respect, creativity, compassion, fairness, knowledge, skills, and so on.
(2): Richard Branson (2009), Losing My Virginity: "As well as the constrictions of having to report to nonexecutive directors and shareholders, one of my main frustrations with being a public company quoted on the stock market was the short-term view which investors took."
(3) Niccolo Machiavelli (1513), The Prince.
(4) Plato (ca. 375 B.C.E.), The Republic: 338c
(5) All people are rational in a very basic sense: They want to survive. Survival in modern society means to keep what you have and to secure your future employment.
(6) https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits (Accessed: 2 Aug 2018)
(7) As Sir Francis Bacon (1597) is often paraphrased: "Scientia potentia est." Earlier, Herodotus (ca. 425 B.C.E.) expressed a caveat: "This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power." I disagree with Herodotus: The bitterest pain among men is men with no knowledge but much power.
(8) The proximate goal of education is knowledge retention and knowledge transfer, not more, not less.
(9) Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: Proposition 7: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
(10) As my grandmother used to drill me: "To speak is silver, to remain silent is gold."
(11) Franz Kafka (1917), The Silence of the Sirens: "Now the Sirens have a still more terrible weapon than their song, namely their silence. And although such a thing has never happened, it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing, from their silence, never."
(12) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj2sMl1rps4 (Accessed: 2 Aug 2018)
(13) https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY?t=5m2s (Accessed: 2 Aug 2018)
(14) https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/russia-is-already-winning-214648 (Accessed: 2 Aug 2018)
(15) http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (Accessed: 2 Aug 2018)
(16) R.P. (2003), personal communication: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UNJNH7UFjU (Accessed: 2 Aug 2018)
(This is the last of three related articles: Would you have dinner with Hitler?, On pulling my socks up -- A letter to Ms. Gadsby, and A beginner's guide to making this world a better place.)
26 July 2018
I recently watched a very moving piece by stand-up comédienne Hannah Gadsby(1). In it Ms. Gadsby tells the story of her life and makes some excellent observations, including this: "[T]ension is what not-normals carry inside of them ALL of the time. Because it is dangerous to be different."
She then concludes: "To the men ... To the men in the room, I speak to you now. Particularly the white men, especially the straight white men ... PULL YOUR FUCKING SOCKS UP!! ... How humiliating. ... Fashion advice from a lesbian. That is your last joke."
The first question that came to mind was: How did I deserve this??(2)
I am with you, Ms. Gadsby, all the way, but then I get thrown into the class of "straight white man" -- the same class as Donald Trump, and Benito Mussolini, and possibly Tom Cruise. On the outside we may all look the same, but on the inside, you know, there is variability.
To be sure, I come from a country where failure to speak up for fellow citizens has led to unspeakable tragedy. Consequently, early in my life I decided that whenever I run into injustice, corruption, stupidity, or mere indifference, I shall speak up. And so I did, and so I do(3).
What difference have I made?
Absolutely none, Ms. Gadsby. Except that in my life I have been punished more often and more harshly for speaking up than the despots, and crooks, and blockheads I have criticized(4). But that is all right, because along the way I have learned a few things.
For one, within the human species unjustness, corruption, and stupidity seem to be distributed quite independently and with no regard for sex, colour, or sexual orientation(5). For another, good ideas and noble thoughts are not a prerogative of minorities, visible or not. And for another, making this world a better, a more civil place cannot be an obligation for straight white men only.
That said, it is true, the world is a nasty place, and straight white men are running much of it. But they are in a minority to all those straight white men that are NOT running the world. Consequently, I believe that not sex is our greatest divider, nor colour, nor sexual orientation. Our greatest divider is power, and the ideas and actions required to get it and keep it.
In the end I believe you are right, Ms. Gadsby.
We may be just a year away from a time when 165 million women will lose their right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The decision on this right will be made by nine people, mostly men. And it will be orchestrated by one man who is orange. If anybody thinks that the erosion of women's rights is a problem only "of the people, by the people, for the people" of the United States, think again.
It truly is time for all of us to "pull our fucking socks up".
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) Hannah Gadsby (2018), Nanette (Netflix Original).
(2) The second question was: Am I really that thin-skinned? Consider that I like to taunt vegetarians by pointing out that Hitler too was a vegetarian.
(3) In my professional life I have tried to expose the injustice in the academic hiring process, the corruption in the practice of science, and follies of our education system. Examples? Michael Baumann (1996), https://www.nature.com/articles/381108a0.pdf (Accessed: 26 Jul 2018); Michael Baumann (2000), Science as a churning device. Vancouver Sun 18 Oct 2000: A19; Michael Baumann (2003) Open letter to the president of the University of British Columbia. 15 Jan 2003; Michael Baumann (2007), Why education has lost its mind. Vancouver Sun 13 Sep 2007; Michael Baumann (2017), http://citizenbaumann.blogspot.com/2017/08/university-presidency-draft-manifesto.html (Accessed: 26 Jul 2018); Michael Baumann (2017), https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/need-seriously-rethink-concept-final-exams/ (Accessed: 26 Jul 2018).
(4) No doubt I have made my fair share of poor judgements along the way, some accidental, some circumstantial, and some by choice. And I am not complaining; you just cannot challenge an old battleship to a fist fight and expect to survive without a severe beating.
(5) Complacency and cowardice may be overrepresented in the "straight white men" class but that may be a sampling error on my side. Note however that most of "us" do not protest when called to pay for the crimes and misdemeanours of our classmates.
19 July 2018
Would you have dinner with Hitler? ... How about lunch? ... How about tea?
How about, not Hitler, but some other psychopath(1)?
Would you have dinner with a compulsive liar? A hypocrite? An idiot? How about a racist? How about somebody who would say about women: "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."(2)
How about someone who has excelled in one field but exhibited terrible taste in another -- Pablo Picasso's misogyny, Mother Teresa's cruelty, Bill Clinton's womanizing. Would you have dinner with one of them?
Of course, there are those who believe that dialogue is always better than isolation. But where are the limits? And do you think you could have changed Hitler's mind? And if so, how?
In my life I have learned three things about people: First, people do not like to stick to facts, they like to stick to whatever it is they believe. Second, people judge and choose even if they know nothing or only parts of the story. And last, people have two standards, one which they apply to themselves, family, and friends, and another that they apply to everybody else.
So, should you have dinner with Hitler? Should you have dinner with somebody who would have dinner with Hitler? Should you have dinner with somebody who would have dinner with somebody who would have dinner with Hitler(3)?
But why am I asking? It is complicated; I will answer in my next article.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) Robert D. Hare (1993), Without Conscience: p. 34
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html (Accessed: 19 Jul 2018)
(3) If you are rigorous about acceptable behaviour, your friends will be few.
05 July 2018
Imagine you have to score student performance in a Grade 10 algebra test(1). Looking at one student's step-by-step calculations you discover that at one step she calculated that 2 + 2 = 5. Obviously, for a Grade 10 student this is a very basic arithmetic mistake.
Now, because this is a very basic mistake, would you dock more or fewer points for it than for an advanced mistake? Why? Why not? Would you dock more points if the algebra problem were framed in terms of serious consequences(2)? Would you dock "a good student" the same number of points as you would "a bad student"? Would you dock a female student the same number as a male student, a white student the same number as a black student?
How about a mediocre male student who protests every self-perceived act of injustice inflicted upon him? Would you deduct the same number of points from his test as from a mediocre meek female?
Making performance judgements on math problems is relatively easy(3). Consider judgements on more important things. All other things being equal: In an election, do you interpret dishonesty or stupidity in "your candidate" with the same gravity as you do for a rival candidate? In a job competition, do you judge experiences and accomplishments of a local candidate with the same rigour as those of an outside candidate. In court, do call for the same sentence for an offender born in Switzerland as you do for an offender born in Nigeria?
It is hard work to develop and stick by good rules of judgment. And it is easy to dress up prejudice in a mantle of objectivity(4).
My favourite example comes from an Israeli parole board where cases were randomly assigned to judges, and yet the proportion of decisions in favour of the prisoners declined in the course of the sessions and reached a minimum just before the scheduled breaks(5).
Of course, the first step towards improved judgement is a correct judgement of our judgement apparatus. Unfortunately, we aren't good at that either. Consequently, as a family member, as a good friend, as a professional, as a citizen, what are your obligations to alert someone to their faulty judgement?
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) For example: Solve the following equation for x: -2 (x + 2) + 2 (-x + 2) + 2 (2 + 2) = 0
(2) Say: "Determine the amount x (in millilitres) of midazolam that can be safely administered in preoperative sedation." "Calculate the number of battalions required to secure the border."
(3) Given these axioms and these rules and these particulars, these results must follow.
(4) "My decision sexist? Oh god, far from it. His publication record just wasn't as impressive." "My decision racist? It couldn't be further from the truth. She just wasn't a good team-fit." "My decision age-ist? Oh my god, never. His coding skills just weren't up to par."
(5) Danzinger et al. (2011), Extraneous factors in judicial decisions: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1018033108 (Accessed: 5 Jul 2018)
14 June 2018
ON WEALTH, ...
In a recent article philosopher Matthew Stewart examined the distribution of wealth in the United States, its causes and its consequences(1). His premise is that there are three distinct classes in U.S. society: The top 0.1 percent of the population -- the ultra-rich of old money, new money, and tech money --, the bottom 90 percent, and, in between, the 9.9 percent.
Because the 9.9 percent hold substantially more wealth than the top 0.1 percent and the bottom 90 percent combined (Figure 1), Stewart argues that it is this class that is instrumental in the establishment, maintenance, and growth of inequality in both capital and income.
Figure 1: A tale of three classes. The 9.9 percent hold most of the wealth in the United States. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
So who are the 9.9 percent? It is the class that through their wealth has access to better education, better information, better jobs, stronger professional organizations, better food, better clothes, better health care, better lawyers, lower interest rates, better credit cards, better homes, better neighbourhoods, and safer cars. You know, bankers, businessmen, doctors, senior civil servants, lawyers, and, to a certain extent, YOU AND ME.
What is worst about us is that we are convinced that our (relative) success has been earned, not through privilege, but through talent, and knowledge, and hard work. And we don't take it lightly if the fairness of our meritocracy is questioned.
So let's question it, with a simple model.
AND CHANCE, ...
Imagine a world where wealth units are dispensed by random draw of citizen names from a hat. In this world success has nothing to do with talent, and knowledge, and hard work; luck is all that counts(2).
Three scenarios: First, once a citizen wins a wealth unit, her ticket is removed from the hat. Second, once a citizen wins a wealth unit, her ticket is placed back into the hat. Third, once a citizen wins a wealth unit, her ticket is placed back into the hat, plus another ticket with her name is added.
Under these scenarios, the top 10% of citizens will own 10%, 31%, and 42% of the wealth, respectively. The bottom 50% of citizens own 50%, 13%, and 0.003%(3).
I would argue that the succession from a fair distribution of wealth in society to an unjust one is only natural. We can imagine a world initially operating under the first scenario, i.e. the equal distribution of wealth. This world is at an unstable equilibrium, i.e. any accidental deviation from an equal distribution (e.g. through inheritance, gifts) will lead to a larger deviation. The wealthier individuals may argue that it is only fair that in a random draw their tickets be placed back in the hat(4). They may further argue that wealthier individuals should additionally be rewarded for past successes, thus further increasing their chance to win.
And, thus -- Hey presto! -- wealth begets wealth and opportunity(5).
I could talk about the function of government here(6), but that is not the point I want to make. Instead another thought:
Imagine power, not wealth, is distributed by random draw. Yes, there is a correlation between wealth and power, but power in man always means the power to make decisions that will affect other people and does not necessarily hold wealth as a prerequisite.
Now think of the institutions of modern society: Our governments; our political parties and religions; our courts and justice systems; mass media and social media; financial institutions, industry, and businesses; labour unions and professional organizations; schools and universities; the Arts and the Sciences; health care and medicine; the military and sports federations; ....
What if ... What if the institutions of modern society are led not by women and men whose merit has propelled them to the top, but instead by people who rose there by chance. Not by women and men who reached the decision making level through talent, and knowledge, and hard work, but by people who arrived there by initial luck followed by the manipulation of the rules(7).
That doesn't mean that every leader is an idiot, or a crook, or a flip-flopper. But, a look at the daily news does suggest that the random draw model of power may not always be far off(8).
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ (Accessed: 14 Jun 2018)
(2) Success = Competence + Luck; Competence = 0: See also: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/success-competence-luck-michael-baumann/ (Accessed: 14 Jun 2018)
(3) One measure of the validity of a model lies in the deviation between model outcomes and real-world data. Even under the third scenario the top 10 percent own only 42% of the wealth, while in the real world they own 80%.
(4) Note that wealthier individuals have more time and more money to pursue goals that are in their interests or the interest of their class. True, they also have more time and money to help the disadvantaged. But how time and money are spent are moral choices, and charity is an unstable state.
(5) This is the iron law of oligarchy, which posits that every democratic institution will eventually become an oligarchy (or worse, a kakistocracy).
(6) The function of government is to protect all citizens from the extreme contingencies of life. Democracy is the institution that has evolved to prevent escalations of inequality. Democracy is not perfect but has established safeguards (e.g. the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; the attempt at separation of economic power and political power). And so on.
(7) Indoctrinations like: "The best predictor of future success is past success."
(8) Carl Sagan (1996), in his book The Demon Haunted World, tells the story of Italian Physicist Enrico Fermi talking to U.S. flag officers during World War Two. It goes something like this:
So-and-so is a great general, Fermi is told. "What is the definition of a great general?" Fermi asks. "I guess it's a general who has won many consecutive battles." the officer answers. "How many?" Fermi asks. After some discussion, the flag officers settle on five. "What fraction of American generals are great?" Fermi then asks. After some more discussion, the flag officers settle on a few percent.
But imagine that there are no great generals and that winning a battle is purely a matter of chance. Then the chance of winning one battle is 1/2; two battles 1/4; three 1/8; four 1/16, and five consecutive battles 1/32, which is about three percent. You would expect a few percent of generals to win five consecutive battles purely by chance.
09 November 2017
[This is the easy part of a longer critical essay I am currently working on. It will take some time to get it properly published.]
Imagine you are on a flight from Toronto to London when suddenly the whole aircrew disappears. There are 100 passengers on board -- women, men, and children --, none of whom knows how to fly an airplane. What do you do?
"Well," you say. "Obviously, the goal is to land the plane safely. So you want to find someone who can do just that. And certainly, some of the passengers would know a little more than others about flying an airplane or at least about communicating with air traffic control. So you have to pick one of those."
But there is no evidence to suggest that the person who makes the most confident claims, or speaks the most eloquent, or shouts the loudest, or the longest, or the most pitiful, does actually have the greatest competence or the best ideas(1,2).
"Well," you say. "You would have to trust your judgement."
All right then, imagine there are two passengers who claim to "know a little more than others". A 61-year old female banker who wants to continue on to London and a 45-year old male school teacher who insists on turning the plane around towards Toronto. Whose course of action should be taken?
"Well," you say. "There would have to be a vote."
All right then, collective decision making it is. But who should be allowed to vote? Everybody? Everybody but the children? Everybody with children? Those between thirty-one and sixty-five years of age? Those who claim to "know a little more than others"? Should it be one person, one vote? Should the vote be weighted? But weighted by what?
What characteristics should make you eligible to vote? And how do we measure them? And who should decide on these characteristics and their measurement? And who should decide on who should decide on these characteristics and their measurement? And so on.
These are the questions of the democratic condition -- from citizens electing a prime minister, to a group choosing amongst policy options, to a committee selecting a new boss, colleague, or subordinate. Collectively we wouldn't elect an idiot leader, opt for a disastrous plan, or pick a jerk for a co-worker. Or would we?
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."(3) Churchill's conclusion implies that on the whole we cannot do better than democracy.
Is it true? Or have we just become intellectually lazy, bureaucratically paralyzed passengers on a doomed flight?
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) "We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it." Kruger and Dunning (1999)
(2) Plato (ca. 375 B.C.E.), The Republic: The Simile of the Cave: 521b: "But what we need is that the only men to get power should be men who do not love it[.]"
(3) Winston Churchhill (1947): http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1947/nov/11/parliament-bill#column_206 (Accessed: 9 Nov 2017)
15 June 2017
I am tired.
I am tired of the uninformed opinion of extraverts that introverts must be "pushed out of their comfort zone", "encouraged to come out of their shell", "shown how to have some fun". And I am tired that it has become completely acceptable for extraverts to act on their misconceptions.
Case in point is a recent event I attended. In the "fun part" at the end of the day the lights suddenly dimmed, a medley of sing-along songs blasted from the speakers, and video projections danced on the wall. People I hardly know surrounded me with big smiles and bigger pom-poms and encouraged me with shouts and gestures to make a fool of myself. And Gloria Estefan came on, and there was a conga line, and they had so much fun, and it was awful to witness.
"Step out of your comfort zone," I was told(1).
I am not sure if this belief can be made a categorical imperative. But if it can, it surely must work both ways. Consequently, I have started to compile a list of things that would make the lives of extraverts a little less comfortable:
x: Go for a long walk alone and without a single electronic device.
x: Don't talk to anyone for a day.
x: Quietly read a book over lunchtime.
x: Learn to sing the Russian anthem in Russian but never sing it to anyone.
x: Watch an episode of Rick Steves' Europe.
x: Don't check your email for a week.
x: Don't check Facebook for a year.
x: Contemplate a difficult problem without telling anybody.
I am sure we can find ways to incorporate some of our ideas into staff retreats and conferences. Let's be creative. Let's strike back.
But only if we want to.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) Consider the following two weaknesses: You are uncomfortable with masses of jolly people, loud music, and awkward dancing. You are uncomfortable with statistics, a complex argument, or a difficult text. Which one is more debilitating?
27 April 2017
Someone recently asked me why I write. It is a good question(1).
In 1946 George Orwell wrote a short essay to answer it(2). He proposed "four great motives for writing" that exist in every writer -- sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose.
Where do I stand?
I am an only child and an introvert by nature and by nurture(3). Given a choice between being with people and being alone (with my lovely wife), I can think of no situation where I would choose people. Consequently, I have little need for external recognition, and that is what Orwell's "sheer egoism" really is(4). I also have no desire to tell other people what to think, to push a "political purpose".
Aesthetics, on the other hand, is important to me. Not necessarily phonetic aesthetics, but the aesthetics of a good story or a good argument(5). There is beauty in having formulated a thought in clear and concise language. An expression with no uncertain meaning, a sentence with no unnecessary words, a paragraph with no unnecessary sentences(6).
I believe my strongest Orwellian motive by far is "historical impulse": I write to make sense of reality. I write to clarify my own thoughts to myself. I write to examine my own personality(7). But to be sure: Although writing brings me great joy, good writing is hard work, and even the most disciplined amongst us often fail(8).
But if I am writing for myself, why do I publish?
Publishing, especially publishing with no editor and no peer review, enforces the discipline to be concise and to finish a thought. It also enforces intellectual rigour with no shortcuts in the argument. Moreover, because I mostly write on weekends and always post on Thursdays, publishing enforces a certain patience, which I have come to enjoy.
My readers tell me that they like what they read. They say it makes them think. As an intellectual this pleases me, for I do want to make people think -- think before they speak, think before they act, think before they vote.
Maybe, after all, I am not writing solely for myself. Maybe the absence of political purpose is a political purpose in itself.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) I was a terrible writer until I was twenty, and a bad writer until I was forty. My school-day writings shall only be remembered by this abomination: "And they couldn't find his damned legs." I stole it from First Blood. The movie, not the book. My late apologies to Dr. Brunhilde Ulamec, my Grade 12 German teacher.
(2) George Orwell (1946), Why I write: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part47 (Accessed: 27 Apr 2017)
(3) In a society that lacks civility as ours does, introversion is a form of retreat.
(4) Compare the pitiful number of clicks even my most popular writings receive to the number thumbs-ups of even the tritest piece from LinkedIn-fluencers. If ostentation is my goal, I have failed miserably.
(5) The boldest first sentence I ever read in a novel comes from Anthony Burgess (1980), Earthly Powers: "It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me." The finest logical argument I ever read comes from Ludwig Wittgenstein (1922), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (http://www.kfs.org/jonathan/witt/ten.html (Accessed: 27 Apr 2017)): Proposition "5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
(6) William Shrunk Jr. and E.B. White (1979), The Elements of Style (Fourth Edition): Rule 17. Omit needless words.
(7) Socrates's words in Plato (ca. 399 B.C.E.), Apology: "[T]he unexamined life is not worth living."
(8) To paraphrase Blaise Pascal (1656): "I wrote you a long letter, because I didn't have time to write a short one." If I am writing a 500-word piece, and it doesn't take me at least two whole days, I am not working hard.
30 March 2017
In 2001 and 2002 I was a postdoctoral fellow with AquaNet, one of the Networks of Centres of Excellence. AquaNet sponsored "39 research projects devoted to improving the country's aquaculture industry"(1). It's Board of Directors consisted of partners from academia, government, and industry.
For us at the University of British Columbia the question was this: When Atlantic salmon escape from B.C. fish farms, what are the chances that they establish viable populations on the Pacific coast? This question can be broken down into chances of breeding success, of juvenile survival, and of adult survival. I explored the question whether juvenile Pacific salmon and juvenile Atlantic salmon show different susceptibilities to predators.
For my experiments I had to simulated a small creek in the laboratory. I set up three experimental arenas, large oval channels filled with water about 60 cm deep, pebbles and rocks of various sizes on the bottom. In April I stocked each tank with 20 juvenile Pacific salmon and 20 juvenile Atlantic salmon, all about 30 mm long. I also stocked two of the tanks with two predators each, two adult steelhead trout of about 50 cm.
Twice a week I went into the lab, fished out all the juveniles from the experimental arenas, weighed them, measured their length, put them back, and restocked those juveniles that had been eaten by the steelheads, or gone missing otherwise.
The experiments did not go well. Yes, steelheads ate juvenile Atlantics slightly more frequently than Pacifics, but they didn't eat them frequently enough to infer a statistically significant difference(2).
In early July I abandoned the experiments. I left the experimental arenas intact, however, and informed the laboratory staff to feel free and help themselves to the steelheads for their summer barbeques.
When I returned in early October(3) to clear the arenas I was surprised to see that in one arena eleven juvenile salmon had survived and grown in length to about 12 to 14 cm. Nine of them were Pacifics, two were Atlantics.
That's when it struck me.
I immediately made my way to the principal investigator. He also directed experiments investigating spawning ground competition and food competition. The Pacifics had always won against the Atlantics.
"We have looked at the problem the wrong way," I said. "The issue is not how well the average Atlantic performs against the average Pacific, but how well the fittest Atlantics perform against the unfittest surviving Pacifics. The problem of invasive species is not an ecological problem; it is an evolutionary one."
The principal investigator looked at me for a while and then leaned forward at his desk.
"Michael," he said without menace. "We will have an AquaNet progress meeting before Christmas. Some of the directors will be there. What you have to understand is that nobody in AquaNet wants to hear any ideas that could shed a bad light on the aquaculture industry(4). Do you understand?"
You see, the purpose of Science is the pursuit of truth, not to serve political expediency. Yes, there are philosophical problems. Yes, we do have battles between schools of thought. Yes, causation is difficult to prove, and truth is always only provisional. But if you can't trust a scientist, who can you trust?
I went back to the lab that afternoon to dispose of the evidence. I sat down for a while and watched the two Atlantics swim around the pool. The denial of their existence had made me oddly fond of them.
I killed them with a bleeding heart.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) AquaNet ran from 1999 to 2006. It is interesting that although at the time AquaNet was quite a prestigious project, some fifteen years later it is hard to find any detailed information about it: http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/Index_eng.asp (Accessed: 30 Mar 2017), http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/reports/annual-annuel/Annual_Report_02-03_Rapport_Annuel-e.pdf (Accessed: 30 Mar 2017)
(2) Each adult steelhead trout ate one or two juvenile salmon per week. Before we decided on steelheads as a predator, we conducted preliminary experiments with cormorants. They were too efficient. It took four of them less than ten seconds to clear twenty juvenile Pacifics from a large holding tank.
(3) After the 9/11 attacks the cleaning of fish tanks was not a priority.
(4) To my knowledge there is no evidence that suggests the establishment of a viable Atlantic salmon population on the Pacific coast. But that does not mean that one day life will not find a way.
Thursday, 6 Apr 2017
An update to note (4).
In the meantime I have spoken to John Volpe from the University of Victoria(1). John is a specialist in Invasion Ecology. He and I first met during my time with AquaNet.
John told me that about a decade ago he had evidence "of multiple year classes of wild-reared Atlantics in multiple Van Island rivers. They were competitively equal to or superior to native juvenile salmonids and in some instances very numerous. Adults were prevalent in dozens of rivers."
He also told me that no work has been done since, and nobody really knows what the status quo is.
On the other hand a 2006 Fraser Institute publication, Fraser Alert, states: "Overall, the risk of escaped salmon detrimentally affecting wild stocks in BC is currently low."(2)
Now the question is this: Who do you trust?(3)
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) http://www.johnvolpe.ca/ (Accessed: 6 Apr 2017)
(2) https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Escaped_Farmed_Salmon.pdf (Accessed: 6 Apr 2017). The Fraser Institute is a conservative "think tank". Fraser Alert is not a peer-reviewed publication. This paper was penned by a group of scientists from the University of British Columbia, the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, and the University of Glasgow. One of the authors, Scott McKinley, was the Executive Scientific Director of AquaNet.
(3) The existence of viable Atlantic salmon populations on the Pacific coast is not a trivial matter, both ecologically and economically. It is curious that in a whole decade no work should have been done on this problem. Why would that be?
23 March 2017
Image: Michael Baumann (2017)
When my daughter Phoebe was in Grade 3 or 4 her class collaborated with a Grade 7 class in a project called Salmonids in the Classroom(1). The project was (and still is) supported by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the idea behind it is that raising salmon in the classroom will teach students a little bit about science, among other things.
Every school day a few Grade 3ers would walk over to the Grade 7ers and take a few scientific observations. And since I was working in Fisheries Oceanography at the time one day I asked whether I could accompany Phoebe and her three classmates.
So we walked over, each of them carrying a sheet with instructions. First, they had to measure the water temperature and write it down, which they all did. Then, they had to determine the pH of the water. Of course, none of the Grade 3ers, or the Grade 7ers for that matter, knew what a pH was, but they had learned how to use pH test strips for litmus testing and how to compare them to the colour chart, and they did it well.
Then they sat down in front of the fish tank and continued their assignment, which was this: In the space below, draw what you see. So the three girls and one boy began to draw the little fish, which were supposed to be in the fry stage.
The problem was that there was not a single fish in the tank(2).
"What are you doing?" I asked.
"We are drawing fish," Phoebe answered without even looking up.
"But you are supposed to draw what you see."
"But there are no fish in the tank."
"Believe me," Phoebe said. "We are supposed to draw little fish, and that's what we are doing."
"Aren't we supposed to draw fish?" the boy asked me."
"No," I said. "You are supposed to draw what you see."
After ten minutes the three girls(3) had finished drawing little fishes, and we returned to the Grade 3 classroom. All four of them handed their assignments to the teacher, and that was it.
Except that a few minutes later the boy was called to the teacher and was publicly reprimanded for having failed to complete the assignment. He didn't argue. He just stood there nodding in agreement to the admonition.
I walked over to the teacher and explained that there were no fish in the tank, and consequently all that they should have drawn was an empty fish tank.
A few questions came to my mind: Why did the girls draw fish that weren't there? Why didn't they listen to me? Why did the boy believe me? Why did the teacher jump to conclusions? Why didn't the boy defend himself? Why didn't the girls defend the boy? Why didn't the teacher reprimand the girls who had failed to complete the task correctly?
But there looms a larger questions: How often do you and I draw fish that aren't there?
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) http://www.salmonidsintheclassroom.ca/index.html (Accessed: 23 Mar 2017)
(2) Later I learned that the fish had been released two days earlier and nobody had bothered to inform Phoebe's class.
(3) When I wrote this, I realized how much I resent the fact that it was the boy who was disobedient and not one of the girls.
09 March 2017
Every year on her birthday, the queen would send a royal pie to every village in the country. It wasn't a big pie. It wasn't a fancy pie. And it didn't even look royal.
Every year the villagers would gather on the village green, and every year the mayor cut the royal pie so that everyone could enjoy their fair piece.
And so she proceeded to hand a piece to the baker.
"Hold on," said the baker. "That's a rather small piece. I am the baker. I bake bread for the village. And without bread the villagers would all starve. I deserve a bigger piece of pie."
"You're right," said the mayor. And she proceeded to hand the piece to the cobbler.
"Hold on," said the cobbler. "That's a rather small piece. I am the cobbler. I make the shoes for the village. And without shoes the villagers could not go about their business. I deserve a bigger piece of pie."
"You're right," said the mayor again. And she proceeded to hand the piece to the doctor.
"Hold on," said the doctor. "That's a rather small piece. I am the doctor. I take care of the sick in the village. And without my care the sick would die. I deserve a bigger piece of pie."
And on and on it went. The butcher, the grocer, the blacksmith, the farmer, the teacher, the barber, the soldier, the tailor, the lawyer, the sailor, the banker, the builder, nobody wanted to take the piece.
"That's enough!" cried the mayor. "Everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie. But if any one of you gets a bigger piece that means that somebody else must get a smaller one."
"Mayor!!" the villagers cried in unison. "You should have gotten us a bigger pie. And since you didn't do your job, you should get the smaller piece."
"Hold on," interrupted the bookkeeper. "We had the same situation last year."
"Aha!!" the villagers cried again in unison. "And then what did we do?"
The bookkeeper studied his notes and said: "The philosopher told us that we are all selfish, and that the mayor's job is to distribute the pie fairly amongst the villagers, just as it is the queen's job is to distribute the pies fairly amongst the mayors."
"It all doesn't look fair to me!!" cried the villagers a third time in unison. "Let's ask the philosopher again."
"The philosopher?" said the mayor. "We cut his piece of pie last year. He doesn't live here anymore."
02 March 2017
In 1944, the United States Office of Strategic Services produced a 32-page document titled "Simple Sabotage Field Manual"(1). The purpose of the classified booklet was "to characterize simple sabotage, to outline its possible effects, and to present suggestions for inciting and executing it" in enemy-held territory.
The manual goes on to give specific suggestions. There are sections on how to set fire to a building, how to flood a warehouse, how to dilute gasoline fuel to the point where no combustion will occur -- water, wine, urine. There are instructions on how to ruin a water turbine, how to inconvenience enemy personnel travelling by train, and how to make the message in an enemy telegram ambiguous -- bring troop levels to a "miximum". There are even instructions on how to disrupt the showing of propaganda films by using "two or three dozen large moths in a paper bag".
Then section "(11) General Interference with Organizations and Production" recommends the following acts of sabotage:
(1) Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments.
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible -- never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision -- raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
When I first read these proposed acts of sabotage from the Second World War(1), I was amused at how much they resemble the bureaucratic standard operating procedure of the modern university. My amusement faded quickly when I remembered that the evolution of any organization -- a business, an economy, an education system, democracy, the nation state, a culture -- may create the conditions for its own decline and extinction(2).
The purpose of bureaucracy is, of course, to provide safeguards against two hazards, stupidity (taking excessive risks, missing obvious opportunities) and corruption (abusing the office for personal gain, indulging in subjective preferences). Consequently, it could be argued that standard operating procedure itself provides safeguards against bureaucratic sabotage. From personal experience I must say that I have never seen a bureaucratic saboteur exposed. Does that mean that they don't exist or that they are deterred by the safeguards?
Or is it that a bureaucratic saboteur simply cannot be differentiated from an overzealous administrator?
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) Office of Strategic Services (1944), Simple Sabotage Field Manual: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/CleanedUOSSSimpleSabotage_sm.pdf (Accessed: 5 Mar 2020)
(2) E.g. Oswald Spengler (1918), Der Untergang des Abendlandes; Marten Scheffer et al. (2009), Early-warning signals for critical transitions http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7260/pdf/nature08227.pdf (Accessed: 5 Mar 2020)
09 February 2017
Sometimes the senior management of an organization resolves on the idea of providing subordinates with leadership training. Often these courses are considered unnecessary for higher levels but mandatory for mid-level, perpetuating the myth that what brings a person to the top of an organization must be correlated with what will make the organization great (or great again).
Several questions come to mind:
1: What is the goal? Is it that senior management can signal to their boards that they are striving for excellence? Is it to boost employee recruitment and retention? Is it to make mid-level managers more effective leaders?
2: Who should be taking these courses? Should it be all managers? Should it be all mid-level managers? Should it be those who rank low in leadership and leadership skills?
3: Who should be teaching the course? A self-anointed expert who read three airport books on the topic? Somebody with a Master's in Leadership from Podunk University? A practitioner: An officer who has led a company in battle, a successful former C.E.O.? A specialist who studies people: A psychologist, an anthropologist, a social scientist?
4: What should the course`s contents be? Self-awareness through insights discovery? The descriptive self? The appreciative and curious self? The coach approach? Oh my.
5: Are there alternatives to taking a course? Whatever happened to reading books and time to read them? Whatever happened to time for reflection?
To be sure, it is never a bad thing to learn something new, but time is the limiting factor for all of us. Consequently, time must be spent wisely, and activities must be prioritized. Is it useful for me to observe, read, and reflect? Probably. Is it useful for me to share my self-discovery crafts, learn to knit, juggle stress balls? Probably not.
26 January 2017
There is initiative management, incentive management, and reward management. There is scientific management, task management, and best practices. There is adaptive management, and change management, and risk management. There are literally thousands and thousands of books on any kind of management. And, of course, there is McKinsey, and B.C.G., and the Big Four, and endless hours of meetings and sharing, about planning, resourcing, organizing, co-ordinating, commanding, and controlling.
I never understood that. All you really need is the following graph and a little bit of common sense. But do mind the arrows!
(And yes, the details matter, but nobody can tell you how to motivate Jesse Pinkman.)
03 November 2016
PrivateGraffiti.zzz was an Internet start-up famous for its browser sharing software. It was founded by Josh Bighetti and Kumail Chugtai in late 2013. After several lawsuits the owners agreed to shut down operation in the summer of 2016. In less than two years PrivateGraffiti.zzz had generated $6.5 million in profits. Here is the story.
Mr. Bighetti and Mr. Chugtai met at the Vancouver College for Technology where they studied Computer Information Systems. Upon graduation in 2011 they entered a precarious job market.
"It was awful," Chugtai says. "Josh and I were living in this basement studio apartment on Cambie [Street]. Yes, we both worked, but for a temp staffing agency. Help desk, installing printers, that sort of thing. The odd programming job. But nothing that provided stability."
"We never had any money." Bighetti chips in. "Sometimes not even for food. And look at us now, three years later." He confidently gestures out the window of his 23rd floor Point Grey luxury condo, the North Shore mountains on the horizon.
"It was Halloween 2013," Chugtai continues. "We didn't know how to make the November rent. Our credit cards were maxed out, the refrigerator was empty, and no job prospects on the horizon. And our landlord had threatened to throw us out the month before. That's when Josh said: I wish we could just go on Bachman Properties's website and spray some graffiti on it; like in the good old days."
And thus an idea was born.
"For sure, we didn't think it would take off. We just thought it would be fun if it did." They borrowed some money from Chugtai's parents, paid their rent, and bought a server.
"The app was quickly developed, because the ideas was simple."
Basically the PrivateGraffiti.zzz app is nothing more than a browser that allows you to make changes to any website and store these changes in the cloud. If you choose to share these changes, anybody using the app can see them. "Of course, the changes wouldn't be visible on any other browser, only on ours."
"Business didn't exactly explode," Chugtai's recalls with a chuckle. "We sold our app for $1, and in the first month we had 89 downloads." But it soon took off. In the second quarter, PrivateGraffiti.zzz had a revenue of just above $16,000, and after a year a total of 365,000 downloads.
But soon their fortunes changed. "In 2014, the government of a European country -- a country that shall not be named -- indicted us for tampering with government information. There were also several large companies that weren't too happy about their websites being defaced. We weren't worried at first; we held the view that we didn't hack into any websites, and, besides, all of this was just good fun."
Early in 2015, PrivateGraffiti.zzz's legal troubles were widely reported and discussed in the media. But this only added to their growth and made them the poster children of Silicone Valley North. Nevertheless, in June 2016 Bighetti and Chugtai agreed out-of-court to shut down their servers. By that time users had downloaded their app 7,015,222 times.
The story of PrivateGraffiti.zzz is purely fictional. I wrote it because in spite of the idea being completely idiotic, it has a ring of plausibility. Worse, I fear that if the story were true, Bighetti and Chugtai would actually have a large flock of admirers if not copycats. And the shame would not be on their side. Society has a tendency to admire the rich but useless.
30 June 2016
K was on his way to the conference room.
The C.F.O. had organized the meeting and had sent an invitation to about two dozen managers across the company. When K entered the room only the C.F.O. was there. K greeted him politely and took his usual seat near the far end of the conference table. K liked the C.F.O.; he didn't like meetings.
Slowly other managers trickled in: the Director of H.R., the Director of International Sales. The C.I.O., the C.D.O., the V.P. Marketing. The directors of sales North, South, East, and West, the assistant directors. K didn't pay much attention; he had brought his laptop to do some work. Only when the C.E.O. entered did K notice a momentary hush.
"Thank you all for coming," the C.F.O. said. "The title of today's webinar is Managing Resistance to Change."
The lights dimmed, the projector lit up, and the enthusiastic voice of the presenter came on. He is a somebody who does something somewhere in the mid-West. He is spouting the usual stuff, stuff that anybody would come up with within an hour of sitting back.
K starts looking around: What are other people thinking? Why is everybody taking notes? Shouldn't we all know this already? Doesn't the Manager of Budgeting have a Master's in Change Management? Shouldn't she be giving this presentation?
A slide comes up: "Why do you think employees resist change?"
"Fear." "They feel inadequate." "They just don't want to change." "Fear."
K wonders: But do they really? Do employees really resist change, or is it just a convenient excuse. It implies that everything would be honky dory if it just weren't for those pesky employees. And if they indeed resist change, what changes do they resist? And do they resist change more than managers do? And there is change to the worse, you know.
Berthold Brecht once observed that advocates of progress often have too low an opinion of what already exists.
Another slide: "What is the change strategy most often used in your organization? Four options: Collaborative, informational, attitudinal, political"
It takes fifteen seconds of groupthink to settle on the proper adjective.
K straightens up in his chair. Collaborative? But how do the employees perceive the situation? Would they call it collaborative? Or would they call it political? Or worse, autocratic? How can senior managers be so uncritical of their own perceptions and judgements? Cognitive illusions can be a costly fault in the best of times. And these are not the best of times.
K's eyes are met by a smile from the C.D.O. across the table. K raises his eyebrows. Is the C.D.O. going to say something? But the data man doesn't, he never does, just looks away in embarrassment.
K wonders: Should I speak up? In fact, isn't it my duty to speak up, especially when nobody else does?
But why would he? It wasn't even his job. He was the lowest paid manager in the room. And the company has never rewarded a dissenter; quite the opposite. Besides, K has tried in the past, not once but often. And it was as if he had never spoken.
K raises his arm, waits for the chair to notice. Only slowly the room falls silent. K takes a deep breath. He opens his mouth. He is about to speak. But then he remembers, remembers a sentence he once read: Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence.
They might have likely escaped from K's words; but from his silence, never.
12 November 2015
Summary: The average employee is rational, unselfish, and holds no personal opinion. If the success of the management scheme you are implementing depends on this assumption, you are bound to fail.
This never happened to me, of course. But I am told it does happen:
You are called into a meeting to hear the latest and hottest on crisis management, employee mentorship, the 8-step process for successful transformation, sustainable business models, Scientific Management, Kaizen, chaos theory in organizational development, goal setting theory, task motivation, becoming more effective, more efficient, more this, more that. You sit down, look around, gauge the leaden eyes of the other lost souls, and calculate how much money this meeting is going to cost.
Then the webinar starts and the enthusiastic voice of the presenter comes on. Typically, he or she is not an expert in the field, is "a consultant" instead, from "a think tank", has read a book or two on the topic, the kind of books you get in airport bookstores. The quality of the presentation is bad, the ideas trite -- think outside the box, get stakeholder buy-in, reach for the low hanging fruit, eliminate waste. Your mind is wandering to the pile of papers on your desk, the pile of papers you would be working on if you had the freedom to not sit here.
The presentation ends, the presenter thanks the audience, the audience congratulates the presenter. The senior manager who organized the meeting asks whether this was a useful exercise. He looks around the room. You keep that expression of innocence that you practiced in front of the mirror, the one that makes you look like a creepy robot, but suddenly you feel your chin move up and down.
Surely, trying to get better at things is a good thing. So what is the problem?
The problem is, in the words of the great Ben Cafferty(1): "You make it sound like there is a correlation between what should happen and what actually happens."
This is nothing new. In his excellent analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis Graham Allison(2) looked at institutional behaviour of government agencies through three explanatory models.
1: The rational actor: Institutions behave like a single rational actor.
2: Standard operating procedure: Individuals like to follow rituals.
3: Institutional politics: Institutional behaviour is a consequence of battles amongst power factions.
Now at your manager meeting, look around the room. What do you see?
Do you see people whose arguments are logical and consistent? Do you see individuals who act in the best interest of the organization? Do you see people who remain silent on topics they know nothing about? Do you see people who share the glory of success?
Or, do you see people battling each other, battling each other about budgets, about workers, about space, positions, titles, influence, access to authority. Do you see people pointing the fingers at each other behind their backs? Do you see individuals whose main concern is their own well-being, their reputation, their compensation? Do you see people whose egos stand in the way of collaboration?
Work environments vary, of course, not only between institutions, but also between departments within the same institution, and between subunits of departments. So what to do?
Middle management has no choice: In an environment where honesty and co-operation are rewarded, honesty and co-operation are the rational behavioural choices. In an environment where deceit and sabotage are rewarded, the rational choices are deceit and sabotage.
It is the responsibility of leadership to set the tone, and live the tone, and monitor the tone. But I admit that it is often difficult for them to find out what is really going on. Maybe we would all be better off with a little less nodding in agreement.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
(1) Veep (2015): Season 4, Episode 9
(2) Graham Allison (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little, Brown, and Company; Boston, Massachusetts