Work that struggles to be regarded as “real work”

From Fetish for making things ignores real work by John Kay. Kay is arguing that we let our nostalgia for manufacturing, (evoked by the art of photographers such as Lewis W. Hine), cloud our thinking. Labor in services is no more or less inherently noble and worthwhile than in manufacturing or in agriculture. As we move from one economic system to the next (from hunter gatherer to agriculture to artisan manufacturing to industrial manufacturing to services to knowledge) we almost compulsively look back and romanticize elements of the earlier systems and blanket the misery with amnesia.

by Lewis W. Hine

Kay argues from basic economic principles but he adds an observation rarely made that is worth pondering.

Most unskilled jobs in developed countries are necessarily in personal services. Workers in China can assemble your iPhone but they cannot serve you lunch, collect your refuse or bathe your grandmother. Anyone who thinks these are not “real jobs” does not understand the labour they involve. There is a subtle gender issue here: work that has historically mostly been undertaken by women at home – like care and cooking – struggles to be regarded as “real work”.

Most discussions of gender issues is so much tosh but I think Kay is right, that historical assumptions and stereotypes might cloud clear economic thinking when it comes to the services economy.

Not only nonsense, but thoroughly debunked nonsense

From Like Water for Climate by Bjørn Lomborg.

“Everyone knows” that you should drink eight glasses of water a day. After all, this is the advice of a multitude of health writers, not to mention authorities like Britain’s National Health Service. Healthy living now means carrying water bottles with us, sipping at all times, trying to drink our daily quota to ensure that we stay hydrated and healthy.

Indeed, often we drink without being thirsty, but that is how it should be: as the beverage maker Gatorade reminds us, “your brain may know a lot, but it doesn’t know when your body is thirsty.” Sure, drinking this much does not feel comfortable, but Powerade offers this sage counsel: “you may be able to train your gut to tolerate more fluid if you build your fluid intake gradually.”

Now the British Medical Journal reports that these claims are “not only nonsense, but thoroughly debunked nonsense.” This has been common knowledge in the medical profession at least since 2002, when Heinz Valtin, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at Dartmouth Medical School, published the first critical review of the evidence for drinking lots of water. He concluded that “not only is there no scientific evidence that we need to drink that much, but the recommendation could be harmful, both in precipitating potentially dangerous hyponatremia and exposure to pollutants and also in making many people feel guilty for not drinking enough.”

Echoes many of the themes in Samuel Arbesman's The Half-Life of Facts which chronicles many instances of things that everybody knows that just aren't so. It also calls to mind the quotation attributed to Mark Twain, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

This is one of those minor life mysteries which I suspect all of us carry around with us but never quite get around to resolving. In this instance and in my case, I have for a number of years wondered about this insistent advice to drink plenty of liquids. On a boy scout hike, sure. During sports, absolutely. But just walking around? I grew up in the tropics and in deserts and we never made a point of drinking eight glasses a day. You drank when you were thirsty and carried water with you only when you were going someplace where you knew there wouldn't be water. From my office window I see a dozen people a day strolling around the neighborhood clutching bottles of water.

Each time I think, "Why?" But life's too short and I haven't been that curious so I never had an answer. But if you wait long enough, sooner or later an answer sometimes comes your way, even about some of the less consequential questions.

The candle flame gutters.

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan, pp. 26-27.

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.

Scaring the public into a predetermined solution often backfires

Scary Pictures by Bjørn Lomborg

Campaigners on important but complex issues, annoyed by the length of time required for public deliberations, often react by exaggerating their claims, hoping to force a single solution to the forefront of public debate. But, however well intentioned, scaring the public into a predetermined solution often backfires: when people eventually realize that they have been misled, they lose confidence and interest.

This comports with the central message of It Ain't Necessarily So by David Murray et al which I am currently reading. It is fascinating to read again and again how major stories have been materially and inaccurately reported. Murray et al point to the same cause as does Lomborg. It is so hard to convince people with empirically supported logical arguments (which are often very nuanced) and therefore eager advocates will default to argument ad baculum (using fear as the basis for argument rather than making the argument itself).

In an environment of competing factions and groups, this seems all we have these days - competing arguments ad baculum and very little actual discussion and formal argument making. Every interest group is desparately seeking to justify their position based on the bad things that might happen if they don't get their way. Highly corrupting of hygienic thinking.

Pilfered by aberrants

It is a truism that how you present yourself is important – that consciously or unconsciously you telegraph messages to others in the manner that you dress, the way you speak, how you carry yourself, etc. I believe that how you present yourself is a dramatically underrated aspect of success. It is too common that in our desire to demonstrate that we are open-minded, we refrain from correcting others. We accept deviation from the norm in order to demonstrate that we are tolerant. It was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who coined the term “defining deviancy down” and he was one of the earliest to point out the high personal cost to individuals when they believe that because they can deviate, they for some reason ought to.

Which is all well and good except that there are consequences always nipping at our heels. We can pretend that manners and speech and behavior and variance from the norm are all perfectly OK (and they are at a theoretical level) but reality will always exact her dues. If you don’t know how to speak well, carry yourself, present yourself, behave, etc. you will always suffer costs and lost opportunities. All of this will usually be attributed to bad luck. Sometimes by being tactically accepting and tolerant, we are setting others up for strategic failure over the long term.

There was an interesting article on NPR this morning documenting this, Reading 'Maxim' Can Make You A Theft Target by Shankar Vedantam.

"The experimental condition created the perception that the driver of this particular vehicle was perhaps a deviant," he said. "And what we did in order to trigger that perception was place a men's magazine on the front seat to suggest some sort of interest in sexuality and a couple crushed beer cans underneath the seat to suggest that the person probably had been drinking and driving."

Kinkade found that the cash was twice as likely to be stolen from when the magazine and beer cans were present. He also found that larger amounts of money were taken from the car, compared with when the magazine and beer cans were absent

The upshot is that the more you signal that you are different from the expected norm, the more likely you are to suffer negative consequences. In this case, the more aberrant you seem, the more likely other aberrants are to rob you.

Food for thought. Dress well and behave.

There’s nothing but the Bible for sheer storytelling

From an interview with Herman Wouk, (At 97, He Has a Book (or 2) Left by Brooks Barnes), I came across this.

Old enough to remember Simon and Schuster as actual people (“they were as different as chalk and cheese”), Mr. Wouk has written a novel that is startling in its modernity, at least in terms of format. “The Lawgiver,” which arrives on Tuesday, weaves a comedic yarn using letters, text messages, memos, Variety articles, e-mails and Skype transcripts. An epistolary novel, he decided, was the only way to tackle a subject he had spent decades trying to crack: Moses.

“In terms of narrative, my boy, there’s nothing but the Bible for sheer storytelling,” Mr. Wouk (pronounced woke) said. “How do you get at something that has already been done so perfectly? I suppose that explains part of my ‘fixation,’ as you put it.”

Almost immediately following that observation, I then came across this article, The Bathsheba Syndrome: The Ethical Failure of Successful Leaders by Dean C. Ludwig and Clinton O. Longenecker.

This paper suggests that many ethical violations by upper managers are the by-product of success — not of competitive pressures. Our research suggests that many managers are poorly prepared to deal with success. First, success often allows managers to become complacent and to lose focus, diverting attention to things other than the management of their business. Second, success, whether personal or organizational, often leads to privileged access to information, people or objects. Third, with success usually comes increasingly unrestrained control of organizational resources. And fourth, success can inflate a manager's belief in his or her personal ability to manipulate outcomes. Even individuals with a highly developed moral sense can be challenged (tempted?) by the opportunities resulting from the convergence of these dynamics. We label the inability to cope with and respond to the by-products of success the Bathsheba Syndrome, based on the account of the good King David (a story familiar in a variety of traditions). Recognition of this phenomenon implies that we change or broaden our approach to the teaching of business ethics. It also implies that organizations must re-evaluate and change structures, procedures, and practices which enhance the likelihood of managers falling victim to the Bathsheba Syndrome.

The paper is not especially well written or backed up with the type of data I would like to see which is disappointing. Particularly because I believe they are on the right trail. They have stated what I believe is a true and correct conclusion without providing the necessary underpinning to support it.

I love that they have linked their insightful conclusion to the story of David and Bathsheba. It supports Wouk's observation that there is nothing but the Bible for sheer storytelling. I also think many of the ethical problems, personal behaviors and general degradation of discourse we experience today is a consequence of a loss of the values inculcated by the Bible in general and the King James Version in particular. We would have a more aesthetic and valuable civic discourse if more people were better grounded in the sophistication and storytelling of the Bible.

He will kiss the hand that had no food to offer

Speeches That Changed the World by Cathy Lowne is an odd little collection of "Over 100 of the most influential speeches ever made". Well, not quite. The choices are highly eclectic and because of that the book is more intriguing than it would otherwise have been had it hewed more strictly to its claim. One speech is that by George Graham Vest in his closing argument in the suit his client brought against a neighbor for killing his dog, Old Drum.

Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us—those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name—may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolute, unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world—the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous—is his dog.

Gentlemen of the jury, a man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that had no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace, and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

The Gods of Wisdom and Virtue

Among my favorite poems is Rudyard Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings. Here is a rendition by Bill Whittle where he takes license to change a couple of archaic phrases in the poem in order to make it more accessible to the modern audience. In this instance, I think it works.

The Gods of Wisdom and Virtue by Bill Whittle

But our preferences do not determine what's true

Carl Sagan in Wonder and Skepticism.

The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.

Then who is the skepticism going to be mainly applied to?

I recently posted in Critical Thinking - Much talk and little action, that there was a gap between how widely we praise critical thinking and how little we do as a society to cultivate and encourage critical thinking.

Carl Sagan in Wonder and Skepticism has an explanation.

If skeptical habits of thought are widely distributed and prized, then who is the skepticism going to be mainly applied to? To those in power. Those in power, therefore, do not have a vested interest in everybody being able to ask searching questions.