Traditional societies rely a lot on deference. People are given respect based on their role or experience. A patient offers deference to a doctor. The young defer to the old. Everyone defers to a policeman, and even more to a priest or a monarch. Less educated people defer to those with qualifications.
The Economist this week referred to the end of the age of deference , at least in the UK. Whatever may have remained twenty years ago has been lost due to a series of scandals. The royals were damaged by Charles and Diana. MP’s had little automatic respect anyway, but what they did have was lost over expenses. Now the Murdoch scandal has reduced confidence in the police. Journalists, of course, never commanded much respect. The horrible revelations about the Catholic Church have changed the way we view priests. Bank managers, when you can actually find one, are tainted. Nowadays, it is even acceptable, sometimes, to challenge a boss.
Germans have less class history to hold them back, but historically have placed great store on qualifications and experience. There, wages follow age much more than they follow current merit, and people will always show off their doctor-ships or other titles. But even this was challenged last year when a senior government minister was discovered to have plagiarised part of his doctoral thesis.
The Netherlands may be the least deferential society on earth. There, everyone has to earn their respect. I believe this lies at the root of the terrible customer service prevalent there. Shop assistants are essentially reminding customers that they command equal respect, and find any hint of obsequiousness inconsistent with that. Elsewhere in society, politicians, generals, even royals may be respected, but they all have to earn it as humans first. One good by-product may be that the police are generally more courteous there.
The first reaction of my generation and younger people to the end of deference is to cheer. Why should anyone command automatic respect? We are all humans, and we all need to earn the right to be heard and followed. Lazy deference held together many an out-dated institution for far too long, whether caps were doffed to landed gentry, or even colonial rulers. I find sad and frustrating the unthinking deference offered by my Mum to her GP, anyone in a bank, and sometimes even any white male above 30 wearing a suit.
Like so many trends, the one reducing deference is mainly a result of globalisation and technology. When everyone you ever met came from your village, it was much more natural to respect an established hierarchy – even if you did not have personal experience to cause you to defer, you certainly had friends and family to offer you secondary evidence. Nowadays, qualifications can come from anywhere, our Facebook friends span the globe, and Wikipedia allows us to check credentials, and even to quickly match knowledge.
But is the end of deference wholly a good thing? What about schooling? Even twenty years ago, a parent approaching a teacher would most likely be looking up to the teacher for information and feedback about their child. Now it is most often to complain or to judge the teacher. I can feel the same things happening now with medical professionals. The natural outcome is caution – both sets of professionals become more likely to cover themselves against future complaint rather than seek the best outcome for the student/patient, at least compared with before. In schools, discipline gets worse and less teaching takes place, while health services and police forces spend precious resources on documentation and litigation.
The deference-free Netherlands is also rather a noisy place. Everyone feels empowered to give their opinion on everything, decisions are slow, and often there is more talking than listening. When I reach the departure lounge in Faro airport en route for Amsterdam I always notice an unwelcome increase in volume.
Deference is one of the first things we are taught, by our parents, when we know no better. Do as you are told, speak when you are spoken to. It is natural and healthy to rebel against this model as we enter adolescence. If we are blessed with smart parents and other good role models, they start to use subtler techniques to coach us and to earn our continued respect. But many of us swing from unthinking deference all the way to unthinking disrespectfulness. Perhaps societies need to go through the same process.
Asians, Africans and others criticise our more challenging societies. True, life can be simpler with clear values and a hierarchy of deference. Families may well stay closer as a result. But the downside is apparent too, when you observe attitudes to women and political abuse of power for example. I believe we can lose the deference but keep most of its advantages.
So, on balance, good riddance to deference. All these UK scandals might finally rid us of our out-dated class-ridden model. Parenting might improve too. I defer to no one, yet I try to be open to anyone, with a bias towards respect. I make positive assumptions, but am always ready to challenge them before they become fixed views. I also expect deference from no one over the age of five. Increasingly, most of us follow this sort of philosophy, even the royal family, and society is better for it. If the volume goes up too much, we can always tune out every so often, at Faro airport or anywhere else.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Some predictions
Every so often I like to set myself up for future ridicule by trying to predict how things might change. It is nearly thirty years now since I joined the workforce. There were no computers, no mobile phones. No one ever mentioned climate change (but everyone still talked all the time about the strange weather). My Dad died aged sixty six and people thought it was an average sort of score. Until I went to London I had hardly ever met any dark skinned people.
So, the last thirty years have seen dramatic change, more than any in human history. The Economist and others now herald the start of what they call the Anthropocene, or era where humans themselves are the prime determinants of planetary evolution. How might things look thirty years from now?
Some things are well documented. The human race will continue to grow. The climate will have changed a lot, or at least most people think so. Asia will dominate economically, and Africa will be the rising star. We will live longer, and work longer.
But that is too easy – it just takes a current trend and extrapolates. Here are some other predictions, many of them also building on current trends, but maybe more daring in sketching outcomes. Generally, I look to sciences or disciplines which are newer or seem less fully determined. IT and communications, and climate geography are obvious examples, but I think this description also applies to economics and medicine. Finally, there are the results likely socially from other trends.
In medicine, I still contend that we know almost nothing. Just consider your last trip to your GP, or the last sad story you listened to of a friend with symptoms who was shuffled from expert to expert but without any diagnosis, let alone effective treatment, forthcoming. My guess is that in thirty years we will be able to self-diagnose and self-treat things that seem incurable today. Most folk will still have good quality life aged a hundred, and some might make 130.
Where will we see most effects? Some will be in classical medicine for sure, with everything from cancer to common colds losing their sting. But I fancy even bigger changes in three other areas.
First, there will be a step change in our understanding of the mind. This could radically alter our ability to conquer things like depression or addiction, and also make a difference to our social skills and empathy. Imagine the value in that. It is not so unlikely, already scientists are making amazing progress in understanding these things, and remedies will not be far behind. Here also I believe globalisation will help, as the mysterious, mainly mental, benefits of Asian and homeopathic remedies will start to be understood more widely.
Second, there is cosmetics. Laser eye surgery is already fool-proof, though so far only for short sight. It may well be possible to routinely operate on new-borns (or maybe adolescents) to give them cost-free perfect eye-sight for life. Why not? And perfect hearing too – I would love that one. We will be able to change our looks, and probably be able to take pills to sort out obesity and other things we don’t like about ourselves.
The last medical area is pre-birth. Sex selection at conception may become possible. Radical reductions of disabilities certainly will. This last one is an ethical minefield, and have threatening side effects, but the march of progress will be relentless.
The next discipline which is ripe for progress is economics. I studied this in the seventies, and it was clear than that what it said in the textbooks fell woefully short of describing reality. Since then, the textbooks have been re-written at least twice more, yet we still know nothing. My guess is that in thirty years they will look back at the 2009 banking crisis (and the 2012 one?) and cringe at the appalling policy mistakes born of crass ignorance. Economics feels somehow solvable, and I sense we are close to some powerful solutions. Of course, politics will still get in the way, but my feeling is that huge progress is possible, with enormous potential benefits for everyone.
Next, geography, specifically climate geography. I am an optimist on climate change, not because of any faith in humanity or politicians to change habits, but because of the potential of science. In thirty years we might be able to actually control a lot of the weather, and deal with (at least for now) annoying things like pollution. There may be solutions there way outside our current blinkers, and desperation may well guide us to them. Any wouldn’t it be nice if it was always sunny but not too hot on our European summer holidays?
IT and Communications will of course continue to evolve at a rapid pace. One future trend will be the use of voice and even mind to send signals. Maybe we’ll all be walking around with a I-pad cum I-pod cum I-phone somehow secreted about our person with no need for screen or keyboard. I have predicted before that live culture will become available personally, and I saw last week that the New York Opera has started to sell live computer feeds of their shows. Why not? Better to get 50 cents from 1 million people than 100 dollars from just 1000. They can have both. And I look forward to enjoying such things in the Algarve.
Lastly, what about social evolution? I think many of the established norms of how we live will break down. Already there is a blur between work and retirement, and in future the whole concept of work will become less well defined. We will work for many employers on spot type contracts doing things in our own time and place. I also wonder if the institution of marriage will not fray further, as it is a bit of an artificial construction linked to child-rearing, and child-rearing will become a smaller share of our lives.
Linked to the two trends above, the concept of residence will become more fluid, and more of us will divide our time between different places. The bureaucracy to support this cannot come soon enough for me: yesterday I tried to renew my Dutch driving licence, as a Brit living partly in Portugal. The lady behind the desk was very pleasant, but defeated. Finally, sexuality will probably become more fluid too. Who knows, life in the 1960’s might turn out to be a rehearsal for life in the 2040’s – with many of the same people alive to enjoy both!
All of this is wild speculation, and much of it pure nonsense. But I find it fun, and recommend this exercise. One technique I have used in called Clashing. In that you don’t just look at one trend and consider its evolution, but you consciously look at two trends together. That opens the mind to a wider set of possibilities.
So, the last thirty years have seen dramatic change, more than any in human history. The Economist and others now herald the start of what they call the Anthropocene, or era where humans themselves are the prime determinants of planetary evolution. How might things look thirty years from now?
Some things are well documented. The human race will continue to grow. The climate will have changed a lot, or at least most people think so. Asia will dominate economically, and Africa will be the rising star. We will live longer, and work longer.
But that is too easy – it just takes a current trend and extrapolates. Here are some other predictions, many of them also building on current trends, but maybe more daring in sketching outcomes. Generally, I look to sciences or disciplines which are newer or seem less fully determined. IT and communications, and climate geography are obvious examples, but I think this description also applies to economics and medicine. Finally, there are the results likely socially from other trends.
In medicine, I still contend that we know almost nothing. Just consider your last trip to your GP, or the last sad story you listened to of a friend with symptoms who was shuffled from expert to expert but without any diagnosis, let alone effective treatment, forthcoming. My guess is that in thirty years we will be able to self-diagnose and self-treat things that seem incurable today. Most folk will still have good quality life aged a hundred, and some might make 130.
Where will we see most effects? Some will be in classical medicine for sure, with everything from cancer to common colds losing their sting. But I fancy even bigger changes in three other areas.
First, there will be a step change in our understanding of the mind. This could radically alter our ability to conquer things like depression or addiction, and also make a difference to our social skills and empathy. Imagine the value in that. It is not so unlikely, already scientists are making amazing progress in understanding these things, and remedies will not be far behind. Here also I believe globalisation will help, as the mysterious, mainly mental, benefits of Asian and homeopathic remedies will start to be understood more widely.
Second, there is cosmetics. Laser eye surgery is already fool-proof, though so far only for short sight. It may well be possible to routinely operate on new-borns (or maybe adolescents) to give them cost-free perfect eye-sight for life. Why not? And perfect hearing too – I would love that one. We will be able to change our looks, and probably be able to take pills to sort out obesity and other things we don’t like about ourselves.
The last medical area is pre-birth. Sex selection at conception may become possible. Radical reductions of disabilities certainly will. This last one is an ethical minefield, and have threatening side effects, but the march of progress will be relentless.
The next discipline which is ripe for progress is economics. I studied this in the seventies, and it was clear than that what it said in the textbooks fell woefully short of describing reality. Since then, the textbooks have been re-written at least twice more, yet we still know nothing. My guess is that in thirty years they will look back at the 2009 banking crisis (and the 2012 one?) and cringe at the appalling policy mistakes born of crass ignorance. Economics feels somehow solvable, and I sense we are close to some powerful solutions. Of course, politics will still get in the way, but my feeling is that huge progress is possible, with enormous potential benefits for everyone.
Next, geography, specifically climate geography. I am an optimist on climate change, not because of any faith in humanity or politicians to change habits, but because of the potential of science. In thirty years we might be able to actually control a lot of the weather, and deal with (at least for now) annoying things like pollution. There may be solutions there way outside our current blinkers, and desperation may well guide us to them. Any wouldn’t it be nice if it was always sunny but not too hot on our European summer holidays?
IT and Communications will of course continue to evolve at a rapid pace. One future trend will be the use of voice and even mind to send signals. Maybe we’ll all be walking around with a I-pad cum I-pod cum I-phone somehow secreted about our person with no need for screen or keyboard. I have predicted before that live culture will become available personally, and I saw last week that the New York Opera has started to sell live computer feeds of their shows. Why not? Better to get 50 cents from 1 million people than 100 dollars from just 1000. They can have both. And I look forward to enjoying such things in the Algarve.
Lastly, what about social evolution? I think many of the established norms of how we live will break down. Already there is a blur between work and retirement, and in future the whole concept of work will become less well defined. We will work for many employers on spot type contracts doing things in our own time and place. I also wonder if the institution of marriage will not fray further, as it is a bit of an artificial construction linked to child-rearing, and child-rearing will become a smaller share of our lives.
Linked to the two trends above, the concept of residence will become more fluid, and more of us will divide our time between different places. The bureaucracy to support this cannot come soon enough for me: yesterday I tried to renew my Dutch driving licence, as a Brit living partly in Portugal. The lady behind the desk was very pleasant, but defeated. Finally, sexuality will probably become more fluid too. Who knows, life in the 1960’s might turn out to be a rehearsal for life in the 2040’s – with many of the same people alive to enjoy both!
All of this is wild speculation, and much of it pure nonsense. But I find it fun, and recommend this exercise. One technique I have used in called Clashing. In that you don’t just look at one trend and consider its evolution, but you consciously look at two trends together. That opens the mind to a wider set of possibilities.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Tipping Points in News
I have enjoyed the unfolding scandal of News Corp over the last week. There is something gloriously pleasurable in seeing the over-mighty brought down to size, and the squirming of those who had become too close to powerful friends in their own self-interest. Schadenfreude is a wonderful word for a wonderful emotion. Watching thinly disguised schadenfreude on the BBC has also been a great pleasure – those boys deserve a break. And hats off to the Guardian for persevering long enough until a breakthrough came.
As for the best outcomes from here, as usual the Economist has got it spot on, in two clinical leader articles this week. They make a series of valid points.
First, they point out how news is changing, in some ways back to how it was before mass media, driven by social networking and personal choice. On balance this is good, but it carries some risks, and it is mainly up to us as individuals how we handle them.
Next, they say that heavy regulation of the UK press as an outcome to the scandal would probably do more harm than good, since it would muzzle the most useful aspect of journalism, in which wrongdoing is exposed regardless of status. In a democracy, there is bound to be a messy relationship between the press, the judiciary, the police, the politicians and the public, in which each group needs the others and risks of patronage exist. The press have an important role, and we should hold our noses and let them play it.
Third, they focus on the failings in this case of the police. The law was broken by the News of the World, there was an investigation, and the investigation failed miserably despite ample evidence. Were the police too nervous of the press? Or were the politicians the ones who told them to go easy? In either case, it is shameful, and requires reviews, learning, and consequences.
Next, the Economist strongly suspects that other papers were also acting illegally, and the whole sector should be investigated. Partly this is based on the way News Corp has shamelessly tried damage limitation. Even more telling has been the lack of intensity in following the story among News Corp’s competitors. It is hard to explain this unless they have something to hide themselves. Again – well done the Guardian, and may this mark a resurgence in its popularity.
Fifth, David Cameron is excoriated, less for the judgement issue regarding Andy Coulson, but more for his inadequate courage now. Surely a judge led enquiry should look at the whole industry, as honourably (and maybe naively) demanded by Ed Miliband. Cameron is still playing the politician here. And maybe he is even closer to the Mail than to News Corp?
Next, the Economist thinks that the Sky News takeover is a red herring. If it was right to give the go ahead before, it is still right now. Just make sure people who commit criminal acts are punished and removed from responsible positions.
And that leads to the last point. The acts were shameful and criminal, and should result in jail terms, for those that committed them, those that let them happen, and those that tried to cover them up.
Well said, the Economist. As usual.
One aspect of this that fascinates me is the concept of a tipping point in news.
This story is old. It bubbled along for years, hitting the news for a time and then going quiet. True, many other papers were not that interested in developing it, probably for their own shameful reasons. But last week a tipping point was reached, the dam broke, and chaos has ensued.
In this case, the key was the revelation about Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked, and the possibility that the action gave the family false hope. In the public eye, that moved the crime from merely technical – judging to do a bit more than legally justified but for an understandable reason (selling papers) and only harming those who arguably deserved it – to callous and hurtful. Without even waiting the public outcry, the politicians and the other papers realised the game was up and set the wheels in motion.
This very analysis is the most powerful argument against regulating the press. Nowadays, with PR firms everywhere and managed communication, it is too often possible to wait out a news storm without taking too much damage. That was the tactic of News Corp, and they nearly got away with it. Only persevering, quality investigative journalism defeated them. And it is just that sort of journalism that would be threatened by excessive regulation.
This story is not unique in following this trajectory. Remember the MP expenses scandal. It had similar features, including an ugly coalition of insiders each tied up with each other’s interests. Then the Daily Telegraph breached the dam, in that case with some juicy exposures about duck houses and callous hypocrisy.
Watergate followed a similar path. So did Monica Lewinsky. Even Charles and Diana had elements of the same.
So did other examples, where in the end the PR industry won out. Remember cash for honours. The legality of the Iraq war. Prince Andrew’s activities. In those cases the tipping point never came, and the elite managed to park the issues in endless enquiries and out of the headlines. Berlusconi still survives as well - despite the best efforts of the Economist.
It is only with a courageous press that tipping points have a chance of being reached. And there are lessons here too for such journalists. The Guardian spent a long time focusing on the technical legality of News Corp, with little impact. It was the sensation that tipped the story over, the revelation which touched people’s consciences. That is another part of journalism – being able to spot the game-changing headline and to produce it. Often, the Guardian is not so good at that aspect of journalism, being somewhat removed from mainstream opinion. Ironically, one UK paper was the world’s best at that aspect. It was called the News of the World.
RIP News of the World and its honest journalists. But long may the schadenfreude continue over the crooks, and the establishment creeps who cosied up to them.
As for the best outcomes from here, as usual the Economist has got it spot on, in two clinical leader articles this week. They make a series of valid points.
First, they point out how news is changing, in some ways back to how it was before mass media, driven by social networking and personal choice. On balance this is good, but it carries some risks, and it is mainly up to us as individuals how we handle them.
Next, they say that heavy regulation of the UK press as an outcome to the scandal would probably do more harm than good, since it would muzzle the most useful aspect of journalism, in which wrongdoing is exposed regardless of status. In a democracy, there is bound to be a messy relationship between the press, the judiciary, the police, the politicians and the public, in which each group needs the others and risks of patronage exist. The press have an important role, and we should hold our noses and let them play it.
Third, they focus on the failings in this case of the police. The law was broken by the News of the World, there was an investigation, and the investigation failed miserably despite ample evidence. Were the police too nervous of the press? Or were the politicians the ones who told them to go easy? In either case, it is shameful, and requires reviews, learning, and consequences.
Next, the Economist strongly suspects that other papers were also acting illegally, and the whole sector should be investigated. Partly this is based on the way News Corp has shamelessly tried damage limitation. Even more telling has been the lack of intensity in following the story among News Corp’s competitors. It is hard to explain this unless they have something to hide themselves. Again – well done the Guardian, and may this mark a resurgence in its popularity.
Fifth, David Cameron is excoriated, less for the judgement issue regarding Andy Coulson, but more for his inadequate courage now. Surely a judge led enquiry should look at the whole industry, as honourably (and maybe naively) demanded by Ed Miliband. Cameron is still playing the politician here. And maybe he is even closer to the Mail than to News Corp?
Next, the Economist thinks that the Sky News takeover is a red herring. If it was right to give the go ahead before, it is still right now. Just make sure people who commit criminal acts are punished and removed from responsible positions.
And that leads to the last point. The acts were shameful and criminal, and should result in jail terms, for those that committed them, those that let them happen, and those that tried to cover them up.
Well said, the Economist. As usual.
One aspect of this that fascinates me is the concept of a tipping point in news.
This story is old. It bubbled along for years, hitting the news for a time and then going quiet. True, many other papers were not that interested in developing it, probably for their own shameful reasons. But last week a tipping point was reached, the dam broke, and chaos has ensued.
In this case, the key was the revelation about Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked, and the possibility that the action gave the family false hope. In the public eye, that moved the crime from merely technical – judging to do a bit more than legally justified but for an understandable reason (selling papers) and only harming those who arguably deserved it – to callous and hurtful. Without even waiting the public outcry, the politicians and the other papers realised the game was up and set the wheels in motion.
This very analysis is the most powerful argument against regulating the press. Nowadays, with PR firms everywhere and managed communication, it is too often possible to wait out a news storm without taking too much damage. That was the tactic of News Corp, and they nearly got away with it. Only persevering, quality investigative journalism defeated them. And it is just that sort of journalism that would be threatened by excessive regulation.
This story is not unique in following this trajectory. Remember the MP expenses scandal. It had similar features, including an ugly coalition of insiders each tied up with each other’s interests. Then the Daily Telegraph breached the dam, in that case with some juicy exposures about duck houses and callous hypocrisy.
Watergate followed a similar path. So did Monica Lewinsky. Even Charles and Diana had elements of the same.
So did other examples, where in the end the PR industry won out. Remember cash for honours. The legality of the Iraq war. Prince Andrew’s activities. In those cases the tipping point never came, and the elite managed to park the issues in endless enquiries and out of the headlines. Berlusconi still survives as well - despite the best efforts of the Economist.
It is only with a courageous press that tipping points have a chance of being reached. And there are lessons here too for such journalists. The Guardian spent a long time focusing on the technical legality of News Corp, with little impact. It was the sensation that tipped the story over, the revelation which touched people’s consciences. That is another part of journalism – being able to spot the game-changing headline and to produce it. Often, the Guardian is not so good at that aspect of journalism, being somewhat removed from mainstream opinion. Ironically, one UK paper was the world’s best at that aspect. It was called the News of the World.
RIP News of the World and its honest journalists. But long may the schadenfreude continue over the crooks, and the establishment creeps who cosied up to them.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Freedom and Control - Bullshit Alert
Freedom versus control is an everyday dilemma, in business, in government policy, in parenting. There can be valid arguments to swing the pendulum one way or another – like so many things, it depends on context. It is also fine to start with some bias, so long as that doesn’t give you blinkers. Many conservatives, business people, and people who saw the negative effects of communism start with a bias towards freedom, at least in most aspects of their lives. Others have a control bias.
Sadly, all too often bias trumps logic. And, just as sadly, bullshit is dressed up as logic. Here are some statements, frequently made, which should make you sit up and challenge hard when you hear them.
Among those arguing for control, a common emotive expression used to support their case is the postcode lottery. According to these people, it can never be right that people suffer different outcomes based on random factors such as where they live. Bullshit. Take schools. If you give freedom to head teachers and governing bodies, some schools will be better run than others. Outcomes will be different. Some kids will get a better education than others. It is a postcode lottery, to some extent and that is good.
The alternative is to mandate all schools to be identical. That takes away most of the incentive for excellence. And that ensures a mediocre outcome for all. Some freedom is good, and the outcomes may be randomly different. It is a price worth paying for innovation, motivation and excellence.
Now, if you tell me that the system favours the rich, because fee paying schools take all the best teachers, or because better teachers gravitate towards areas where affluent, easier pupils live, then you have a case to argue this as unfair. So play with the regulation to incentivise teachers more to work in tougher districts, and remove charitable tax breaks for private schools. This is good control. But please don’t use the postcode lottery argument, it does not wash.
The next bullshit argument for more control is the pareto distribution. This one is used by consultants, who should know better. Take any organisation, let us a sales reps. Some will do better some will do worse. It is a fact of life. You cannot alter it. Indeed, we should glory in it, because difference leads to learning and improvement potential. Its existence in no way justifies mandating more how individual sales reps behave. Make the poor learn from the good, even fire them if you must, but please don’t remove freedom and drive everyone towards an average, since that average will be worse than todays.
This one you hear about UK police forces. Seemingly, because there are forty something county forces, and some have better records than others, they should be merged into fewer forces. Bullshit. It may be that mergers make sense on cost economy grounds, but not on difference grounds.
Similar to the pareto bullshit is the isolated example bullshit. Yes, there are mass murderers and paedophiles in society. It is sad. But you don’t solve the problem by locking everyone up after 9pm, nor by forcing everyone onto some standardised training course, nor even by punishing the parents. Control freaks can make this case, and it is a bad one. By the same token, if you devise a scheme where doctors have more incentives for performance, there will be one who trousers an obscene amount of money somewhere, within the rules or outside them, and no doubt a newspaper will find him. Does that invalidate the system of freedom? Bullshit.
If half the doctors become millionaires and half go bankrupt then something is wrong. If the overall performance goes down or costs spiral then the system has failed. But one isolated example does not make a bad system.
There are a couple more bullshit calls for control of a different type, often made by socialists or bigots. These are protectionist arguments. “British jobs for British people” is an example. Bullshit. All this does is reduce incentives for excellence, and that is generally bad. The end result is a distorted web of tax breaks and subsidies which drives everything to mediocrity. Similarly, companies are often blamed for pursuing “short-term profits”. Sorry, isn’t that what businesses are supposed to be doing?
These examples all come from the control freaks. But there are just as many bullshit warning lights from the freedom fighters.
First, watch out for people or privileged sectors who demand who oppose all regulation, oppose all change, or demand self-regulation. Bullshit. These are warning signs that an existing freedom based system has become complacent and offered easy pickings for the lucky few. We often tend to look at trade unions here, and they are not immune, but in my view bankers and pensioners are worse. These arguments are almost always an attempt to frustrate necessary change. And sometimes the system is so broken that only a lurch towards control can offer a remedy.
Next, there are the sneering anti-HSE or anti nanny state brigade. Bullshit. Society needs some rules, and occasionally control and regulation is the only way to drive a necessary change. That emissions legislation has become a nation versus nation competitive game is a travesty. The tory opposition to the social chapter of the EU and to the minimum wage were disgraceful, in my view. People who obey speed limits have no reason to complain about speed cameras, and freedom is a wholly spurious argument against them.
On a similar line, beware people who argue against fair taxes. True, the old system of very high marginal tax rates had to change, but now many countries have moved to the other extreme. I have a freedom bias, but how can it be right, or even sustainable, for 1% of the people to own 50% of the wealth? And, especially in a system with freedom, progressive tax is the only way to equalise. Don’t tell me that a CEO earning $10m needs $15m or won’t be incentivised. If anything, it is the opposite, he will become so rich that further effort becomes pointless. It is one of the travesties of our era that inequality has become so extreme. Sadly, in history it has often needed a unifying event such as a war to rebalance this – 2010 does not look unlike 1910 (or even 10 BC) in that respect. You can have a freedom bias and still support progressive taxes.
Finally, watch out for the asset strippers. Privatisation has become a modern panacea, and is often a good solution to an efficient behemoth. I have spent long enough queuing in Portuguese Telecom offices to wish for an injection of freedom there. But privatisation has to happen when legal and regulatory and tax frameworks are in place to share out the benefits fairly. Otherwise you end up with Yeltsin’s Russia. Or Egypt in 2012? Or Greece? It is not a coincidence that those clamouring loudest for freedom are the managers or dubious investors who could exploit a weak freedom system. Private equity people or greedy CEO’s who outsource everything without a thought for retaining core skills are in the same category. Do not trust these bullshitters please. And if you have a monopolist who is also your prime minister then you are in real trouble – and probably Italian.
Sadly, all too often bias trumps logic. And, just as sadly, bullshit is dressed up as logic. Here are some statements, frequently made, which should make you sit up and challenge hard when you hear them.
Among those arguing for control, a common emotive expression used to support their case is the postcode lottery. According to these people, it can never be right that people suffer different outcomes based on random factors such as where they live. Bullshit. Take schools. If you give freedom to head teachers and governing bodies, some schools will be better run than others. Outcomes will be different. Some kids will get a better education than others. It is a postcode lottery, to some extent and that is good.
The alternative is to mandate all schools to be identical. That takes away most of the incentive for excellence. And that ensures a mediocre outcome for all. Some freedom is good, and the outcomes may be randomly different. It is a price worth paying for innovation, motivation and excellence.
Now, if you tell me that the system favours the rich, because fee paying schools take all the best teachers, or because better teachers gravitate towards areas where affluent, easier pupils live, then you have a case to argue this as unfair. So play with the regulation to incentivise teachers more to work in tougher districts, and remove charitable tax breaks for private schools. This is good control. But please don’t use the postcode lottery argument, it does not wash.
The next bullshit argument for more control is the pareto distribution. This one is used by consultants, who should know better. Take any organisation, let us a sales reps. Some will do better some will do worse. It is a fact of life. You cannot alter it. Indeed, we should glory in it, because difference leads to learning and improvement potential. Its existence in no way justifies mandating more how individual sales reps behave. Make the poor learn from the good, even fire them if you must, but please don’t remove freedom and drive everyone towards an average, since that average will be worse than todays.
This one you hear about UK police forces. Seemingly, because there are forty something county forces, and some have better records than others, they should be merged into fewer forces. Bullshit. It may be that mergers make sense on cost economy grounds, but not on difference grounds.
Similar to the pareto bullshit is the isolated example bullshit. Yes, there are mass murderers and paedophiles in society. It is sad. But you don’t solve the problem by locking everyone up after 9pm, nor by forcing everyone onto some standardised training course, nor even by punishing the parents. Control freaks can make this case, and it is a bad one. By the same token, if you devise a scheme where doctors have more incentives for performance, there will be one who trousers an obscene amount of money somewhere, within the rules or outside them, and no doubt a newspaper will find him. Does that invalidate the system of freedom? Bullshit.
If half the doctors become millionaires and half go bankrupt then something is wrong. If the overall performance goes down or costs spiral then the system has failed. But one isolated example does not make a bad system.
There are a couple more bullshit calls for control of a different type, often made by socialists or bigots. These are protectionist arguments. “British jobs for British people” is an example. Bullshit. All this does is reduce incentives for excellence, and that is generally bad. The end result is a distorted web of tax breaks and subsidies which drives everything to mediocrity. Similarly, companies are often blamed for pursuing “short-term profits”. Sorry, isn’t that what businesses are supposed to be doing?
These examples all come from the control freaks. But there are just as many bullshit warning lights from the freedom fighters.
First, watch out for people or privileged sectors who demand who oppose all regulation, oppose all change, or demand self-regulation. Bullshit. These are warning signs that an existing freedom based system has become complacent and offered easy pickings for the lucky few. We often tend to look at trade unions here, and they are not immune, but in my view bankers and pensioners are worse. These arguments are almost always an attempt to frustrate necessary change. And sometimes the system is so broken that only a lurch towards control can offer a remedy.
Next, there are the sneering anti-HSE or anti nanny state brigade. Bullshit. Society needs some rules, and occasionally control and regulation is the only way to drive a necessary change. That emissions legislation has become a nation versus nation competitive game is a travesty. The tory opposition to the social chapter of the EU and to the minimum wage were disgraceful, in my view. People who obey speed limits have no reason to complain about speed cameras, and freedom is a wholly spurious argument against them.
On a similar line, beware people who argue against fair taxes. True, the old system of very high marginal tax rates had to change, but now many countries have moved to the other extreme. I have a freedom bias, but how can it be right, or even sustainable, for 1% of the people to own 50% of the wealth? And, especially in a system with freedom, progressive tax is the only way to equalise. Don’t tell me that a CEO earning $10m needs $15m or won’t be incentivised. If anything, it is the opposite, he will become so rich that further effort becomes pointless. It is one of the travesties of our era that inequality has become so extreme. Sadly, in history it has often needed a unifying event such as a war to rebalance this – 2010 does not look unlike 1910 (or even 10 BC) in that respect. You can have a freedom bias and still support progressive taxes.
Finally, watch out for the asset strippers. Privatisation has become a modern panacea, and is often a good solution to an efficient behemoth. I have spent long enough queuing in Portuguese Telecom offices to wish for an injection of freedom there. But privatisation has to happen when legal and regulatory and tax frameworks are in place to share out the benefits fairly. Otherwise you end up with Yeltsin’s Russia. Or Egypt in 2012? Or Greece? It is not a coincidence that those clamouring loudest for freedom are the managers or dubious investors who could exploit a weak freedom system. Private equity people or greedy CEO’s who outsource everything without a thought for retaining core skills are in the same category. Do not trust these bullshitters please. And if you have a monopolist who is also your prime minister then you are in real trouble – and probably Italian.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Freedom or Control
This is a dilemma which appears in many aspects of life. Most of us have a natural inclination towards one side or the other, but the truth, as so often, is that each has its place depending on the situation to be addressed.
Over recent months I have come to get to understand a company working in one of countries in Central Europe that used to be under Russian control. The natural way of working in this economy before 1989 was all about control. Decisions were made centrally, people were not trusted, and extra effort did not yield extra reward.
What is less well known is the positive side. Everyone received a decent education, everyone could afford to live, albeit modestly, professionals had respect, and the lights never went out.
However, the model proved unsustainable, as a lack of any innovation destroyed productivity and competitiveness.
After the wall came down, all hell broke loose. Suddenly people were free to express their views, travel, and pursue their own choices. But a lack of sound institutions and safeguards meant that the result was very unfair, with lots of scope for criminality and hardship for many. However, slowly things have swung back, like a pendulum slowly finding its best spot.
I see this in the company I have been studying. The company only started during the wild days of few rules, and the founder was autocratic and worked on the edge , yet somehow charismatic and inspired.
Yet the company grew too quickly, the context changed even quicker, and the staff, recruited in the image of the founder, took too many short cuts and built a business with poor foundations. The founder had one last trick up his sleeve, to sell the company for more than it was worth and get out of the way.
Under the new owners the pendulum swung back to control, an understandable move with chaos all around. The upshot was a period of confusion and stagnation, with some fear returning among staff.
Only now might it be possible to swing more gently back towards freedom, with some trust, but backed up by well-defined rules and grounded by adequate systems.
The company could be a microcosm for the economies of the whole region, and it is salutary. In the cold war, we were brought up to believe that freedom is always right, and of course in some areas of life it is. But there is a balance to be struck, and the negative consequences of lurches between control and freedom have not been widely publicised or understood.
The worst example was Russia itself, where the West rather stupidly imposed an ungrounded freedom regime after 1989, under Yeltsin. A few got rich, many suffered, and the net result for the economy was at best not as beneficial as had been predicted. Then Putin came in there and swung the pendulum back hard in the other direction. Again, the net result appears not to have been good, at least not for the majority or competitiveness.
Similar dilemmas occur in smaller scale everywhere. Consider parenting. We start with a bias to freedom or control. Extremes on either side are usually wrong. The best choice depends a lot on the characteristics of the child, and to a lesser extent the parents. Wild lurches from one extreme to the other will often have negative consequences, but moving within the spectrum over time as needs change is a good idea. Often, these moves should be marginal, but in some situations a more radical shake up may be necessary, taking care not that the medicine does not do more harm than the ailment.
It is the same in any company. Consider outsourcing, which is equivalent to a move in the direction of freedom – the people actually performing the activity are not taking daily instruction, but rather operating with freedom to choose how they achieve defined goals. Similar choices occur when a chain can choose to operate stores directly or to use some sort of franchise model.
It is useful to think of some criteria to help guide these choices.
It seems a paradox, but the less well you understand your business or market, the more control you must keep. If the market is new or you are a new entrant, it is better to learn the skills yourself and adjust as you go. If you outsource or franchise too early then your partners will keep too much power and maybe it will be difficult to recover. By the same token, the other time to move towards control is when there is a major shift in conditions, in how money can be made in the market. Finally, if the legal or regulation framework makes things risky contractually, it may be necessary to keep control longer. Many companies franchise in mature markets, but run their own stores in China.
But in a stable environment when you know your business well, that is the time to swing to freedom. Partners will often innovate, especially in parts of your business where they can specialise and focus. You can retain enough knowledge to avoid a loss of power, and use your contracts to protect your brand and standards, while simplifying what you retain in house.
So this is about context as much as it is about ideology. It is reasonable to have a bias, but not to apply it blindly. Freedom will often win out, but only if the market does not take an unexpected lurch, or if you get lazy about retaining core skills or some levers over your partners. It can also make sense to move some elements of a business towards freedom at the same time as taking back control in others. What always works is continuously analysing market trends and partners, to avoid being caught out more often than necessary.
It can also be right to swing gently from one side to the other. Cynical staff often complain that their managers make a decision and then an opposite decision five years later, yet both decisions might be strategically justified. The company I am working with is being recommended to swing towards freedom just now. It could well be in five to ten years that it could be recommended to move back to more control. And both recommendations could be right.
Over recent months I have come to get to understand a company working in one of countries in Central Europe that used to be under Russian control. The natural way of working in this economy before 1989 was all about control. Decisions were made centrally, people were not trusted, and extra effort did not yield extra reward.
What is less well known is the positive side. Everyone received a decent education, everyone could afford to live, albeit modestly, professionals had respect, and the lights never went out.
However, the model proved unsustainable, as a lack of any innovation destroyed productivity and competitiveness.
After the wall came down, all hell broke loose. Suddenly people were free to express their views, travel, and pursue their own choices. But a lack of sound institutions and safeguards meant that the result was very unfair, with lots of scope for criminality and hardship for many. However, slowly things have swung back, like a pendulum slowly finding its best spot.
I see this in the company I have been studying. The company only started during the wild days of few rules, and the founder was autocratic and worked on the edge , yet somehow charismatic and inspired.
Yet the company grew too quickly, the context changed even quicker, and the staff, recruited in the image of the founder, took too many short cuts and built a business with poor foundations. The founder had one last trick up his sleeve, to sell the company for more than it was worth and get out of the way.
Under the new owners the pendulum swung back to control, an understandable move with chaos all around. The upshot was a period of confusion and stagnation, with some fear returning among staff.
Only now might it be possible to swing more gently back towards freedom, with some trust, but backed up by well-defined rules and grounded by adequate systems.
The company could be a microcosm for the economies of the whole region, and it is salutary. In the cold war, we were brought up to believe that freedom is always right, and of course in some areas of life it is. But there is a balance to be struck, and the negative consequences of lurches between control and freedom have not been widely publicised or understood.
The worst example was Russia itself, where the West rather stupidly imposed an ungrounded freedom regime after 1989, under Yeltsin. A few got rich, many suffered, and the net result for the economy was at best not as beneficial as had been predicted. Then Putin came in there and swung the pendulum back hard in the other direction. Again, the net result appears not to have been good, at least not for the majority or competitiveness.
Similar dilemmas occur in smaller scale everywhere. Consider parenting. We start with a bias to freedom or control. Extremes on either side are usually wrong. The best choice depends a lot on the characteristics of the child, and to a lesser extent the parents. Wild lurches from one extreme to the other will often have negative consequences, but moving within the spectrum over time as needs change is a good idea. Often, these moves should be marginal, but in some situations a more radical shake up may be necessary, taking care not that the medicine does not do more harm than the ailment.
It is the same in any company. Consider outsourcing, which is equivalent to a move in the direction of freedom – the people actually performing the activity are not taking daily instruction, but rather operating with freedom to choose how they achieve defined goals. Similar choices occur when a chain can choose to operate stores directly or to use some sort of franchise model.
It is useful to think of some criteria to help guide these choices.
It seems a paradox, but the less well you understand your business or market, the more control you must keep. If the market is new or you are a new entrant, it is better to learn the skills yourself and adjust as you go. If you outsource or franchise too early then your partners will keep too much power and maybe it will be difficult to recover. By the same token, the other time to move towards control is when there is a major shift in conditions, in how money can be made in the market. Finally, if the legal or regulation framework makes things risky contractually, it may be necessary to keep control longer. Many companies franchise in mature markets, but run their own stores in China.
But in a stable environment when you know your business well, that is the time to swing to freedom. Partners will often innovate, especially in parts of your business where they can specialise and focus. You can retain enough knowledge to avoid a loss of power, and use your contracts to protect your brand and standards, while simplifying what you retain in house.
So this is about context as much as it is about ideology. It is reasonable to have a bias, but not to apply it blindly. Freedom will often win out, but only if the market does not take an unexpected lurch, or if you get lazy about retaining core skills or some levers over your partners. It can also make sense to move some elements of a business towards freedom at the same time as taking back control in others. What always works is continuously analysing market trends and partners, to avoid being caught out more often than necessary.
It can also be right to swing gently from one side to the other. Cynical staff often complain that their managers make a decision and then an opposite decision five years later, yet both decisions might be strategically justified. The company I am working with is being recommended to swing towards freedom just now. It could well be in five to ten years that it could be recommended to move back to more control. And both recommendations could be right.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Is George Monbiot a Vicar in Disguise?
It is a disgrace and a tragedy how the attention of most of us has moved away from climate change in the last couple of years.
There was a period in the late nougthies when some momentum for action was building up. Climate change became an acceptable subject for a politician or non-geek to bring up, and to bring up seriously.
Then somehow the plot was lost. The Copenhagen summit was clearly a disastrous piece of mismanagement. Shorter term hardships took over the news agenda. The lobbyists for the status quo won some ground when they caught some scientists displaying bias. Some politicians caught a cold, notably Kevin Rudd, and that affected the courage of others. And it snowed.
It is pathetic really. The human race is playing a Russian roulette game with its own future, and we seem to think that is OK. Now those few politicians daring to act bravely, such as Chris Huhne in the UK (glossing over his apparent failings in his personal life) can be accused by some dinosaur of “destroying British industry” without mainstream media even bothering to balance the story.
I am an optimist for the longer term. Mercifully, liberal types seem to be able to control the agenda of schools to some extent, and within ten years a generation which has had climate dangers instilled in them throughout their education will start to become opinion formers.
I also believe that events often shape public attitude more than a steady diet of evidence and trends. Look at what Fukushima has done for the nuclear debate (erroneously, in my opinion). My guess is that sometime in the next five years a similar moment will change the climate debate for ever. Of course I would not want to see a US city washed away, or world scale food riots, or some other undeniable visible piece of doom-mongering evidence. But perhaps that is what we need to wake us up.
In the meantime, I have some advice for those trying to influence public opinion in favour of action. You are losing your argument (our argument) partly because you are so boring.
Look at the front page article in the Guardian Weekly on 3-9 June. Some watchdog has measured emissions and they have gone up. That leads to some obscure, caveated conclusions about global temperature rise far into the future. Everyone is admonished for ignoring this. We are not yet doomed, but will be unless we pull our socks up, and fast.
If I have read this sort of thing once, I have read it 100 times. And it strikes me that it reminds me of the sort of sermon that I had the misfortune to hear from old fashioned vicars through my childhood, and, sadly, still now in many Churches. The vicar sees all sorts of poor behaviour around him. He concludes things were better in the good old days, and we all admonished for this. We are not yet doomed, but we will be unless we pull our socks up, and fast.
How tedious. No wonder such vicars lose their audience, and the whole Church seems in interminable decline. Where is the balance? Where is the sign of being able to be credible with any sort of target audience? Where is the new message? Where is the practical idea of action? Where is the motivation of hope?
Sorry, climate awareness lobbyists, you fall into the same trap. You are not “one of us”. You harry and preach. You forget the positive side, the hope, and the action. Seriously, do you really think we will all sign up to living in villages and growing our own little crops again? Forget it! The climate solution will come from innovations not deprivations, and such solutions are possible. We need to support their urgent development, not just gripe and quote private Fraser “We are doomed”! I do still read George Monbiot, but honestly I can’t say I enjoy it.
So, just as some of us have discovered Church communities and Priests who can tell their story in an engaging way, I hope that one day such people will emerge to help wake us all up from our Russian roulette game. A new narrative from a new generation of preachers is required urgently. Can you help?
While on the subject of religious metaphors for modern day challenges, I saw another one this week. I see a parallel between divorce and debt default.
A marriage is a serious commitment. When we make our vows we should mean them. If we hit difficulties we should try very hard to overcome them. Divorce has to be a last resort, or at least not a first resort. We also know that once we are divorced we are somehow diminished, and further vows will not carry so much weight. Then there are establishment figures, notably Priests, conservatives, and the self-righteous, who can hold the protection of the institution above the interests of individuals. Divorce is sometimes right, and the establishment can be slow to accept this (it is still illegal in the Philippines, and in Malta, though the latter country held a recent referendum promising change).
It is the same way with taking out loans. They are serious. You shouldn’t just default when things start to turn troublesome. A defaulting party becomes diminished, and credit rating should reflect that. Yet, despite all that, default can be right, when the alternative simply provides unending hardship and misery. And establishment figures, here represented by banks, and the last to accept that.
Maybe our banks and some of our politicians need to read up about the history of divorce laws and practices, and their consequences to individuals. Even the history of defaults could help them – in Argentina, things didn’t turn out so bad, after all. That way, a lot of Greeks, Irish, and Portuguese could sleep easier in their beds and face a brighter future.
There was a period in the late nougthies when some momentum for action was building up. Climate change became an acceptable subject for a politician or non-geek to bring up, and to bring up seriously.
Then somehow the plot was lost. The Copenhagen summit was clearly a disastrous piece of mismanagement. Shorter term hardships took over the news agenda. The lobbyists for the status quo won some ground when they caught some scientists displaying bias. Some politicians caught a cold, notably Kevin Rudd, and that affected the courage of others. And it snowed.
It is pathetic really. The human race is playing a Russian roulette game with its own future, and we seem to think that is OK. Now those few politicians daring to act bravely, such as Chris Huhne in the UK (glossing over his apparent failings in his personal life) can be accused by some dinosaur of “destroying British industry” without mainstream media even bothering to balance the story.
I am an optimist for the longer term. Mercifully, liberal types seem to be able to control the agenda of schools to some extent, and within ten years a generation which has had climate dangers instilled in them throughout their education will start to become opinion formers.
I also believe that events often shape public attitude more than a steady diet of evidence and trends. Look at what Fukushima has done for the nuclear debate (erroneously, in my opinion). My guess is that sometime in the next five years a similar moment will change the climate debate for ever. Of course I would not want to see a US city washed away, or world scale food riots, or some other undeniable visible piece of doom-mongering evidence. But perhaps that is what we need to wake us up.
In the meantime, I have some advice for those trying to influence public opinion in favour of action. You are losing your argument (our argument) partly because you are so boring.
Look at the front page article in the Guardian Weekly on 3-9 June. Some watchdog has measured emissions and they have gone up. That leads to some obscure, caveated conclusions about global temperature rise far into the future. Everyone is admonished for ignoring this. We are not yet doomed, but will be unless we pull our socks up, and fast.
If I have read this sort of thing once, I have read it 100 times. And it strikes me that it reminds me of the sort of sermon that I had the misfortune to hear from old fashioned vicars through my childhood, and, sadly, still now in many Churches. The vicar sees all sorts of poor behaviour around him. He concludes things were better in the good old days, and we all admonished for this. We are not yet doomed, but we will be unless we pull our socks up, and fast.
How tedious. No wonder such vicars lose their audience, and the whole Church seems in interminable decline. Where is the balance? Where is the sign of being able to be credible with any sort of target audience? Where is the new message? Where is the practical idea of action? Where is the motivation of hope?
Sorry, climate awareness lobbyists, you fall into the same trap. You are not “one of us”. You harry and preach. You forget the positive side, the hope, and the action. Seriously, do you really think we will all sign up to living in villages and growing our own little crops again? Forget it! The climate solution will come from innovations not deprivations, and such solutions are possible. We need to support their urgent development, not just gripe and quote private Fraser “We are doomed”! I do still read George Monbiot, but honestly I can’t say I enjoy it.
So, just as some of us have discovered Church communities and Priests who can tell their story in an engaging way, I hope that one day such people will emerge to help wake us all up from our Russian roulette game. A new narrative from a new generation of preachers is required urgently. Can you help?
While on the subject of religious metaphors for modern day challenges, I saw another one this week. I see a parallel between divorce and debt default.
A marriage is a serious commitment. When we make our vows we should mean them. If we hit difficulties we should try very hard to overcome them. Divorce has to be a last resort, or at least not a first resort. We also know that once we are divorced we are somehow diminished, and further vows will not carry so much weight. Then there are establishment figures, notably Priests, conservatives, and the self-righteous, who can hold the protection of the institution above the interests of individuals. Divorce is sometimes right, and the establishment can be slow to accept this (it is still illegal in the Philippines, and in Malta, though the latter country held a recent referendum promising change).
It is the same way with taking out loans. They are serious. You shouldn’t just default when things start to turn troublesome. A defaulting party becomes diminished, and credit rating should reflect that. Yet, despite all that, default can be right, when the alternative simply provides unending hardship and misery. And establishment figures, here represented by banks, and the last to accept that.
Maybe our banks and some of our politicians need to read up about the history of divorce laws and practices, and their consequences to individuals. Even the history of defaults could help them – in Argentina, things didn’t turn out so bad, after all. That way, a lot of Greeks, Irish, and Portuguese could sleep easier in their beds and face a brighter future.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
What's in a word?
The other day I was sitting in a group trying to interpret Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, or the part of it known as the Beatitudes. They start with something like “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Why I was doing this is not all that relevant, and the way my mind wandered from there into this blog relied little on Christianity. Nonetheless, even if you are not Christian the Beatitudes are worth reading, as they are both beautiful and thought provoking.
But what about the words themselves? What do they really mean? We got as far as the first word, blessed, before arguments started, but at least we were all within close boundaries in our interpretation of that word. When we got to the concept of poor in spirit, we found many wildly different interpretations, ranging from depressed to downtrodden or uncertain.
Later we got to meek, which could be humble, timid, unassuming, powerless. Quite different things really. And this happened time and again. Even people who had been familiar with the text for years and listened to countless sermons on the subject found themselves in very different places.
In an earlier discussion the same thing occurred with the word grace. I was clear what graceful was, and could even describe graceful behaviour, but the noun was more difficult.
Moot is a lovely one. The word has two distinct meanings, almost opposite to each other. It either signals a sort of red herring or the crux of the matter. No wonder we get confused when we try to communicate with each other!
The Beatitudes were very likely a real homily from Jesus to his disciples, spoken in Hebrew. Almost a hundred years later, word has passed from mouth to mouth before Matthew wrote down what he thought was said, or at least meant. Over centuries, the language passed from Hebrew to Greek, then Latin and many other tongues, each language subtly developing over this time and each translation owing much to the interpretation, and even bias, of the translator.
One of those translations celebrates its 400th anniversary this year, the King James Bible, and I recommend an article on this in the Spring edition of Intelligent Life. That brings to life the dilemmas of translators looking to produce something compact and beautiful but also authentic in meaning, as much as is possible.
One conclusion I reached was that translators have had a lot of power over the years. Imagine the different homilies if meek had been replaced by humble or one of the other close synonyms? The course of human history could have been quite different. Even today, those people sitting at the back in EU or UN meetings trying to simultaneously translate speeches must have quite an impact on how those speeches are interpreted and hence the consequences.
For language is not an exact science. It does reflect culture to an extent, whether or not the Innuit really have a hundred different words for snow. A Dutchman once tried to tell me that one reason the Dutch were so direct was due to the nature of the imperative form in the Dutch language. I beg to differ: it feels more likely that the reason the imperative form is as it is reflects the Dutch nature to be direct.
At least the Dutch and British are relatively closely connected, separated by just a small sea and linked by much history. Yet we interpret language very differently, and manage to confuse each other time and again. Someone once gave me a sheet of paper with the table below, which I have treasured ever since.
What the British say What the British mean What the Dutch understand
I hear what you say I disagree and do not want to discuss it further He accepts my point of view
With the greatest respect… I think you are wrong (or a fool) He is listening to me
That is not bad That’s good or very good That’s poor or mediocre
Quite good A bit disappointing Quite good
Perhaps you would like to think about... / I would suggest This is an order. Do it or be prepared to justify yourself Think about the idea, but do what you like
When appropriate locally, Do what you like Do it if you can
Oh by the way… / Incidentally The primary purpose of our discussion is… This is not very important
I was a bit disappointed that…/ It is a pity you… I am most upset and cross It doesn’t really matter
Very interesting I don’t agree/ I don’t believe you They are impressed
Could we consider some other options? I don’t like your idea They haven’t decided yet
I’ll bear that in mind I will do nothing about it They will probably do it
Please think about that some more It’s a bad idea: don’t do it It’s a good idea: keep developing it
I’m sure it’s my fault It’s your fault! It was their fault
That’s an original point of view You must be crazy They like my ideas!
You must come for dinner sometime Not an invitation – just being polite I will get an invitation soon
You’ll get there eventually You don’t stand a chance in hell Keep on trying for they agree I am heading in the right way
I almost agree I don’t agree at all He’s not far from agreement
And this is between two nations who think the similarly, trying to communicate honestly without agenda. Imagine the scope for misunderstanding when we try to communicate with Russians. Or Japanese. Or Aboriginals. No wonder colonial pasts are so fraught with bad memories, and regional rivalries linger.
So my second reflections are about how we speak, listen and interpret. Simple language wins out, if possible supplemented by body language or example. And we have to avoid jumping to conclusions about what the other party may mean.
Leaving aside differences in time or place, this advice still holds for those close to us. Especially when there is tension in the air, for example a dating situation or a subordinate situation, it is very easy to be misunderstood. Add in the other dimensions, and our confusion can be complete, unless we take very active steps to prevent it.
No doubt I break my own advice each week in my blog. But perhaps that is a moot point?
But what about the words themselves? What do they really mean? We got as far as the first word, blessed, before arguments started, but at least we were all within close boundaries in our interpretation of that word. When we got to the concept of poor in spirit, we found many wildly different interpretations, ranging from depressed to downtrodden or uncertain.
Later we got to meek, which could be humble, timid, unassuming, powerless. Quite different things really. And this happened time and again. Even people who had been familiar with the text for years and listened to countless sermons on the subject found themselves in very different places.
In an earlier discussion the same thing occurred with the word grace. I was clear what graceful was, and could even describe graceful behaviour, but the noun was more difficult.
Moot is a lovely one. The word has two distinct meanings, almost opposite to each other. It either signals a sort of red herring or the crux of the matter. No wonder we get confused when we try to communicate with each other!
The Beatitudes were very likely a real homily from Jesus to his disciples, spoken in Hebrew. Almost a hundred years later, word has passed from mouth to mouth before Matthew wrote down what he thought was said, or at least meant. Over centuries, the language passed from Hebrew to Greek, then Latin and many other tongues, each language subtly developing over this time and each translation owing much to the interpretation, and even bias, of the translator.
One of those translations celebrates its 400th anniversary this year, the King James Bible, and I recommend an article on this in the Spring edition of Intelligent Life. That brings to life the dilemmas of translators looking to produce something compact and beautiful but also authentic in meaning, as much as is possible.
One conclusion I reached was that translators have had a lot of power over the years. Imagine the different homilies if meek had been replaced by humble or one of the other close synonyms? The course of human history could have been quite different. Even today, those people sitting at the back in EU or UN meetings trying to simultaneously translate speeches must have quite an impact on how those speeches are interpreted and hence the consequences.
For language is not an exact science. It does reflect culture to an extent, whether or not the Innuit really have a hundred different words for snow. A Dutchman once tried to tell me that one reason the Dutch were so direct was due to the nature of the imperative form in the Dutch language. I beg to differ: it feels more likely that the reason the imperative form is as it is reflects the Dutch nature to be direct.
At least the Dutch and British are relatively closely connected, separated by just a small sea and linked by much history. Yet we interpret language very differently, and manage to confuse each other time and again. Someone once gave me a sheet of paper with the table below, which I have treasured ever since.
What the British say What the British mean What the Dutch understand
I hear what you say I disagree and do not want to discuss it further He accepts my point of view
With the greatest respect… I think you are wrong (or a fool) He is listening to me
That is not bad That’s good or very good That’s poor or mediocre
Quite good A bit disappointing Quite good
Perhaps you would like to think about... / I would suggest This is an order. Do it or be prepared to justify yourself Think about the idea, but do what you like
When appropriate locally, Do what you like Do it if you can
Oh by the way… / Incidentally The primary purpose of our discussion is… This is not very important
I was a bit disappointed that…/ It is a pity you… I am most upset and cross It doesn’t really matter
Very interesting I don’t agree/ I don’t believe you They are impressed
Could we consider some other options? I don’t like your idea They haven’t decided yet
I’ll bear that in mind I will do nothing about it They will probably do it
Please think about that some more It’s a bad idea: don’t do it It’s a good idea: keep developing it
I’m sure it’s my fault It’s your fault! It was their fault
That’s an original point of view You must be crazy They like my ideas!
You must come for dinner sometime Not an invitation – just being polite I will get an invitation soon
You’ll get there eventually You don’t stand a chance in hell Keep on trying for they agree I am heading in the right way
I almost agree I don’t agree at all He’s not far from agreement
And this is between two nations who think the similarly, trying to communicate honestly without agenda. Imagine the scope for misunderstanding when we try to communicate with Russians. Or Japanese. Or Aboriginals. No wonder colonial pasts are so fraught with bad memories, and regional rivalries linger.
So my second reflections are about how we speak, listen and interpret. Simple language wins out, if possible supplemented by body language or example. And we have to avoid jumping to conclusions about what the other party may mean.
Leaving aside differences in time or place, this advice still holds for those close to us. Especially when there is tension in the air, for example a dating situation or a subordinate situation, it is very easy to be misunderstood. Add in the other dimensions, and our confusion can be complete, unless we take very active steps to prevent it.
No doubt I break my own advice each week in my blog. But perhaps that is a moot point?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)