Invisible Maladies: What you see is not necessarily what you get

 

     I have two children who are on the autistic spectrum -- high-functioning. At one time, they would have been said to have "Asperger's Syndrome" but the latest edition of the specification manual (DSM-5) no longer uses that term. They are great people, and I am proud of them, and it is only when they are actively interacting with others that one notices that they don't interact quite the same as others. The chances are excellent that I am also "on the spectrum" though I am undiagnosed and have succeeded in training myself so that I only occasionally get into communications difficulties.

     Some groups look at being on the autistic spectrum as a disease for which one can find a cure. For many other people, being on the autistic spectrum is not considered a "malady". It is a different configuration, and organization, of the brain and it has advantages as well as disadvantages. I have occasional thoughts as to whether this change of brain function might be part of a quantum "jump" in human behavior -- the next step in human evolution such as described by Greg Bear in his book Darwin's Radio. That would explain why the diagnosis is happening in greater numbers. 

     My sons are in good company with many others (for some historical figures, it is only a likely diagnosis based on behaviors) who are considered to have been on the autistic spectrum -- people like Dan Ackroyd, Charles Darwin, Emily Dickinson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Barbara McClintock, Michelangelo, Andy Warhol, and Mozart -- just to name a few of many.

     One may notice that these folks have a couple of things obviously in common. They are very creative and they are capable of great focus. (For some individuals, these aspects are so strong that it renders them almost incapable of interacting with others -- this is why it is considered to be a "spectrum" of behavior.) They also had great difficulties in interacting with others (which can be overcome with work -- replacing "instinctual", or "innate",  responses with learned responses). And this difficulty interacting with others is the aspect that can be considered an "invisible malady".

     Unlike a Down's Syndrome person or a mobility challenged person or someone who has some other externally observable difference -- you cannot tell a person is on the autistic spectrum by just looking at them (with the caveat that you might interpret based on behaviors). There have been times I have wondered -- would it be better to have an "A" on the forehead as an advance indication or not? Would that carry with it extra preconceptions prior to even directly interacting with the person or would it reset the expectations of the "neurotypical" (non autistic-spectrum person)? In either case, the effect would still depend on the adequate education of the "neurotypical" person (which often still needs considerable improvement).

     I also have mild narcolepsy. My family has considered it quite hilarious to take photos of me nodding off at the circus, or the middle of a movie. I have also been known to fall asleep in the middle of a sentence while reading. It normally only lasts a few minutes. There are some medications that help with the condition but not everyone can deal with the side-effects. Midday naps can help as can regular nights of sleep. The primary time to be particularly careful is while driving. However, at work, this can also be an embarrassment to managers when they don't want to deal with medical conditions. Once again, it is an "invisible malady".

     There are many other "invisible maladies". Some are recognized by, and accepted by, others because of their prevalence. Migraines are one such -- enough people have migraines -- or directly know someone with migraines -- that people say "oh, yes, I understand". There are others -- kidney stones, hemorrhoids, ingrown nails, and so forth -- that are also known, and accepted, because of prevalence.

     It is those differences, and ailments, which are NOT prevalent that cause the greatest difficulty because it is harder for others to empathize and take behaviors into account. Many psychiatric conditions may fall into this category. Sometimes, the "malady" might be acceptable to others but it is too embarrassing for the person to tell others about it affecting them. In any case, the "invisible maladies" become acceptable by others only through experience and education.

Secondary effects: don't stop before the hows and whys

      When I am buying an oven, I look over the "self-cleaning" ovens. Why? It really isn't that much trouble to clean an oven (though my preference is to avoid the harsher chemicals which make it the easiest to do). Self-cleaning ovens do it by allowing very high (higher than most cooking is done at) temperatures to burn away drips and spills and leave only ash and easily cleaned residue. In order to do this, it is necessary that the oven walls be durable against both extreme heat and changes in temperature. It is also necessary to have good insulation around the oven so that the surrounding cabinetry does not catch fire or otherwise be damaged.

     So, I don't care that strongly about an oven being able to self-clean. But the characteristics of a self-cleaning oven -- the insulation and solidity of the oven walls -- provide energy saving side effects, and a more uniform internal heat, that I DO want.

     I am not a personal fan of cosmetics, preferring the unmodified beauty that exists in almost all people. But, since cosmetics are often applied in the same areas that also need protection from the sun, they can be modified to provide the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) that is useful to prevent aging, and damage, of the skin. Note that, in this case, the side effect is deliberate -- as normal cosmetics have rather low sun blocking capabilities.

     Back in 2017, Neil deGrasse Tyson, for whom I have great respect as a scientist and as an advocate of science, decided to put in his oar concerning the value and/or potential problems of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). His bottom line was simple -- we've been modifying the genetics of plants and animals for thousands of years -- there is no reason to be afraid of them now. The larger science associations agree with him -- American Association for the Advancement of Science as well as the National Academy of Sciences and the European Commission,

     While I have disagreements about modern GMO creations being in the same category as those in the older traditions of hybridization and selective breeding and other "natural" methods -- I will not claim to have the scientific knowledge or backing to argue against the general safety of GMOs. Note, I still say "general" -- I still think that proper testing should be done against all foods, medications, and other items that will come into either internal, or external, contact with our bodies.

     But, the investigation of Neil deGrasse Tyson stops too soon. To the best of my knowledge, he never went further into the "why" of GMOs and the potential dangers posed by that.

     There are many reasons why a zygote may be genetically modified. Perhaps the manipulator wants to make the food tastier, or more resistant to grasshoppers, or larger, or have a greater percentage of protein produced. All good reasons (though some other qualities may degrade when one quality is improved). But many food crops are presently being modified primarily for the purpose of being able to better survive applications of herbicides and pesticides. In that way, an herbicide can be applied (perhaps rather heavily) to a food crop and it will survive while the "weeds" (undesired thriving plants) cannot.

     So, on a first order, perhaps the GMO crops pose no danger to people eating them. But, on a second order, the modifications are often done to allow large amounts of pesticides and herbicides to be used -- which ARE, by definition, harmful to living organisms. In particular, glyphosate-based pesticides, considered to have quite bad effects on people, are banned in many parts of the world. Glyphosates have been found in (relatively) large amounts in human and other tissues.

     I am sure that you can think of other examples where one needs to go beyond the "what" to the "why". Or go beyond the "what" to the "how". We often think of side-effects as not predicted -- but sometimes the side-effects are the primary long-term effects of a process. This can apply to physical products, software, business, or social interactions.

Concert Syndrome: A shift of focus

 

     There are always times when a person is supposed to not be noticeable. This may be during a concert, a theater movie, a play, or some other place. In addition, at present time, extra noises may be a cause for concern as potential indicators of illness.

     So, I am in a concert. I haven't coughed, or sneezed, or had my nose itch all day. But when the lights go out, all of a sudden I start wanting to do all three -- maybe at the same time. Or perhaps I am at the blood center, giving blood, with tubes attached and my arms unable to move -- yes, that nose starts itching. The exciting, revealing line in a play is about to be given and here comes that desire to cough. I call this the "Concert Syndrome".

     This is similar to the period when you start becoming aware of something that is always present. Linus, in the cartoon Peanuts, has a period where he starts to become aware of his tongue.  You could also become aware of a stray eyelash or, perhaps, a minor injury that is healing. Itches are particularly susceptible to becoming hard to ignore.

     Every day, there are lots of sensations that are happening with us that we "tune out". Perhaps it is a lot of traffic noise or a neighbor's dog that barks a lot. That flashy billboard advertising a product that you go by every day on the way to work -- it disappears. This is an ability that is very important to our everyday lives in order to prevent sensory overload.

     It is not always benign -- you can start not hearing the conversation of someone who talks non-stop with a stream of consciousness kind of flow. They might be saying something important and, certainly, they deserve to have some attention. While driving, it is important that you constantly keep awareness of the surroundings as the unexpected is something that can easily occur.

      A lot of this seems to center on focus. Once the movie, or concert, is going (if it is interesting) then we focus on that and the extraneous coughs and itches disappear. If I am driving someplace that I normally don't have as my destination, I need to pay close attention or I will automatically take the exits and turns that are used for more frequent destinations.

     A shift in focus can be activated internally or externally. If a person starts a conversation with you, and prefaces the speech with your name, attention usually switches immediately to the person speaking. A tap on the shoulder can either get your attention or make you jump out of your chair -- depending, in part, on just how focused you are on other matters.

     Meditation can often be used for improving internal focus. It may seem that focusing requires rigid discipline but, in effect, it often makes use of relaxation much better (not quite to the point of sleeping). Time organization can be helpful to prioritize items in terms of what comes first but it does not, in itself, help to focus.

Unknown unknowns: All our crystal balls are cracked

 

     My wife and I read to each other almost every day. We take turns. I usually read something relatively light to her -- some fantasy or science fiction, perhaps a mystery. Events around me are too serious and I need some escape from them. On the other hand, she often chooses books that have much more serious themes (this is also true for movies that she chooses) and occasionally non-fiction. (Though we have just run across a quote that claims that fiction often contains more truth than non-fiction. That may be true, especially about interpersonal relationships.)

     At the moment, it is about "black swans". The book, The Black Swan: Second Edition: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a discussion of those things that really affect the final results. It is related to "Chaos Theory" but not really quite the same thing. The famous quote about Chaos Theory is that a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the world may determine whether or not a thunderstorm near you will happen.

     That of the "highly improbable" is more focused on the "unknown unknowns". A lot of the time, we try to bring into account -- plan for emergencies -- about unknown events in the future. Earthquakes, tornadoes, fire in the building, a key employee being hit by a bus on the way to work -- these are all known unknowns. We don't know that they will happen but we can envision them happening and attempt to make plans in case they do happen.

     Life is infinite and unpredictable. It is impossible to envision all the things that could happen. Even though a pandemic has been discussed as inevitable for at least the past 30 years (maybe earlier and I just was unaware), no one expected it to hit the world in 2020. It doesn't always have to be such a momentous occasion. I go to the barber shop and a siren blares right outside the door just as the barber is making a trim of my neck with shears. Ooops. All of a sudden, I have half of a Mohawk.

     I consider the stock market and the weather both in the category of being made up of a lot of unknown unknowns. Sure, for an individual company, there may be known factors that would/should influence the price. But how often do we read column after column of articles about why something happened the previous day -- and no articles the day before yesterday about those same factors and how they will affect the market that day? I appreciate the extensive models, training, and hard work of meteorologists but they are still trapped in the world of percentages. The following day, they can give you all kinds of reasons why the previous day's weather occurred.

     Most humans do not like to not know what is going to happen. They greatly desire the illusion of control. So we have a lot of prognosticators -- people to guess the future. And, they are all in the same situation as the weather forecaster (whether they realize it or not) -- they can do all kinds of things, use all kinds of tools, check all kinds of data -- and they can only give percentages. The closer in time, the better the odds. Part of the purpose of the Agile methodology, which was discussed in an earlier blog, is to keep allowing the focus, and priorities, to keep changing as new information comes in. It reduces the time to event and, therefore, increases the percentages. But those percentages never reach 100%.

     In my previous company, we underwent a periodic future product analysis to determine our priorities in development over the coming year. Part of that was to determine a theoretical Return On Investment (ROI). Perhaps some larger companies, with greater resources, achieve a better percentage of accuracy. Ours was not that good.

      If they ever say 100% you are entitled to have great doubts. Like a person tossing a coin into the air and guessing heads or tails -- and it lands on its edge or a bird grabs it mid-air -- there is always something (no matter how unlikely it may seem) that can arise.

The Elements of Success: How to move towards your goal

 

     There are a number of popular speakers who currently say that "anyone can be a success -- it is all up to them". Well, that is partially true. The way I divide it (others may have their own lists) it is about 1/3 true.

     I see five primary factors in obtaining a goal (which I will further use rather than "success" -- which is very subjective). These are:

• Opportunity. You have to have the possibility of moving the direction you want to move. Although one can think of technological workarounds, it is extraordinarily difficult for a blind person to paint a picture. Beethoven composed while becoming deaf -- but he was not born deaf. In the 1967 Boston Marathon, Kathrine Switzer met all of the requirements for running the race but was prevented from completing it by a judge who did not want women participating. I always wanted to be a moon or Mars colonist. At 62, I would say that opportunity is now very unlikely.
  
  
• Support. Occasionally, a rare individual will have sufficient self-motivation (and luck) to move towards their goal without any external help. All cheers to them. Generally, people need psychological and monetary support to make it towards their goals.
  
  A student with a family who values academics highly has a much easier road than one who, perhaps, has a single parent who works three jobs to support the family and -- although they have no dislike of the child doing well in school -- do not have the time, energy, or personal history to support the child. Sometimes, it is negative support -- "they never had it, did it, were able to do it -- why should the child have that possibility?" Sometimes you have that treasured teacher or friend or relative who provides enough positive energy to jump-start the process.
  
  Money is a resource that makes a difference. You can buy a cow. You can buy paints and canvas, You can afford the tuition and ability to attend the school of your choice. You can afford clothing that allows you to present the image that people consider to be of the right "class".
  
  
• Talent. All people, in my opinion, have equal value in their lives as people. That does not mean that all people are identical. Some people have perfect pitch. Others are tone deaf. Some people have the light bone structure and hips of a long-distance runner. Others may not even be able to walk. Some people do well on academic tests (we often call this "IQ") and some do not. Some people can easily interact with, and help people to trust and work with, other people (and other factors of "Emotional Intelligence"). Others find it difficult to speak to another person. Some can look at a piece of equipment and understand its workings immediately and be able to take it apart, repair it, and reassemble it. Others should be kept away from all breakable objects. Almost every person has a talent, even if that talent is not universally acknowledged and valued, but the person needs to have that specific talent (or talents) that will take them towards their personal goal.
  
  
• Effort. If you are allowed to do it, have support in doing it, and have adequate talent to do it -- you STILL have to DO it. Need to save money? Budget tightly and do such. Want to get that college degree with a high GPA? Forego other efforts and focus enough time and energy to get it done (assuming opportunity, support, and adequate intellectual talent). Want to complete a 4-minute mile in running? Assuming your body has the possibility, train, train, train. Want to have your own business? Put the plan together and strive towards it. Fail? Pick yourself up, learn from your mistakes, and keep trying. You have written the "great international novel"? The 40th literary agent just refused to promote it. Try the 41st, self-publish (along with immense self-advertising and promotion), convince a newspaper to publish it as a daily column (many of Dickens' books came about that way (called a "serial novel") - even some of Alexander McCall Smith's books in modern times).
  
  
• Luck. I define luck as the result of factors not even theoretically under your control. It can be good luck which enhances your efforts or bad luck which diminishes them. A traffic jam occurs on your way to an audition. The lead actor really does "break a leg" and you are able to perform as stand-in. The person that you meet in an elevator just happens to be an agent who is looking for a book on the very same subject of your book.

     Opportunity, support, talent, effort, and luck. So, when someone says "anyone can be a success -- it is all up to them" they are right -- in a narrowly defined way. Factors can make it very difficult or very easy to achieve that "success". Compare a person who is 3 feet from a finish line, on a smooth track, in a race while another person has to run 100 yards, jumping over hurdles, avoiding land mines and angry dogs to reach that same finish line. Can they do it? It is still possible but odds diminish rapidly.

     Those who have achieved a goal sometimes achieve it with unawareness, or forgetfulness, of all the factors that got them to that goal. (Some ARE aware and do their best to facilitate others to have an easier path.) They talk to others and say "I did it -- you can". That is true but it does not present the entire picture. Each person has their own path to reach their goal. Some paths are easy and some are horrendously difficult.

No pain no gain? -- challenge required for growth

 

     There is a recurring theme in books, movies, and life. A person is very comfortable and something happens to force them to do something very uncomfortable for them. In books and movies, the person usually rises to the challenge and there is an "everyone lived happily ever after". In life, that happens also -- but sometimes it doesn't happen.

     If you are forced, or successfully force yourself, into doing something you have never done then, by definition, you don't know whether or not you can do it. There can be probabilities -- I can almost definitely do it, I can probably do it, I might be able to do it, It's not likely but it could happen, and I just won't be able to do it.

     If you tell yourself the last message -- I just won't be able to do it -- then you are almost definitely correct. You have to attempt it. If you don't attempt it you will not succeed. If you don't ask, you cannot obtain an answer.

    As the little train says, "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I knew I could".

     Even if the desired result still happens, if you haven't put forth effort then YOU have not achieved it -- someone else, or something else, has done something to achieve the result you wanted. People call that "luck" and, honestly, luck can be involved. Sometimes things that are explicitly outside of your control happen -- these are often put under the umbrella word of "luck". It rains on a picnic. The pitcher's hand slips and he throws the ball into your sweet spot. The other candidate for a job gets lost on the way to the interview. A statistical unlikelihood occurs (the dice come up with a value of 7 four times in a row).

     So, what are the factors for you, yourself, to achieve something never before done (without relying on luck)? First, as discussed above, you have to try. If you don't try, you cannot succeed. Second, you need to determine what must be done in order to accomplish the goal. Third, you must arrange to do those steps -- note that you don't always have to do them personally but you still must make sure they happen.

     Final outcomes are not guaranteed. You can succeed in asking a person for a date and they can still say no. You can get a product developed exactly as you planned and the market changes such that you are no longer first or, worse, the product is no longer needed. You go through all the needed steps of location, facilities, people, and bureaucracy to open up a restaurant and a pandemic happens.

     Let's say that the hoped-for outcome does NOT happen. Is that a failure? I don't think so. If you are really pushing yourself to do something that you have never done before then you, by definition, have learned many new things. The second time to try will have more experience under your belt and, more importantly, you can avoid the errors that occurred the first time such that you make an entirely new set of mistakes. (And then the third time you have even more knowledge and experience and, eventually, you reach the desired outcome.) I certainly would not make the same mistakes in the next company I help to create.

     It may actually be more difficult if you do obtain the desired outcome. When you have climbed that mountain, you need to determine the next challenge. When you have written that great international novel, you start thinking of the next, even better, book. Sharks get a bad name but if they don't keep swimming, they die -- motion is needed to keep the water flowing over their gills so they can breathe. People can survive without setting goals but goals and challenges are necessary to thrive and continue to grow.

     "No pain, no gain" is often associated with physical training. In that case, it often is not true -- you can gain without pain by going more slowly and carefully. But, leaving a zone of comfort may not be easy. It may cause pain. Every time you "push your boundaries" and try something new, even a "failure" is a "success".

Retirement : A matter of choice

 

     Lots of people (especially in the higher paying segments of the work force) dream of retirement -- the earlier the better. But what is retirement, really? For many people, they are more active after that change-in-subject-title than before. For others, it can mean doing virtually nothing. So, retirement is not a matter of activity.

    For me, retirement is closely related to the division between work and play (which also relates back to a work life balance). Work is what you "have" to do. Play is what you "want" to do. For some people, work and play are the same thing as they enjoy what they are doing so much that, even after "work hours", that is the first thing that they would choose to do. For others, work and play are quite separate.

     So, what is the distinction between work and play? What marks the boundary between our work periods and retirement? Before retirement, it is required that you perform certain tasks in order to be able to live within our society -- that is called "work". You may get paid money or not -- but doing those tasks allow you (hopefully) to eat, sleep in comfort, be entertained, and continue to live and grow (though not everyone does that well).

     There are those who just have to exist -- which, to me, would be extraordinarily boring. Their ability to avoid ongoing "work" is established by the economic rules and/or their family/friends/relatives. The work that has been needed for them to survive is one (or two) steps removed. At some point in the chain which allows them not to work, there are multiple people working to support them. I went into the details of that in an earlier blog.

     So, I propose that the main distinction of play or retirement, is that a person no longer has to perform specific tasks to survive in society. Whether or not to do specific tasks are now a voluntary choice. (Yes, there are personal tasks still needed -- sleep, eating, and so forth.) Maybe you love what you have been doing -- you continue to do such (possibly now unpaid) but as a choice. Perhaps you have wanted to do something (and may, or may not, be good at it) but realized that the chances were good that it would not have been sufficient for society to allow you to live (that is, it wouldn't earn enough to pay the bills). (Sometimes people take the leap and it works -- they become that 1 in 10,000 person who makes a living at those tasks.)

     Some people, never reaching the situation where they do not have to continue working -- day to day -- to survive, will never retire. Some people believe that they have reached that point and circumstances change such that they have to return to the working side of the boundary. But, in all cases, a person will be able to recognize that they have achieved retirement if they now are choosing whether or not they will perform those non-personal tasks.

The Lure of Authoritarianism : A Comfortable Ignorance

 

     There are usually considered to be four parental "styles". These are authoritarian/disciplinarian, permissive/indulgent, uninvolved, and authoritative. These "parental" styles extend to leaders outside of the family -- government officials, religious authorities, social groups, also extended families that may affect hundreds of people. 

     The permissive/uninvolved types of authorities work only as a "figurehead" -- where the people who are being led must be autonomous and able to handle decisions and actions without assistance or leadership. This can happen within families, groups, or even countries. In most cases within larger groups of countries, there is actually a "shadow" government that operates behind the "curtain", and enacts policies, with the figurehead as a spokesperson. Of course, it is possible to have a dysfunctional family or group which has a "figurehead" without the people in the group having the capacity for being autonomous.

    Authoritarian and Authoritative sound very similar and they do both have "authority" in common. Someone leads, someone makes the final decision. However, the authoritarian is closed, or self-isolated -- they know everything, everything they believe is true, all actions are THE correct action, any deviations from THE correct way must be punished, all other people are wrong unless they support the leader's own directives, and so forth.

     Someone who is authoritative is open -- they get data from as many sources that they can, all actions, and decisions, can be evaluated and improved, deviations from expected behavior are evaluated, and punished if deemed necessary, but learned from and, potentially, expected behavior can be modified. The authoritative leader is usually considered to be the style that allows the most growth within the group that is led.

     Within a family, tribe, or an extended family, choice of leader is often based on tradition and the leadership/parental style is fixed within that individual. Beyond the family, leadership is determined in many different ways but, ultimately, is actively or passively chosen by the group that is being led. Within a monarchy or dictatorship, all four styles may be in effect depending on the ruler. Effectiveness, and popularity, of the ruler will depend on the leadership style and many factors outside of the leader's control -- weather, harvests, earthquakes, ...

     The time when there is a choice is when a country or group has a democracy -- direct or representative. It is during these times that the general political and economic environment makes a huge difference. Anger and fear are gifts to support an authoritarian leader. As Frank Herbert said in the novel "Dune" -- "Fear is the Mind Killer". People turn to authoritarian leaders to tell them what to do and what to think. It can be very comfortable as long as they don't start noticing consequences. Only (internally or externally, imposed) ignorance continues to support a destructive authoritarian leader.

     Emotions can easily overshadow thought. 

     Authoritarian leaders will often do things -- actions and words -- to make the electorate angry or fearful in order to increase support. They can gain acceptance in times of uncertainty and change which give initial fear and anger that can be manipulated. For example, the punitive restrictions on the German people following World War I gave fertile ground of which Adolf Hitler was able to take advantage.

     No matter where one turns, at present, there are drastically conflicting data and presented "facts". While it is true that many questions, or situations, do not have a single answer, the underlying reality can usually be determined. It requires serious research and staying out of the "data silo" that parrots only what each other says, and allows in only those concepts that are already believed.

Data Silos: not just storage

     Many moons ago, I had a summer part-time job building grain silos in southern Kansas. Grain silos are buildings -- presently usually built with aluminum and concrete -- which allow storage of grain (corn, wheat, barley, oats, ...) such that they are contained, out of the potential rain, and on a dry surface. This allows them to stay good for an extended length of time and not rot.

     I haven't worked on a grain silo now for a long time. But I spend a lot of time trying to break down data silos. Data silos also keep things around for a long time. Some (mis)information within data silos may have been circulating for a decade or more. They also keep the data contained -- the data is circulated amongst the other sites and organizations that are within the data silo.

     The silo is delimited by internal consistency. Stories and sites within the silo refer to each other, repeat what others say, and report or create new information based on the information already being circulated within the silo. If you believe "A" to be true then you will only see information about "A" being true. If you believe "C" to be false, then you will only see information about "C" being false.

     As is true in many areas of life, there are actually a spectrum of truths that are happening. Event A is happening. Event B is happening. G said Y. G also said Q. One silo may report on A and G saying Q -- but nothing about B or G saying Y.  Another silo may report only on B and G saying Y. Thus, at times, multiple data silos can each contain A reality -- but a carefully maintained subset of reality.

     I mention creation of information. In other words -- fantasies, misdirection, lies. Why would a person or site deliberately create false information? I am not talking about someone who has "passed along" something false because they don't have the motivation to check to see if it is true first. I am talking about deliberate creation of false information. Why would a person or site do that?

     One reason is a desire for self-promotion. For an individual, their name gets associated with "information" that is exciting or motivating for others to remain in their data silo. For sites, there are often factors of advertising dollars or political inclination. Some "news" sites have teams of data creators -- very similar to the teams of script writers used for comedy shows or other variety shows that used to be popular. And, of course, there are sites and individuals who are not who they say they are -- international or domestic organizations who desire to maintain and intensify the divisions created by data silos.

     There are tools available to help a person break out of a data silo -- to get a more balanced (and, overall, much more accurate) view of what is going on. There are sites that evaluate general reliability. and bias ("right" or "left") of information such as that published by Ad Fontes Media. There are various "fact checking" organizations such as Politifact, Snopes, and FactCheck. There are two problems about these tools being used to break out of a data silo.

     The first, and most confining one, is that you have to have some degree of trust that the site, itself, isn't biased and deliberately giving a distorted view. Most of the more trusted sites, as listed above, are well liked AND disliked by many points in the spectrum of thought. That is probably a decent yardstick by which to measure. Deliberate information may, however, be more concentrated in certain areas -- the Ad Fontes Media graph can only point this out for well-known public information sites. The private sites that report, or create, information are not evaluated.

     The second, and possibly most difficult to change, reason that people do not try to break out of their data silos is that they don't want to. They are comfortable. The information may comfort them, or make them angry -- but only in the ways that they already are oriented. No confusion -- only yes/no, true/false -- and no spectrum of items.

     I talk about people breaking out of their data silos. Can't an outside person break another person out of their silo? No, I don't think so. Change of a person's ideas, or behaviors, has to be rooted in their own desire. That desire may be based on outside things (a new significant other, something so outrageous and blatantly false that it makes the ground shake, a drastic change of environment, ...) but the desire must be internal.

Exit Plans: Tantalizing Optimism for Entrepreneurs

     When I was a partner in my own company, one of the things we (very optimistically) discussed from time to time was our "exit plan".  An "exit plan" is what is able to be done if personal circumstances change, or there is a desire to do something else, or (alas) we just want to stop the existing work. Owning shares of a private company has varying obligations and expectations depending on the corporate charter and the corporate laws of the state. But, in general, any ownership is "non-liquid". There is no inherent correspondence to a monetary value and shares may, or may not, be possible to be sold to another for some mutually agreed value.

     Building up the value of the company is a foundational desire for all corporate situations. And we did, with a 60% growth rate over the first six years of business. With escalating value (as measured by gross income, number of clients, and size of portfolio) the "exit plan" became of even more interest.

     Would we work to get acquired, go public, continue to stay private and expand? Staying private had many appealing points and we had no problems staying in that state -- but it did not solve "exit" needs. We decided that, for us, the notion of going public did not appeal. We did not deeply study the process, so I cannot pass along any pearls of "wisdom" we obtained in that study. It requires a lot of bureaucracy and a very appealing (not just solid) business plan to attract both an underwriter and investors for the IPO. The overhead largely precludes its use for very small companies (you can define "a small company" for yourself).

     Which leaves us with preparing for acquisition (only larger, well established, already public companies usually go through mergers). There are a number of aspects associated with valuation for acquisition. Gross income, Net income (profit margin), size of portfolio, "cost of entry" (how special is what you do -- could just anybody with just general knowledge easily do it),  intellectual property (patents, copyrights, ...), seasoned informed staff (who will continue after acquisition), market projections, and other both tangible and intangible aspects.

     Usually, the final valuation is expressed in terms of "multiples" of gross income. A "1x" valuation says the business is viable but they just think it is worth taking over but no special benefit or advantage. Less than a "1x" valuation is more in the "fire sale" area -- there are things that the company have that are useful but the business itself is not viable. Companies aim for a multiple of greater than 1. At certain periods of time, I have seen multiples of as much as 15 times (you may have seen higher). When the economy is not booming, a multiple of 6 times gross income might be considered a very nice number.

     Another point of view is to look at acquisitions from the respect of "pain points". ("Pain points" can also apply to hiring decisions.) Say company X has a wide portfolio of products from A to H, but not something that fills in the "C" area. Getting a company that fills in the "C" gap addresses a current "pain" -- a loss of opportunity. Or company Q has a product FG that is rated only in the bottom half in comparison to its competitors and there is a smaller company T that has a product FZ which is rated at, or near, the top. This addresses the "pain point" of not being well competitive by purchasing the ability to bring the competitor's product into the fold. Other "pain points" exist. The basis is that there is something that the acquiring company finds difficult to do, or have, internally and can fill that need from outside.

     So, you boost your value as much as you can. You have a general idea for whom you might fill some need/pain. Now you need a matchmaker -- someone who can find the company with the need that you can provide -- and who will negotiate a mutually acceptable amount. The matchmaker can be an employee of either company or she/he can be someone in an independent company that specializes more in M & A (Mergers and Acquisitions).

     Part of the negotiation will involve continued commitments. Perhaps they want you (generic "you" -- it might be a number of people) to stay around for a couple of years. Perhaps they want you to leave immediately. Perhaps the company has to meet some type of goal within the next year or two. Perhaps the payments are done over time, each payment of which has to meet a specific criterion or set of criteria.

     At some point, IF the acquisition succeeds, you are now ready for your next great adventure.

AI and the "3 Laws of Robotics" : Could it be done?

     For those of us who crawled under the covers with a flashlight as we were growing up, Isaac Asimov will probably always be the first thing we think of when the word "robot" turns up. Of course, in Asimov's world robots were always humanoid in appearance. In today's world, with robots becoming more and more integrated into society, we recognize that a human-appearing robot will fulfill only specialized niches,

     The robot (from the Czech word, robota, for "forced labor") only earns that definition if, once given a directive, it can work toward a variety of goals without further instruction. This ability is based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) (though I doubt there is a consensus on the definition of AI). The more, and larger variety, of autonomous actions that can be performed the "higher" the level of AI. Some (such as Alan Turing) believe that AI has only been achieved if one cannot distinguish between the "artificial" responder and a human one.

     Humans have the distinction of being able to do a huge variety of activities, including activities that have never been done before. So, for AI to approach human capabilities, the mechanism would need to be programmed to do them. Hundreds and thousands of tasks. Often such tasks are truly composed of "subtasks" such that those thousand tasks may be made up of, perhaps, 75 subtasks put together in different specific sequences.

     This is rather a lot of work, however, and it would be so much "easier" if the robot could determine how to do new tasks by itself. If a robot is pre-programmed, it can only do what it has precisely been told how to do. "Scratch the right side of the nose" is a different task from "Scratch the left side of the nose". (Sensors could be installed that activate a signal called "itch" and then the program could say "scratch the place that itches".) This self-programming is often called machine learning, which is considered to be a subset of AI.

     Many people are afraid of robots taking over from humans. Whether they develop a contempt of humans -- as within the "Terminator" series or being used as supersoldiers to control, hurt, or kill humans. In order to help people have a more compassionate and trusting view of robots, Isaac Asimov invented the 3 Laws of Robotics which are as follows:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

This is a hierarchy of importance: human life, following orders, self-preservation. For humans, self-preservation may sometimes take the top position -- the idea being, once again, that human life is of more importance than robotic life.

     We will deal only with the "First Law" in this blog. This breaks into two categories -- active harm and lack of prevention of harm (when known and possible). For pre-programmed robots, it is easy to avoid the first -- just don't program that task. For self-programmed robots, there needs to be an "override" program to prevent action if it will cause harm.

     The second, prevention of harm, is much, much, harder as it requires "judgement" -- deciding how dangerous a situation is and what various contingencies might arise that put people into danger. This is the situation currently facing those who are trying to program self-driving cars. The problem is similar between pre-programmed and self-programmed robots/mechanisms. For pre-programmed robots, all of the contingencies must be thought of -- good luck, but it isn't likely to be possible. It is possible to envision a self-programmed robot to "learn" enough to be as good as a human in their judgement -- but we currently don't know how to do that. Maybe we will learn.

     The "other hand" to this, however, is that implementation of the "First Law" is purposeful. It must be done deliberately. There are too many people, and too many groups, that currently have people deliberately hurting other people. It is not reasonable to think that usage of robots will be any better than usage of people. This leads us to the world of the "Terminator", programmed face-recognition assault drones, supersoldiers and all of the nightmares of technologic fear.

     In Asimov's world, "U.S. Robotics" had a monopoly on building robots and was a benevolent entity that insisted on the 3 laws being in each "positronic" brain for their robots. In our world, there is no effective control of technology in a preventative mode (we can make laws to penalize use after the face). I cannot imagine how we can prevent some of this harm from occurring but there are a LOT of very creative, imaginative, intelligent people out there. Please start working on the problem while it is still theoretical.