Think twice, speak once: Or how to let the referee do its job

 

     Back when I was growing up (and still am doing such), I was very quick in listening to what was said and replying -- either with word humor (not always appreciated) or a particular insight (which may or may not have been universally agreed upon). Since I probably was (and am) on the autistic spectrum (as are two of my sons), my connection to the social environment was not the best in the world. In fact, there were a lot of times when the general interpretation of things and the way I looked at things just didn't work together at all. For one thing, I actively hated euphemisms (still do -- I think they steal from language). For another, people often do not say what they really mean. How often have you heard the phrase "oh, you know what I mean"? Perhaps many "neurotypical" people do such. I didn't.

     This meant that that fast responses sometimes got me into trouble. (Sometimes it just got me a vacant stare and a "huh".) Sometimes people felt hurt even though that was not my intention. Sometimes everyone agreed it was correct but it was considered extremely impolite to have said so. Sometimes I got a groan. Some responses were innocuous. Others hurt. A few got me in trouble. I remember one time, when I was about nine years old, we were going to visit a neighbor. My mother informed me to "find something nice to say about their place". We went to their place and was walking around and they had a rather nice puzzle put together on one table covered with about an eighth of an inch of dust. I wiped my finger along the top to better see the puzzle colors. Remembering my mother's advice, I noted "this is a really nice puzzle ... but it sure is dusty". I can't remember the neighbor's reaction but my mother was not happy.

     Many people on the autistic spectrum do not naturally interpret social cues, or make use of them. But what comes naturally to most can be painfully learned by others if desired enough. I decided that it was important to me to do such. According to studies (and, as I have said before -- if you don't like a study result -- wait for the next one), there comes a time (maybe in your 30s), when trained observances can surpass natural observances. That doesn't preclude occasional bombs -- conversations are NOT always sensible or logical.

     Beyond the challenges of neurodiversity, there is the aspect of culture that applies to everyone in most societies. A fast response, a "witty" response sometimes "wins" within the group. This is where the THINK philosophy comes into play. Is it (T)rue? Is it (H)elpful? Is it (I)nspiring? Is it (N)ecessary? and is it (K)ind? This philosophy tries to facilitate conversation by making sure that what is said is a constructive item and can help both to learn and grow -- and recognize the caring of each.

     Great theory -- and often is useful and even successful. But each of these questions is still subject to interpretation. It may be true according to gobs of research and still not believed by the other (particularly in data silo days). It may be meant to be helpful in bringing about a common field of discussion but not everyone wants that. Inspiring and Necessary bring about reasons of motivation and not everyone will agree to that. But KIND is possible. Kind keeps it relevant and not personal. A fact is for discussion. A situation is to be looked upon. The accident may be unfortunate and preventable but the person who makes the mistake can still be well-meaning. Personal attacks are non-constructive, irrelevant, and not useful.

     So, it is possible to learn how to interpret. It is still important to have TIME to interpret. A fast retort, a great "zinger" just is not compatible. Similar to the idea of a little devil on one shoulder whispering bad ideas to you and a little angel reminding you of good things on the other -- I picture a little referee on my shoulder. They intercept, allow time for judgement and decisions, and then let go or stop.

     When cutting lumber, the saying is "measure twice, cut once". For responses, it is all to the good to "think twice, speak once". Do you self-monitor what you say? If so, how do you do it?

Anchors Aweigh: The Costs of Accumulation

 

     Almost ten years ago (December 31, 2015), I wrote about "the houseboat philosophy". A summary would be that houseboats can only have so much weight on them before they sink. Thus, when one thing comes on board, something must leave. (Of course, a little allowance is made for temporary dinner guests.)

     Of late, I seem to have been seeing an awful lot of advertisements for storage units. And I don't watch many programs with advertisements. It seems similar to those advertisements for stomach upset or feelings of bloat or being overfull. They try to address the symptoms and divert you away from the actual problems. Overeat? Have a pill to fight against the effects. Eat less? Don't even think about it (literally).

     In the area of storage, there are always times when such is truly reasonable and necessary. Someone dies and their living quarters needs to be emptied to allow it to be sold or occupied by the next folks. No time to do the sorting, selling, and finding other places for items. And sometimes the storage may be used for something that is really used -- but not all of the time. Ski equipment in the summer is probably only excess stuff to have on hand. Camping equipment may only be used during the non-winter months.

     But, most of the time, it is a matter of accumulation and overflow. Once again, if that overflow was treated as something to be dealt with in a timely fashion then temporary storage might be prudent and useful. But often it isn't.

     For many of us, those items that pile up each have memories associated with them. How can I possibly throw away my kindergarten report card (from 60 years ago)? This was Great-Aunt Mabel's baby blanket, we have to keep that -- while none of the next generation have any memories of their distant relative.

     Personally, one of my largest dilemmas is the amount of photos accumulated. Current, and future, generations may have no idea of this problem as almost all such is now done digitally. Get more and more storage. We're using this method -- but we still have thousands of photos that are not digitized. Photos of your grandmother as a baby. Digitize and trash it? Sure -- not easy. And if not annotated then the next generations will not have a clue as to who any of the people in those sepia-colored photographs might have been.

     But accumulation has both its direct and indirect costs. Whether it is internal space or external storage, the accumulation requires space. Space costs money. If you are looking for something that is among 100 cubic feet (or 3 cubic meters), scattered all over, it is much easier to search for that item among 35 cubic feet (or a single cubic meter). Clutter is hand-in-hand with inefficiency of searches. I have "replaced" a lot of items that I have been certain that I had (and, possibly, later found) leading to duplication and unnecessary purchases. This is both frustrating and expensive.

     Not everyone is happy to work towards minimalism -- nor is our economy oriented towards that philosophy. But, a bit of work towards eliminating excess (with both food and possessions) can make our lives easier and, perhaps, allow a bit more spreading of wealth among those who have need of it.

Units and Assumptions: Those crazy decimal points and junker rentals

 

     Back in the Jurassic ages when I was walking my dinosaur to school, I did an on-campus interview with Bell Laboratories. Passing that, I was invited to interview in Colorado and New Jersey. My wife was only willing to move to Colorado but Bell Labs insisted that I interview at three places. My luggage with my interviewing suit, of course, was misplaced on the flight to Colorado. I asked the person who came to pick me up if dressing up was necessary -- they said no and I put the tie (I had an extra in my hand luggage) back in the hotel room.

     Four months later, time to find someplace to live in Colorado near Western Electric/Bell Labs. Came down out of the flight and went to pick up the rental car. "Where's your credit card?" What? Very few people in my area of Kansas had a credit card and I certainly didn't have one. "We won't rent to you without a credit card." We didn't have one so we asked what they would suggest. They referred us to a "rent-a-junk" agency who, with a very large deposit (about twice the weekly rental), were willing to rent a car. On to the hotel, not quite the same story but close. We put down a deposit for four nights rent (we had brought a lot of cash because I tend to be a mite overcautious) and they let us stay. The equivalent thing could happen ten years ago with cell phones.

     On that same trip we saw billboards all around. "Buy a house in this development, prices starting in the low hundreds." Wow, what a bargain. My mother had purchased a house in our rural town only six years before for $3000. Now, I assumed that the houses weren't actually $100 but the thought that they were talking about hundreds of thousands was incredible.

     One of my sons discussed graphics boards with me the other day. The movers had (among other damage) broken the graphics card connected to the mother board of his brother's computer (who was working -- but not yet in his field of graduation (BS, Computer Science, anyone need a hard-working person without post-college CS experience?) -- and decided he needed a functioning computer to continue job applications and, thus, now had a new computer and donated the old one to his brothers). He needed a functioning graphics board so he started talking about Nvidia GPU cards and called them "380", "470", and so forth. Looking them up on Amazon, I couldn't find any such boards -- it turned out that (as, he stated, his friends also did) he had the habit of dropping the second zero because it was always a constant ("0"). So, "380" was said instead of "3080" and "470" instead of "4070".

     We founded our company, TeleSoft International, as a distributed company back in 1991. As such, we were all doing "remote" work long before the term was brought out and recognized over the past few years. That didn't mean (and doesn't mean currently) that there weren't occasions when it wasn't preferred to be face-to-face. One time, I needed to head (from Boulder, Colorado) to Washington, DC. I received directions from one of our employees and headed off.

     I was greeted with a heavy snowstorm. On the good side, there was less traffic (and I am pretty experienced driving on snowy/icy roads). However, I also had a major problem. Their directions referred to something called the "Beltway". Now, those of you who live in cities that have their own beltways know quite well that it is a description rather than a name. There were no beltways in Colorado and, to the best of my knowledge, still aren't.

     So, there I was, driving through the snow, trying to find something called the Beltway. It wasn't on signs, it wasn't on maps (this is before smartphones or ubiquitous GPS units). So, it was time to ask for directions. The person at the gas center laughed at me but told me that, for Washington, it meant I-495 which went around Washington, DC. For our employee, the word "beltway" was something that "everyone" knew. Alas, I didn't fit into the "everyone" category.

     Each of us believes that the way we live, and what we know, is the same for everyone. Those who try hard to keep expanding our experiences may fall into that trap less than others but no one can escape completely. I could keep expanding on surprises and hurdles which have occurred but I am sure you can think of many on your own. What type of assumption on the part of another person left you wondering what was going on? Or assumptions of your own?

Letter versus Spirit: contracts for better or for worse

 

     It’s been more than a month since my last blog. I have been avoiding it because I really prefer to write them on my iMac. I have now given in and am writing on my iPad. I love my iPad but its worst abilities are associated with files and writing. Still, it’s all I have right now. Why, you may ask?

     In short, I was scammed. At the end of February, our landlord informed us they were selling our rental townhome at the end of our lease. We requested, and obtained, an extra month so we could be there for one of our son’s graduation from college. (He now has a BS in Computer Science — but cannot yet find an entry-level position that doesn’t require experience.)

     Time to get packing — and find a mover for a very popular time to move. First estimate was very high. Received another estimate saying that, for the same cubic footage, they would charge 2/3 the price. Better Business Bureau (BBB) rating A+, Department of Transportation (DOT) record clear, trustpilot 4.0, found a Google rating for a company of the same name at 4.0. Sounds solid, right?

     We had our household goods packed and taken away — we assumed to be shipped. Our household goods were delivered yesterday, on July 10. Yes, that is 6 weeks — 42 days. We have spent half that time on the floor in sleeping bags and half on slowly leaking air mattresses. Cooking was shifted to eating out for a few days and then Goodwill shops were hit for inexpensive necessities and friends loaned us a few things. Not easy, but considering how much so many other people are suffering, still pretty good.

     So, how could this occur? Ah, that ubiquitous contract. Like the EULA, it is presented as a fait acompli. And, it is presented at the point when you have persuaded yourself you just have to have the service/product offered. Even if you read all of the “fine print”, the implication is that this just applies to edge cases. So, you “sign”. And, most of the time, that’s okay. All turns out well.

     It turns out well if both parties strive to achieve the basic purpose of the contract — but that “fine print” gives lots of leeway, and escape paths, for the originator of the document. The “spirit “ of the contract is not fulfilled, but the “letter” is. Thus, this 42 day delivery is covered by the contract — but totally ignores all commitments and the basic purposes of the transaction. After two weeks, I reread the contract slowly and carefully. It says “any verbal promises, assurances, or remarks have no validity”. In other words, everything said by the person persuading you is just “hot air”.

     So, read the contract or not — if both parties are striving to perform well and fairly then those items in the “fine print” won’t matter. And if they do NOT plan to deliver as desired then that “fine print” may be grist for the lawyers but it won’t do you much good except to recognize the worst, still legal, things they might do.

Uniforms: All in a word

 

     Every once in a while, a discussion pops up about "professional" attire. No, it's not about a tool belt for a carpenter or a plumber. Nor is it about a wrist guard for an archer. It isn't even about a pocket protector (talk about "old school" -- not many still remember those) or a slide-rule holder (😊) for an engineer. What is usually referred to has nothing directly to do with a profession. It is attire of an expected nature. Although it goes by many synonyms and euphemisms, it is a uniform.

     A uniform is created to make a group of people "obvious" members of that group. There are uniforms for military service -- usually separate variants for casual, workday, use as opposed to formal, "dress", occasions. There are uniforms for special positions such as a "door person" who guards the entrances of higher-income dwellers. The clothing for a particular social status will vary -- more often for women than for men but for both. The expected clothing for a "man of means" of the 1800s would be quite different from that of a "dress for success" male of the 2000s. However, between 1950 and 1960 there would be very little change -- perhaps a change in button, lapel, or overlap in the ubiquitous dress suit.

     Of later years, the mode is less obvious and meant for more "discerning" tastes. A CEO may wear a $500 t-shirt which only those "in the know" who recognize specific fabric and brands would easily notice. This offers a blend of impression -- part of the general people while also being able to be slotted into an upper-level echelon. Friends (Quakers) of the 1700s and 1800s sometimes did this. The religion emphasized "plain" clothing so the general styles would be similar for all people within the Meeting. However, that plain grey apparel -- when examined closely -- might vary with the wealthier wearing grey silk while the poorer wore grey homespun cotton. Unless immersed within the customs of the group at the time, it can seem quite amusing. But it did matter.

     Uniforms work in two ways -- for external recognition and for self-reinforcement within a group. A school uniform will be mandated to be of a particular style, material, and pattern which is expected to create both a recognition of people of the group as well as a homogeneity. Yet, somehow, little additions such as lapel pins, brooches, belt buckles, and such still sneak in to create small subgroups.

     What happens if you don't wear the "appropriate" uniform? Most of the time, you will be treated as if you don't belong. The exact reaction can range from being ignored to having the police come to check your "credentials". The more exclusive that a group is, the less forgiving they are of members not adhering to their standards -- or for others trying to appear to be part of that group without the credentials for membership.

     There seems to be a general urge for people to want to be recognized as part of a group. As long as that urge exists, there will be uniforms. Those outside those groups may not like the uniforms or may be envious of the uniforms but they will, consciously or unconsciously, tend to band together with their own uniforms that indicate NOT being part of the original groups. The result of avoiding the uniforms ends up being a situation of a different uniform.

Ethics: Always in process

 

     There is a lot of talk about ethics currently -- especially in relation to developments in AI. According to the dictionary, ethics are the moral principles that govern behavior. Note there is nothing about "universal" or "unchanging" in the definition. Ethics are based within a specific society and their rules of behavior. Societies vary a lot in their viewpoints on many issues -- sex, gender roles, religion, death, expected behaviors, taboos, and so forth. A society that expects resurrection of the individual will look at death a lot differently from a society that expects only one life (whether they believe in an "afterlife" or not).

     Ethics also change along with societal norms. Fifty years ago, there were a set of behaviors that were normal, and expected, from the members of the community. Now, in this present time, some of those behaviors are no longer acceptable. The ethics relating to current societal norms may reasonably be applied to behaviors that are happening now. They can also be applied to past societies, writings, and other memorabilia but ONLY as if one is using a microscope. They can be examined and the difference between the ethics of that time and the ethics of the current time can be looked at as documentation of change. But the past behavior WAS acceptable at the time that it happened because the rule set, the ethics of the time, was different. Each period of time and each distinct society has its own rule books that should not be applied to judge behavior within other times/societies.

     The above is true -- but only in the abstract. In real life, everyone believes that their current ethics are THE correct ethics and ethics that differ are WRONG. People with different ethics -- whether of the past or of a different society or culture -- are BAD. This would be true in the opposite direction of course -- people of the past would consider OUR behavior to be BAD when judged according to the ethics of the past. This almost always leads to conflict and even to wars.

     A cultural anthropologist must always be very careful upon entering into a different culture/society because they are there to examine, analyze, and document. Since the new ethics are not known, it is easy for them to violate those in some manner which would make their work much more difficult or even impossible.

     We have been talking about the flux of ethics. Within the current time and current society there is a set of ethics rules that applies to everyone within that time/society. If they do not follow them they have to face social, and possibly legal or martial,  consequences. This is what is typically called an ethics problem.

     AI can face issues similar to that of human individuals. One is the ownership of intellectual property. For humans, taking such is called plagiarism. Generative AI systems need to be "trained" by giving it access to much information -- not all of which is legal for general use. In that way, AI may be considered to be plagiarizing or even stealing from others within the same subject matter? It may also affect the value of those systems, or people's valuable intellectual property, from which it absorbs information? I put question marks because those are part of the questions posed about defining ethics for AI systems.

     Humans can (and do -- much too often) lie. They do such deliberately (called with malice) and accidentally (by not verifying information before passing it along). If AI is trained with bad information (deliberately bad or non-verified information) then IT will use that bad information and pass it along as "good". For humans, this is called slander or libel -- but often not subjected to legal ramifications if done within social media. What is such when done by AI? Can this distortion of reality, and worldview, be considered a dangerous crime by AI systems? Another area of ethics in connection with AI systems.

     Humans can, and do, commit crimes as defined by the legal systems of their society. AI systems can be trained to do such faster, and possibly less noticeably, than that which is done by humans. AI systems can be trained to "phish", steal private (supposedly inaccessible) data, forge accounts, and other non-physical actions. If given access to "waldos" (physical systems capable of being controlled online) then they can even do physical crimes. What is the legal aspects, and ethics, of using AI systems for such actions?

     Humans can, and do, violate ethics systems. AI can be trained, or designed, to do similar violations and be done faster, and more effectively, than humans. These are the areas that badly need to be addressed before the problems that will occur become too unwieldy to deal with.

Boxes: When a label is used to connect

 

          Back in 2013, two of my sons moved from the box labeled "Asperger's" to a box labeled "Autism Spectrum Disorder" because of a change in the Diagnostic Manual (DSM). Did this change their behavior, diagnosis or challenges? Absolutely not. BUT, because of the way laws, rules, and regulations are written it meant they now qualified for certain programs for which they were not previously qualified and NOT qualified for others in which they may have participated for years. The benefit, or disadvantage, of being "diagnosed" and "labeled" has been discussed for years among the parents and those working with such challenges. But there is always a direct connection between the label and the benefit or penalty so the labeling matters. When the label changed, it broke the link between the behavior and the treatments.

     We have many, many laws and regulations that are written specifically for a person and their "spouse". If a person is not legally considered to be a spouse -- they have no access to any of the benefits, obligations, and responsibilities of being a spouse. This has caused a whole lot of problems. Once again, it is because of the direct link between label and associated rules, benefits, and obligations.

     There are many situations where a specific label works to include/exclude groups of people. Once upon a time, the word "man" was "understood" to  mean a human of male, female, or other gender. Then, the word "man" was considered to mean something different -- perhaps only male, perhaps only pale-skinned people, perhaps something else. The definition, and use, of the word affected the way the linkage worked between the word and the treatment within society.

     Labels, or boxes, are not used only within legal linkages. They can also be used for presentation and discussions. Labels can be used to mislead. A piece of legislation that is called "The Flobert Bill" will be assumed, by those that hear the label, to be associated with Flobert and, even more likely, direct aspects of dealing with Flobert. The reality, however, is that the legislation is just as likely to be AGAINST Flobert as it is to being FOR Flobert -- and it may have nothing at all to do with Flobert. The naming of such legislation is one more "slight of hand" or act of misdirection -- and it often works.

     Then again, there is the self naming of groups or activities that, once again, can either inform or mislead. For every "pro-" group there SHOULD be an "anti-" group. Alas, the media are often more interested in gathering attention (with attendant advertising revenue) than in accuracy. Thus, we have "pro-x" groups compared to opposing "pro-y" groups where x and y may, or may not, have anything to do with the groups. We can only be certain that one, or both, groups are misleading as they have not allowed themselves to be framed within the "pro-" and "anti-" categories. You cannot reasonably have two "pro-" groups facing against each other and you cannot reasonably have two "anti-" groups facing against one another.

     Finally, there is use of words that well exist within a dictionary. But, how many people actually have a dictionary in hand -- or bother to use such to make sure a term is properly used? Thus, we have many words used in intense, and popular, discussions where the same word is used -- with completely different understandings of meaning -- by different parties with different directives and reasons. This can only properly be called "anticommunication". Communication occurs only with common understanding of what is being communicated.

     The person, cause, event, idea, or whatever is what is important. But humans have a desire to summarize, to categorize, and to condense into a label. Alas, the label will be connected to something but it may serve only to confuse communication rather than to clarify it.