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.

Group projects: Not for school only

 

     With three young men in college (one graduating this month with his CS degree and encountering the oxymoronic stonewall of "entry-level" requiring a year or two of experience) I have been hearing about the travails of group projects for at least a dozen years. I keep telling them that it is good practice for working in groups once they enter the job market. And that is true. However, the group projects in college seem to be even more haphazard than the ones we all went through in elementary and secondary school.

     This is second-hand, of course, since it has been a while since I have been in college. Apparently, the idea of forming a group is to pick out three or four people, either at random or in some type of alphabetical order, and then handing out an assignment to them. As much as I want to encourage my sons, and tell them the experience will lead to greater abilities in the work world, that's just not the way groups are "normally" formed in the business world (or, at least, successful groups).

     In elementary and secondary school, the teacher has a pretty good idea of personalities, strengths, and weaknesses after a couple of months with a class. Secondary school teachers have less knowledge because they deal with multiple classes with distinct classes but they still have some. So, there is knowledge behind the choices of composition of a group. (Because of lack of experience, an "ideal" group is often still a matter of luck.)

     A group needs a leader -- or a coordinator -- and it needs people who have specific known skills. Elementary school teachers know who the dominant children of the class are -- but may not know, or have enough children to choose from for, the type of leadership qualities that those dominant children may have. Thus, in some cases, there will not be a sufficient number of dominant children to have one per group and, in other cases, they might be someone who does all the work or who directs other children rather than working with them. In other words, just being dominant does not inherently mean a good leader.

     In elementary school, there is rarely a real aspect of evaluation of success. If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have something they can present -- success! If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have pieces of a bit of a mess -- success! It is hard to have a failure.

     In secondary school, they try to actively evaluate the results of the group but there is likely to be individual results presented as well as the group project. Evaluation can be weighted towards individual results with bonuses passed out for a successful group project. People who work within the group may grumble about those who are not showing an outstanding work ethic but they are not penalized much for them being part of a group.

     Let's skip college for a bit and head to "real life". In real life, the results of the group project are of primary importance. This is true for a group, department, laboratory, or company. If the project is successful, the management will try to give greater weight to rewards for those who seem to have contributed the most (they may not be correct in their evaluations but those are the goals). If the project is unsuccessful, then all in the group will suffer. The ones who did "better" or "more" may be recognized but it is not much to their credit as they will also have a greater share of responsibility for the desired success and any shortcomings that occurred.

     College groups appear to go above and beyond what is required in real life. All are rewarded for a success. All are penalized for failure and if you do your very best and it still fails, you still fail. The primary lesson learned is to do what one can to not become part of teams with less than optimum people in it. Perhaps a valuable lesson  but not something that is always possible within the corporate environment.

Porch Talk: Part of the Community

 

     Do people remember old-style social media? People gathered around particular spots. These included the water cooler at work as well as the beauty shop, barber shop, local hardware store, and most powerful of all -- the front porch. (This was the front stoop for apartment buildings.)

     Why was the front porch so important? Sitting on your front porch was the same as putting up a shingle saying "open for conversation". Anyone of the neighborhood might walk by and come up and talk. It might be about  a sports game or the recipe for a favorite pie. The topics were not important. The contact was. Small children might come up and sit around listening to the "old folk" talk. Most wasn't worth listening to -- some might be vital for a person starting to grow up.

     So, what happened? A primary reason was the strong encouragement, by for-profit advertisement-supported media, of paranoia and distrust of neighbors and the community -- local, national, and global. Yes, bad things happened in past years and happen now. But the extreme focus, that keeps the media selling advertising, totally eliminates perspective. One instance of evil in a population of 333 MILLION can change the behaviors of a nation.

     I remember when one group of razor blades was found in the fresh apples given out for Halloween in one community. Luckily, no one was hurt but it changed Halloween forever. My grandmother no longer could get children to accept her homemade donuts. My aunt's popcorn balls were left in the bowl. Only the candy manufacturers benefited -- as everyone insisted on getting unhealthy, factory sealed, candy and merchandise. For quite a few years, police departments would x-ray the contents of trick-or-treat bags. Was anything bad every found? Not that I ever heard of -- though that doesn't mean it never did.

     And, as the behavior of the community changes, the market changes to accommodate. People stopped getting to know the neighbors. Walking in a neighborhood is likely to arouse the suspicions of the police and neighborhood watches. Walking when one does not fit into the cultural, ethnic, or racial composition of the neighborhood can be downright dangerous.

     If walking in the neighborhood is suspicious and few people do it then what reason is there for cities to require sidewalks? If no one stops by at other people's houses then why go out onto your front porch in the first place? Why even build front porches -- or front stoops for apartment buildings -- added cost for no benefit?

     Some people say "ah it was better in the old days". Well, memory is malleable,  There were things that were worse, some things -- like the front porch -- were better. Some things were better for certain groups of people and worse for other groups of people. Opposing the purpose of the front porch, laws prevented some groups of people from interacting with other groups of people. Food was of better quality but more people died of infections and diseases. It is not a good idea to over-generalize.

     Is there any way to recover the good of prior times but not go back to the bad aspects (and, hopefully, continue to make those areas better)? I believe so. I hope so. I pray so.

     But I don't have any answers. And don't believe ANY politician who says they have easy answers or have some group to blame for all problems. Somehow, we need to resurrect perspective. Somehow, we need to learn about our neighbors again -- including the important lesson that we are ALL neighbors as we expand the size of the community. Children need to be taught to stay safe and the caution of "stranger danger" without choosing a path where everyone they encounter forever STAYS a stranger.

     Answers? I don't have them. But awareness of the problems, I believe, is a start.

To Waste or to Waist: That is the question

 

     As is true of many people growing up in the US, I was encouraged to always clean my plate (encouraged is putting it mildly -- I remember being required to still be sitting at the dining table at 3am (and even longer if "necessary") because I hadn't cleaned my plate). The general principle of not wasting food is a good one -- the dangling of "there are starving people in xxx" is NOT a good one as the reason for people starving in parts of the world is political and not economic (cleaning my plate, or not, would make no difference).

     If I took food onto my plate and then told "take what you want, eat what you take" then that would also be reasonable. I would learn to take only what I was hungry for and would eat and there would not be any immediate wastage. (Eventual wastage was/is dependent on how much was left at the end of the meal and whether there were unplanned meals where leftovers were a strong source of food.)

     Having others put food on my plate and then being required to eat it was NOT a good principle. It primarily taught me to ignore my feelings of satiation. There was no such thing as being "full" or "content" as long as there was still food left. This system of superfluous portions continues into the present day with "supersizing" and eating-out portions in general. There is always the possibility of bringing food home but, honestly, how many times does it go home to be later thrown out?

     Being able to overeat has been a source of status in many societies in the past. Actual overeating, however, has not been, and is not, healthy for anyone.

     This principle also comes true in business areas. It's always tempting to get a lot of something because you can get it for less per unit. Buy 50 for $100,  buy 100 for $150. But there are hidden costs to buying more than you currently need. Storage, logistics in general. Yes, you may save money (even allowing for hidden costs) but might that extra capital being held as storage of an item be more useful for something "now"? This is the primary driving principle for "just in time" deliveries of materials. When this is combined with primary storage working with multiple consumers then both types of savings can take place -- quantity savings for the primary storage location with "just in time" savings of space and capital for the consumers.

     As personal consumers of food, we also tend to put the surplus into storage. That storage affects our health and our waistlines. It is difficult to average out food consumption and purchasing to create an optimum "no extra, no waste" situation. It is more difficult with one person than two, more difficult for two people than for five. There is also the need to balance need versus cost. If buying four cucumbers costs only 25 cents more than buying two, then buying four is the obvious bargain, correct? But what if I said that you can only reasonably use two cucumbers before the others go bad? You end up saving 25 cents (and storage space) by NOT buying the larger quantity.

     "To waste or to waist". My childhood training taught me one set of values. My knowledge, as an adult, tells me otherwise. But that doesn't make it easy to change. It can also be difficult, in business, to pass up bargains where the real value received does not match up to the price. As always, all aspects of a transaction -- or transaction's journey -- must be considered.