What's Happened to Education?: Effects of Income Inequality

     By almost all measures, as an overall average, our children in the US are not emerging from the education system (public or private — but more so with public) as well prepared for the world as they were 40 years ago. This is true in most measurable areas — but especially true for the non-measurable areas. Education (public, private, home schooled, or self-schooled) should end up with people able to use knowledge, able to research knowledge, able to evaluate knowledge, and with a desire to continue to grow in knowledge and the ability to use it. For most, that’s not the case.

     Overall, people have not changed that much in their potentials. This is true for all humans no matter the gender, ethnic background, nationality, or other qualities. There is, of course, a range of abilities from not so capable to enormously capable. We have now also recognized that there are different types of intelligence and each type is most useful in particular situations. Often we emphasize intellectual (or academic) intelligence but other types of intelligence are often more important in the pursuit of happiness and “success”.

     Assuming (though not likely to be something upon which all agree) that this is true, what has happened? What has happened over the past 40 years to lend support to such a trend? There are many things that are possible causes — environmental contamination and change, educational methodologies, social support, and societal expectations, and on.

     I propose that one of the primary reasons for our faltering educational system is that of greatly increased income inequality.

From the Pew Research Center:

     Okay. These are the numbers, but what does it mean for the general populace in the US? It means that a much larger percentage of people in the US find it difficult to support themselves within our economic system. Note especially the widening gap between middle-income and upper income. Some specific outcomes, for lower and middle income people, are:

• People are spending a higher percentage of their income on rent or mortgages.
• People are having to tightly prioritize expenses.
• There is less of a cushion available in case of emergencies or fast changes in income (such as layoffs). 
• Parents are working more hours — sometimes more jobs — and spending less time with families.
• Due to lack of time and energy, parents are also interacting less, with teachers and schools, in a direct manner.
• In regards to education, one direct result of income inequality affects tax support of schools. Funding for schools is different for each state in the US but they all involve some combination of property tax, local taxes, state taxes, school levies, and federal support. Increases in taxes must be approved, directly or indirectly (through representatives). As budgets tighten, there is a desire to reduce taxes and expand classes.

     An example of the direct effects of the expansion of class sizes could be an example from my wife’s situation as a teacher within a much-too-numerous student class-size. During the last year that my wife taught 5th grade, she had 39 students in the class. Assuming six hours in the classroom (it varies from state to state and district to district), that allowed less than ten minutes to be spent with each individual child. Of course, that is not how classroom time is structured. Most of the time is allocated to the class as a whole and the amount of time, to be allocated among those 39 individual children, might not even be an hour (or less than two minutes apiece) and the majority of that time will be spent with children who have attention-seeking behaviors (usually via misbehaving).

    With less time available to get to know the teachers and the schools, parents are left with what is said by their children, and by other teachers and groups, to determine what is going on in the classroom. Not a surprise to the children but, somehow, a great surprise to the parents is that the children do not always tell the truth or take responsibility for their own behavior and actions. And other parents and groups are not always a good source of information as they may be responding to things said to them — with similar lack of direct interaction with the teachers and the schools.

     This lack of adequate awareness of what is really going on within the classroom can lead to an antagonistic relationship between parents and teachers/schools. After spending a 60-hour workweek (40ish at school and another 20ish at home grading papers and preparing lesson plans), it is difficult for teachers to find time or energy to disentangle parents’ misbeliefs.

     Expanding upon the last three bullet items stated above, income inequality can directly lead to fewer resources to the schools, unworkable increases to class sizes (and a decrease in the amount of time available for the teacher to work with individual students), and lack of positive communication between the teachers and schools with the parents. Another large factor in educational performance is a shift in emphasis from qualitative experiences to a hyper-focus on quantitative experiences. I will expand on that in the next newsletter. Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

View and subscribe to newsletter

Gifting: An Intersection of Desires

     ‘Tis the season (although, fairly, this newsletter’s topic may be a bit on the late side) for gifts and giving. Together, they create a situation of “gifting”. To gift someone is to give and for it to be accepted. Just giving is not sufficient. You might say, “well if I have given something to them then they have accepted it, haven’t they”. No, not really. To just take possession is not quite the same as acceptance. acceptance is a combination of receiving, possession and acknowledgement.

     Giving is also not quite as clearcut as many might tend to believe. If you give there are no attachments. It is no longer “yours” and any preconceptions you may have had about how that gift would be used or appreciated is no longer in your hands. They may throw it away, ignore it, sell it, put it into a “white elephant” sale, or put it onto a pedestal as their newly favorite possession. Whatever they do with the gift is fully their right.

     Nor is a gift necessarily appreciated — although that is the goal. When choosing a gift, there are at least two people’s desires coming into play. (It is possible that it must also be appreciated by a third party or parties.) High priority is giving something that the recipient will want. However, highest priority is to give something that the recipient will want AND something that you will enjoy giving to the other — an intersection of desires.

     If it is something that only the recipient will enjoy, it may still be a good gift — but it is somewhat of an anonymous gift. The gift could have come from anyone — or even could have come from themself. When you give something that you want to give, it means that the gift means something to you also. There is a much better chance that the gift will act as a mutual experience between the two of you. This can foster greater closeness and increase the likelihood that the gift (if kept) will remind the recipient of you.

     It is sometimes said that a true gift is “something from oneself” or “a gift of the heart”. Certainly, in the Christian tradition, the gifts to the Christ child from the Three Magi are of less importance than (in modern tradition — not noted anyplace in the Bible) those gifts from “the little drummer boy”. They are still of import — not because they are expensive, precious, items of the time, or as they may be interpreted as representing — but because of the long, and difficult, journey of the Three Magi. It is the journey, and recognition, that is the true gift.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Substack link

Perseverance: Life One Step at a Time

     There is a Christmas movie (yes, there are lots of Christmas movies) called “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”. In it, there is one musical scene where a song called “Just Put One Foot in Front of the Other” (and soon you’ll be walking out the door). It isn’t quite an earworm but I find myself singing it to myself when I am faced with something difficult, terrifying, or frustrating. Guess what? It seems to help. In this, I am not alone as many people find inspiration and solace in music.

     Still, this song embodies a true situation. How do we get through the door to inside (or outside)? One foot at a time (or one turn of the wheel on a wheelchair). There may not be much observable progress after that first footstep but it is what gets you to, and through, that doorway.

     Perseverance and Inertia seem to be bookends. As long as you don’t move (physically, spiritually, or any other way) then you are “safe” within where you are used to being. You may tell yourself that you don’t like where you are but, as long as you are not moving, you must be sufficiently comfortable. Once you do take that first step, think that first thought, or agree to that first point of advice then you can progress towards your goal as long as you keep “putting one foot in front of the other”.

     Often, we start feeling impatience. We want to arrive at our destination as quickly as possible — the old “are we there yet?” situation. Not only is it required that we go from the origination to the destination “one step at a time” but is to our advantage to do such. This gives time to enjoy the journey as well as providing “checkpoints” that lets us verify that we are still heading towards our goal — or to give us second thoughts as to whether we still want that original destination.

     But, I primarily start singing the song to myself when I find myself afraid to take that next step. It seems to ease the anxiety by reminding me that it is ONLY the next step. It doesn’t have to be perfect and it doesn’t even have to be in the “right” direction because there will be yet an additional “next step” and I will have a chance to reposition it.

     Do you proceed one step at a time? Do you find yourself reluctant or afraid? Many do, so you are in good company. Remember that all you can do is keep moving — everything else will happen according to many factors, most of which are not even close to being under your control.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share

Leadership: What it is and what it isn't

     I’m going to start off with the core of this newsletter. Leaders have goals and leadership is the set of skills and methods that encourage, persuade, and/or entice others to work towards that goal (or goals) together.

     So, what are goals? Goals are anything beyond the status quo — something that has not been achieved before. Goals can be applied to individuals, families, companies, cities, states, and countries. There can be good managers, even great managers, who succeed in maintaining a healthy status quo (a situation where the best possible situation exists for things as they are NOW). They can be admired and appreciated — but they are not leaders.

     Here in the US, the last President that I know of who put a goal into motion was John F. Kennedy — and he was assassinated. He said “we will put a man (no thought of women participating at the time, alas) on the moon by the end of this decade (the 1960s). This goal, which had to be pushed forward by his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, required a joint effort of Congress and the people of the US. And they did it! There were coordinated efforts which boosted the educational system towards the sciences. The process of making the physical elements happen had all sorts of side-effects which affected the country then and beyond. These include (but the list is enormous) solar panels, heart monitors, water purification technologies, lightweight building materials and methods, improved computer capabilities, and search and rescue methods, among many others. They provided a boost to technology which can be followed to everyday technologies such as GPS and smartphones and Internet capabilities.

     The 60s were a good time for trying to put goals into motion. Martin Luther King, Jr had a “dream” — a goal where all people would work together and respect one another no matter their external appearance or beliefs — and he was assassinated. At the time of his death, he was expanding the breadth of his concerns to that of the global community. Mahatma Gandhi had similar dreams two decades before (and, once again, he was assassinated for them).

     Martin Luther King Jr’s dream has not yet been achieved but his efforts, and those of many others working with him and alongside him, have achieved some significant progress. When I was around four years old, according to my mother (I don’t really remember), I brought home a young girl, whose skin color was not the same as ours, to play with. I was told “we don’t play with these people, the neighbors will see and we’ll never hear the end of it”. Later, in the 70s and 80s she took care of children of all external appearances but my mother, though she did have many positive qualities, did not have the courage of MLK Jr and the folks alongside of him.

     In short, among the many improvements has been the reality of people being able to associate with others who are not directly similar to themselves. Being allowed to associate is the first step to accepting others as people — it allows empathy, understanding, acceptance, and growth. But, as said before, it is only part of beginning steps towards the “dream” of MLK Jr — as “allowing” does not mean the same thing as everyone “doing”.

     There have been goals created by business leaders. All of the “new” businesses have been pushed forward by someone with a goal. Some such have already been mentioned — such as GPS and smartphones — but just about every “new” business has been achieved by striving towards a goal.

     Note that word “striving”. We haven’t reached MLK Jr’s “dream” yet. The goal is hopefully a worthy one (there are instances in history where the goal was NOT a worthy one) but the process of getting people to work together and attempting to make that goal happen is still worth the effort and brings many benefits. Even if we had NOT succeeded in putting a man on the moon, what benefits would we still have achieved?

     Was it a coincidence that the two people I mentioned from the 60s (and there are many others globally) were assassinated? Personally, I don’t think so. The reason that there are not more goals set, and worked towards, is because a goal inherently means CHANGE. There aren’t many people that take change calmly. Some may be positively excited but there will be many who will be terrified. For businesses, it is primarily a matter or risk and a likely hit on short-term results. For political and economic systems, any change will affect the profits and livelihoods of corporations and many wealthy individuals. Isaac Newton talked about inertia in terms of physical systems — but the inertia of groups of people can be even more difficult to change. The more people that are affected by a change, the more likely there will be someone who will, under strong negative emotions, do something violent.

     As politicians show us every day, a terrified (or angry) person can be persuaded to do things that they would never even consider if in a calm situation. Scared or angry people can easily be persuaded to do things that are not at all for their long term benefit — “to shoot themselves in the foot”. As Frank Herbert said in the book Dune, “fear is the mind killer”. In addition, there are many people, and corporations, who greatly benefit financially by keeping to the status quo.

     As I said, in my opinion, JFK was the last US President who succeeded in initiating a goal (but would have failed if LBJ had not taken over the initiative). In the US, in my opinion, we have had one other President who tried to be a leader and who initiated some change — but was soon thwarted by others who virulently did NOT want change. Thank goodness, he was not assassinated but might he have been if he had succeeded in initiating the changes he envisioned and that the country so badly needed? We’d have to move over to a parallel universe to find the answer to that.

     In my opinion, we have also had one President who showed that he (once again, that pronoun — but accurate) was a very good manager. He succeeded in having a balanced budget in the US. But that balancing of the budget was not appreciated by those benefitting from a continual increase in spending (or the decrease of taxes in a disproportionate manner). Certainly no one following has succeeded in doing such. It is not likely that it will happen in the near future unless a disaster (such as happened with the Great Depression) forces change. A balanced budget requires reduced spending and/or increased income (for governments, primarily from taxes). Such requires consensus and consensus requires a very good, or better, manager.

     To summarize, leadership is the set of skills and methods needed for a leader to get people to strive for a goal. A goal is something that goes beyond the status quo. Although the status quo can be maintained by a good, or better, manager — such is not leadership or being a leader. Setting a goal, and working towards it, can be frightening, as it means change and those benefitting from the status quo will resist with existing economic constraints providing them support.

     But, in a world that is undergoing constant and accelerating changes, goals are mandatory. And leaders must exist to take us towards those goals. As a caveat, remember that it is also possible to work towards negative, or regressive, goals. Let us, globally, support leaders to take us towards a positive, better, future.

https://charlesksummers.substack.com/p/leadership

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Unfocused: Are you doing what you want to do?

     I continue to be an old-style “classics” cartoon person. In spite of the extreme predictability, I love watching Scooby-Doo. But one aspect calls out to me more and more. If they are trying to protect something, why do they hold it up in the air to be grabbed? If I were to want to protect something I had, I would put it under may shirt and hold on to it with both arms — make it as hard as possible to grab. It’s not just Scooby-Doo, of course.

     Or watch a movie. Someone is driving along and they turn their head and talk to the passenger (or someone in the back seat) for a couple of minutes (even if it were to be ten seconds, it would be way too long). Shoot! They SHOULD be in an accident. If not, it is definite proof of someone, or something, watching out for them. If they do get in an accident one can only say — “of course. Why did they want to behave that way?

     It doesn’t have to be as brazen as looking a different direction while theoretically in control of a 2500 pound cage of metal. It can be walking along on the sidewalk while looking at the little box that society seems to currently mandate we all be manacled to. Crossing streets? Walking on a sidewalk with potential open personhole covers? Approaching an unsafe area of town? Walking onto, or off of, a wharf and into the water? Whoops.

     Once upon a time, in the modern “dark ages”, I was called by a survey person who wanted to know how much I would pay per month to carry a phone around with me to be in constant contact with the world (this was before anyone envisioned a mobile computer as part of that phone). I replied that I was willing to pay $20/month to be without that “privilege”. I could (and did) look into that and see an invasion of work into my everyday life and a disconnection from society and possible privacy. Not that this situation HAS to be — but avoiding it while possessing a “smartphone” requires a much greater degree of self-control than most have (and I will admit to personally taking out my phone at the table, while eating out, to check an incoming message or settle a question on a topic of the table).

     If you ask people to write down a list of things important to them — and the priorities thereof — they will probably be able to do such. But, if you then ask them if they actually follow that list, they may well look “sheepish” — even more so if you start asking for specifics.

     In a novel (or movie), the characters are told that “time is of the essence” and then they spend minutes talking among themselves about things which are not central to the time-restricted thing. Have you ever watched a movie where they had five minutes to disconnect the bomb and then spent 15 minutes of film time doing other things before they disconnected the bomb with seconds to spare? Of course, this is a problem with the continuity monitor on the film but a similar thing happens in real life where focus is lost in time-critical situations.

     If you are supposed to protect something, protect it the best you can. If you have a small amount of time to do something, do it — do other things after the time- critical item. If your focus should be on one task (with penalties involved for not focusing), then focus and isolate other non-critical items. If conversation and social interaction are truly important, don’t let other items get in the way.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

User Interfaces: When and Who should be designing them and why?

     I am striving to move over from blogs to subscription Substack newsletters. If you have interest in my meanderings please feel free to get a free subscription to the newsletter (go to the end of the newsletter). You will get a copy of each newsletter in your emailbox.

     Get the newsletter.

     As is true of all of us, I get new apps. I sign up for new services via websites. Some interfaces work well. Others make me want to tear out my hair (and I don’t have that much remaining). What is the difference?

     First, I may — eventually — want to fine-tune my interactions with the app/site. I may — eventually — want to go through every exciting and fantastic feature that is available. I do NOT want to have to go through five menus and three submenus to set my address.

     Consider it like a layered cake. On that bottom layer, we have all of the basics. Open a file, save a file, add basic profile information, add a financial source. All of this should be so easy that someone who has never used the interface can do it without having to dig into the interface. Perhaps the app/site can keep track (I know — cookies — love them/hate them) of what is your status. First time user? Experienced user? It may provide a very friendly question/answer interface to let you get started. There may also be video and/or text tutorials to get you past that first level — but NOT for that first level. If you don’t present an easy enough interface to a first-time user for them to get started, go back to GO, do NOT collect $200.

     So, what are those basics? If you wrote the app/website, you don’t really know. For you, everything is obvious and beautiful and why doesn’t everyone just immediately love it for what it is? Ask your grandfather to sit down with the app. Answer questions as they go — but record every question. Observe every “false” movement — why did they do that? Isn’t it obvious that they should have done this other thing — well, no, it apparently isn’t obvious. Obvious for you is not obvious for everyone.

     Back in older days (not quite back to the “once upon a time” days), programs (not even apps/applications at that point) would have a command line interface. (Of course, underlying operating systems usually still do — but most users will never see it.) The goal was to make it easier for more people. Visual user interfaces, and (little “w”) windows were created — but there were usually “escape modes” for experienced users to access the basic commands and their options. These are still often used during scripting for batch (large sets of users for which you want the same set of actions done) situations.

     My Master’s thesis (this WAS in “once upon a time” regions) was for a “Human-oriented User SHell interface (or “HUSH”). It was command line based but you could enter a “?” at any time and it would give help as to what was possible, and what options did, at any point in the command. (Never actually implemented due to bureaucratic reasons.) Did you have to use the help? No. It gave you help only when you wanted it. That made it better for experienced users and the help was good for first, or early, users.

     As is true for many situations, we have a spectrum of users — from first-time users to highly experienced. Each level has different needs and expectations. The basic premise holds, however. Very inexperienced users should NOT need help to do basic things. Experienced, highly advanced, users should not be slowed down in their use with anything that they might know already.

     The interface for highly experience users can be done by the developers. The interface for first-time users should NEVER be designed by the developers.

Fiction versus Non-Fiction: They Don't Require the Same Skills

 

     I am trying to migrate from blogs to Substack newsletters. If these blogs/newsletters are of any interest to you then please sign up for a free (or paid) subscription. The blogs will probably go away at some point. Thank you.

Click here to subscribe at end of newsletter.

    I am a very good technical writer (according to both sales and professional critics). I am trying to expand into the area of fiction — particularly novels. I find that the two have quite separate needs for skills. In fact, they require almost opposing skills (it is certainly possible for an author to be skilled in both sets).

Now, this newsletter is NOT meant to be a discussion of writing skills. There are many good (and great) books on that. Stephen King’s “On Writing” is one of the best in my opinion. Ray Bradbury’s “Zen in the Art of Writing” is another very good one. There are others that specialize in a particular type of writing (screenplays, children’s books, mysteries, etc.) This newsletter does not substitute for any of those. It is an attempt to call out the skills needed for each type of writing.

What is the purpose of a book? In the area of non-fiction, it is to help you to learn about something — to impart knowledge from those who already have it to those who want to learn. In the area of fiction, it is to create a world. This world will have characters (humans, feline, aliens, …) and an environment (physical, emotional, spiritual, … space). And something will happen with those characters in that environment.

I would further divide the realm of non-fiction writing into the areas of technical and explorative non-fiction. In both areas, the writer wants to convey information. In the technical area, a desire for clarity and conciseness is needed. The writer takes a broad area of knowledge and passes it along to the reader in as few words as is needed to give the reader adequate, accurate, information. If you asked a reader to give a book report on the technical book, there would be a rephrasing of the topic of the book but a summary would be difficult as the content is already a summary of the information.

Explorative non-fiction takes a topic and tries to arouse the interest and enthusiasm of the reader. Once upon a time, that might have included made-up dialog and scenarios (especially for biographies). Now, such additions may relegate the book to the fiction shelves. Still, by proper imagery and description, a book about an event in the past can be inspiring (or heartbreaking) to the reader. In this case, a summary would be possible but you would lose the “atmosphere” of the presentation.

On the other branch, fiction takes an idea and expands, expands, expands. It creates new environments, characters, situations, interactions, and “Plots” (which are really “just” interactions between the other elements). A very brief idea can be expanded into a novel or even a series. And — for that infamous book report — it can be condensed back to that original seed of an idea.

Conciseness and clarity versus expansion and imagery. These are very different skill sets. There are also different ways to present fiction. It is possible that those areas of conflict are set up by a problem, or by nature (surviving an earthquake or a crash on Mars) and the book unfolds, piece by piece, as the protagonist solves the problems that she, he, or they, encounters. Many of the early science fiction books (by scientists, and authors, such as Lester Del Rey or Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke) are of this nature.

But, it is also possible for the protagonists to create their own problems. They do this by making errors of judgement, misunderstanding each other, not speaking when they should, or speaking without thought when they shouldn’t, and so forth. If you have ever watched a movie, or read a book, and said to yourself “why didn’t they just do X — then they never would have had all of these problems?” then you have answered your own question. They did “X” so that they would have the problems to solve. This type of book (or movie) is much more prevalent in the marketplace now. I suspect that it is because of shrinking attention spans. It is necessary to have more problems, within a shorter span of time, to solve in order to keep the interest of the reader.

I can write clearly and concisely. I can also present a succession of solutions to problems leading to a desired end. I am not nearly as good at creating the characters, imagery and general world as I would like to do (but I tell myself I am improving). I am horrible at getting the protagonists to do illogical and counterproductive things. This is probably because, as an “engineer”, I am used to working to find solutions and not in creating problems.

So, writing a book requires different types of skills. Contraction or expansion. Clarity or Imagery. Possible to be great at both but, similar to spectrums of intelligence or personality traits, people are likely to be better at one end or another. How do you approach descriptions? Do you expand or contract? Do you have a conclusion in half a dozen words or do you have a chapter’s worth of wallpaper, roses, and carpets giving a world in which to base your ending?

Polls and Surveys: Not often a many-splendored thing

     As mentioned in my 300th blog, this blog is transitioning to a substack newsletter format. If you would like to continue getting my blogs/newsletters, please click here and sign up for a free subscription (if you have money to spare, you are welcome to get a paid subscription). Thank you for reading these. I hope they are of interest, and will continue to be of interest.

     It seems that election season is usually the time for a plethora (so many that a person gets sick of them) of polls. Surveys happen all the time, for many reasons, but polls usually happen for elections. Why? Polls are aimed at the future. What do you want to happen in the future? Do you want a nuclear power station in your town? Do you want to vote for Candidate A or do you want to vote for Candidate B (occasionally the poll will be written such that a choice for “neither” is allowed)?

     A survey is more of a gathering of information about what is happening right now. Do you put on your left sock first or your right sock first (Japan loves surveys of this nature)? How do you feel about the economy? Do you think that your local new pattern of “100-year” storms every four years is caused by climate change? How many pets do you have at home?

     Like weather forecasts, it is often true that polls don’t get it right (surveys don’t also but that’s for a different subset of reasons). In fact, many times polls are used in the opposite manner. They are manipulated to create a desired output, recognizing that there is a “winner effect” where people have a tendency to change their minds in order to be part of the “winning” side.

     Even when a poll is not deliberately manipulated to give a desired output, there are problems.

1. The questions must be created such that there is no inherent bias or assumption

2. The polls must be filled out (or answered) by a representative group of people

3. The people answering must have full anonymity — otherwise they may not give their honest answers.

     It is more difficult than one might think to keep bias or assumptions out of questions. “How often do you beat your spouse?” is rather blatant (though I suspect it has occurred on more than one poll). “How bad do you think the economy is?” has the same inherent assumption (that the economy is bad) as the spousal question but may not be as obvious.

     Many polls are multiple choice. But desired responses do not often align completely with one of the choices. The potential answers often have their own bias and assumption. If none of the answers matches what is wanted as the reply then there is a choice — don’t answer or choose the “closest”. But if your desired answer is the opposite of all of the listed possible answers then no answer is all you can do — and the poll will not reflect your opinion.

     It is very hard to get a representative number of people. For elections, they not only need to represent the variety of people voting in appropriate percentages but they must also be people who are going to vote. Younger generations often do not use phones for audible conversations so a phoned poll will be out-of-balance with leaving out many younger people (hopefully active voters). Although becoming less a problem as the technology continues to be more established, older people may be left out of polls if the polls are done via online methods. So, do both. But then the “middle” group may be over-represented.

     Legal voters don’t necessarily all feel comfortable in thinking about more complex issues in languages other than their home language. But polls (and surveys) cannot be created in ALL potential languages and polls are more unlikely to be answered if there is any struggle to complete them.

     We have many different physical, economic, ethnographic, and other areas of the country. Each has their own history and perspective so all must be represented in the polls. Very difficult.

     Finally, anonymity. In many countries, honest answers can be dangerous if the answers can be attributed to specific people. But even in honest democracies, attributed answers may result in unpleasant results (such as being bombarded with pleas for election money) if the person can be connected with the response. The answer may not be private within the house (or other physical location) and there may be intimidation or pressure to answer in a way not truly desired.

     Surveys can have the same types of problems but, since they deal with current existing issues, can change without causing the “chicken and egg” situations.

     The bottom line is that polls can only be treated as potential approximations. Their results should not be used to guide a person’s actions or expectations. If the poll results reinforce your opinions then be pessimistic and if they are contrary to your opinions then try even harder.

Reality: Is made of perceptions

     There were five blind people who were led to an elephant. One person stood by the ear. Another stood by the trunk. One stood by the leg. Yet another was by the tail. The final one was next to the body of the elephant. What were their perceptions of the elephant?

     How would that change if the blind people moved around? What if one felt the tail and a leg, and another a leg and the body? They would have some overlap but would still perceive a different world for the elephant.

     Let’s let those people loose — let them move all around the elephant. They now should have the same amount to be able to feel. Do they have a complete picture? Well, we know they are blind so they will not know the color. They can only feel the surface, so they do not know what is beneath the surface. Even if they could feel beneath, they cannot necessarily understand what they are feeling or the interactions between the various things that they feel.

     What would happen if someone was deliberately trying to fool, or confuse, them? Perhaps they wrap one leg with scratchy sandpaper and another leg with silk. Would this change their perception of the elephant?

     Once upon time there was a mischievous god. They decided to create some discord. There were two rice fields separated by a ridge upon which people could walk without disturbing the plants. The god put on a big hat — blue on the left side and red on the right side. Walking along the ridge, people in the field on the right side saw a person in a red hat. People in the left rice field saw a person in a blue hat. Reaching the end of the ridge, the god turned around — making sure that his hat turned on his head as he moved. Now the hat had the red side on the left and blue on the right — but, since they were walking the opposite direction the same people in the fields saw the same color on the hat that was seen before.

     At the end of the day, the workers all sat down in the communal dining room and, not having a lot of different things to talk about, they talked about the person who walked along the ridge. One group was certain that they had seen them wearing a red hat. The other was certain that they had seen a blue hat. They argued more and more and starting fighting amongst themselves. And the god laughed to see what had been done.

     Each group was certain that they had seen all of the hat — so they were equally certain that they were correct in what they saw.

     Both the god and the persons who wrapped the elephant’s legs were deliberately changing what was presented to the people — causing them to perceive something that wasn’t part of the real object. This type of deception, or fabrication, can happen — and does happen based out of many reasons.

     Sometimes, like in the stories of this god, or the First Nation stories about Coyote, the reasons are not malicious. Sometimes, such distortion and fabrication are designed to promote a deliberately flawed reality for selfish or vindictive reasons. But, even without such deliberate distortion, our ability to perceive the entirety is limited.

     The ideal end goal for perception is to know everything (and recognize when information encountered is false). This is called omniscience — and no mortal (or AI) can possibly have it. Still, the greater the amount of accurate information that can be gathered, compared, and correlated allows a more complete notion of the reality of a subsystem or global entity.

     Given that omniscience is not possible for a human, there must be a reduction in the amount of information present. The first reduction is via access. If you cannot access information then you cannot process it. Search engines indicate that between one and four million books are published in English each year. I may read 200 books per year (my wife reads more). A very small percentage. At any given time, there is information (much of an entertainment nature) streaming, or being broadcast across hundreds, or thousands, of channels at a time. I can only actively watch one at a time. While there are choices as to what books I read and what channels I actively watch, I know in advance that there are many others that I will never access.

     Some people try to examine the maximum amount of information that they can -- and potentially reach a condition of information overload. This happens when so much information is accessed that there is no longer enough ability to access, compare, or evaluate the information. Trying to do the maximum is not helpful. Determining the optimum — the most that one can access usefully — is individual and often determined only after having done such.

     You have an optimum amount of information to work with. How was that information selected? First is access. Second is sensory gating — reducing the amount of information processed to prevent overload. The third is individual discrimination. This is where individual perception can start creating artificial realities. Such realities are externally inconsistent but may artificially create an internal consistency — a circular type of affirmation. It is done by choosing information based on what you want to be true. To a degree, this is the process of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias only allows additional information that reinforces existing beliefs or knowledge already integrated.

     We all have some degree of confirmation bias. Scientists often have confirmation bias where anything that does not agree with current theorems and hypotheses is tossed out. This is useful to prevent threshing (changing opinions or reactions back and forth quickly) but can also hinder the growth of science. Almost every new technology or discovery has to go through these hurdles — some quickly and some very slowly (with a lot of posthumous acknowledgements).

     Our reality is created from our perceptions. Our perceptions are based on a limited amount of information. A reality is closer to a universal reality (one that all agree upon) when information is broadly obtained and checked, correlated, and analyzed BEFORE being accepted or rejected.

     On a personal level, I try to read as many newsletters and articles from a global community. This helps to reduce national bias. I try to study history so I have some background to help me to understand the material. I listen to discussions created by people who both tend towards my perceptions as well as those that oppose my interpretations. And I still fail to have THE “correct” view of reality because of my limitations.

     But we can try — and that is all we can do. 

    As mentioned in my 300th blog, this blog is transitioning to a substack newsletter format. If you would like to continue getting my blogs/newsletters, please click here and sign up for a free subscription (if you have money to spare, you are welcome to get a paid subscription). Thank you for reading these. I hope they are of interest, and will continue to be of interest.

Delays: Travel, Illness, Procrastination, and Trepidition

     Delays. It’s been a while since my last blog. I traveled twice (once outside the US and once inside the US). I came down with Salmonella after one trip and an unusable shoulder/arm after another. But, I could still have gotten something accomplished if I had pushed myself. But I didn’t. Why not?

      I started my blog, Technoglot, to fill a need that I saw to help general non-technical people better understand everyday technology that was continuing to migrate from interesting to essential. I focused on this for the first few years but received few comments and — more importantly — no suggestions as to what areas of technology people might want more information about. I slowly started opening up the subject areas — to talking about issues and things about which, perhaps, people might want to see another point-of-view. And this has continued.

     This is my 300th blog and my first substack posting. I have been looking at moving over to substack for more than a year. I have had more than 175,000 (looks more impressive than 175K doesn’t it?) views over my 17 years of publications. While trying to gain a greater distribution, I tried to use some distribution schemes that didn’t allow “any marketing or commercialism” — so I turned off Google AdWords (turning it back on was a trial and tribulation). By the way, Google AdWords only produced less than $10 over the period of 17 years (what type of corruption were these channels worried about with GoogleAds?) — not enough for them to ever issue a check.

     To summarize, working on my blogs has served my primary purpose pretty well — to give back to the world from whence I have learned things and have obtained support for my life. I might wish for better distribution and I recognize that, if I worked hard at it, that might have been obtained. But, if one’s name is not well known, a focus is needed for such branding/marketing. Joe Blow’s ideas about the universe has limited attraction (though Joe might have the best ideas around).

     But that secondary purpose of supplementing my retirement (and general) income hasn’t turned out so well. For the present, there will be no difference between free and paid subscriptions within substack. That may change as I understand the medium and I get a better grasp on what the readership (if any) wants. But, if extra money is burning a hole in your pocket I am willing to help.

     So, I enter the world of substack. It is one of those many areas where, once you know what you are doing, everything is plain and simple. Getting to that point requires a lot of looking, researching, reading, and finally — just making the leap. I apologize for all current, and future, idiocies I may do within the realm of SubStack. I truly am doing my best..

     Does this blog/post have any purpose other than announcing a couple of milestones (300 POSTS!) and (175K VIEWS!)? And announcing a start within the substack world? Yes — back to that title about delays.

     Every person has delays in their life. Every business encounters delays in their ongoing existence. They can be categorized somewhat. I will use terms that are more applicable to personal life. There are possibly other terms more applicable to business. These fall into the areas of travel, illness, procrastination, and trepidation. There is an additional area of resource blockage (not enough money, time, machine parts, delivery trucks available, …) but this isn’t really about general logistics (which can be a fascinating subject).

     Travel changes things. You don’t have available what you had available before. You have additional things to do (sightsee, explore the area, learn to drive a traffic circle going clockwise rather than counter-clockwise (or vice versa)). Most importantly, schedules must change. These are all great advantages for some purposes (R&R, general enjoyment, etc.) but can really bother the mundane purposes that you may be trying to escape (write a blog, get a report ready, make a customer presentation). No matter how much you may (or may not) enjoy travel — it will cause delays.

     Illness can affect in different degrees. A common cold may just make things a bit slower while food poisoning may prevent you from straying from the bathroom for days. While not called illness in business, such is still possible. An earthquake, fire, or other natural disaster can occur (this will also affect personal lives). Human-made problems also come up — hopefully relatively peaceful but one also has to allow for non-peaceful disruptions.

     Procrastination and trepidation are closely related. Procrastination happens when there is nothing stopping you from proceeding — or you can handle anything that might hinder you — but you do not proceed. There can be many reasons behind such. Fear of failure. Fear of success. Fear of loss of excuses. Many of the underground excuses arise out of fear.

     Trepidation is associated with a particular set of fears — fear of making mistakes, fear of not doing well enough, fear of rejection, fear of retaliation (or active rejection), fear of being ignored. Starting a new business may easily arouse trepidation. (And starting within a new medium may also arouse such. Certainly, getting started within Substack has had a lot of challenges. Some have been achieved but there are sure to be a number in the future.)

     Eventually, a decision has to made. Does the desired event have sufficient value to cause a desire to overcome obstacles? That is a question answered only by each person, or company, in their own way.

     As mentioned above, this blog is transitioning to a substack newsletter format. If you would like to continue getting my blogs/newsletters, please click here and sign up for a free subscription (if you have money to spare, you are welcome to get a paid subscription). Thank you for reading these. I hope they are of interest, and will continue to be of interest.

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.